|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Nice contribution to the thread. Thanks for the input. You won't get a warning from JBright for your pointless condescending one liner.
Why thank you. It's nice to feel appreciated.
In other news! The Freedom Act!
The bill is notable for its sponsors alone.
Rep. Sensenbrenner was the lead author of the Patriot Act and now is the chair of the House's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Crime. A conservative member of Congress, he has repeatedly supported surveillance laws in the past, but now he's leading the charge for reform. According to Rep. Sensenbrenner, two consecutive White Houses have wrongly used his Patriot Act to collect the phone records of innocent Americans, and he wants it to stop. "This misinterpretation of the law threatens our First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights," Rep. Sensenbrenner recently said. "Congress never intended this. I will rein in the abuse of both the Patriot Act and the U.S. Constitution with the support of the American public."
Sen. Leahy is the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the Patriot Act and FISA. He also believes the government's indiscriminate collection of Americans' records must end, because the "government has not made its case that this is an effective counterterrorism tool, especially in light of the intrusion on Americans' privacy rights."
The partnership between these two very senior members of the House and Senate, on both the left and the right, gives this bill legitimacy and a real chance at passing. But the bill has more than just names attached to it — it has substance.
It would amend Section 215 of the Patriot Act – which is used to collect the phone records of almost every American every day – so that it can no longer be used in such a sweeping fashion. The secret FISA court would still be able to issue subpoenas, but they would be limited to collecting things that directly pertain to a terrorist, his associates, or his activities. The bill would also require this standard for national security letters and pen registers, two other Patriot Act tools used to access Americans' records. The point here is to ensure that bulk collection doesn't just jump to another secret authority.
The bill would also make changes to the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), the sweeping 2008 law that codified the warrantless wiretapping program. It would insert a very important restriction that would prevent the government from searching through FAA-collected data for U.S. person data in the absence of an emergency or a court order. Finally, the bill includes the creation of a special advocate before the FISA court and new transparency requirements.
|
From right-wing NBC News:
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
|
On October 30 2013 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 05:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 04:50 Sub40APM wrote:On October 29 2013 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some evidence that the Volcker rule isn't such a hot idea. ... the paper has big implications for the move towards investors trading with each other, without the help of bond dealers standing in the middle.
"Our overall result has an important implication for the Volcker rule that is underway to rein in dealers’ risk-taking in the OTC market. The rule prohibits proprietary trading by banks except for market-making activities. As Due (2012) points out, however, once the proposed rule by the regulating agencies… would be implemented, the capacity of liquidity provision by market-makers will be reduced, and eventually, other institutional investors, including hedge-funds, will fill in the void.
This is not a very desirable outcome, because our evidence points out that the unwinding of hedge-funds’ positions can be detrimental to the cash market, and thus to the funding costs of corporations. Since dealers are typically banks and regulated by capital requirements, they can take a better role in providing liquidity. They also have incentives to provide liquidity even in the worst liquidity crisis to maintain their reputation as market-makers." FT Alphaville article: LinkNY Fed paper cited: Link First of all, by the time Lehman was bankrupt, the banks became conduits for Fed's bailouts, and while the dealers might have been engaged in purchases of bonds from various hedge funds -- which by the way is very debatable (1) because a sizeable amount of hedge fund assets were frozen in the Lehman estate (2) a lot of those 'purchases' were banks taking onto their balance sheets things that they put off their balance sheets for accounting-arbitrage but they then had to bailout to preserve their reputations with the bigger clients -- they werent engaged in real market operation as inter-bank lending simply stopped. So this idea that noble liquidity providers will be there in a crisis is just wrong -- capital adequacy ratios of Basel III, not yet implemented, would not have saved any of the broker-dealers and even the glorious JPM would have gone down. The reason for the Volkner rule is to prevent this exact outcome of a big bank, big banks that are too intertwined into the payment economy and the asset preservation game to be allowed to fail and everyone knows it. Now if some -- or a series of -- hedge funds all blow up as long as they dont drag the big banks with them the way LTCM was going -- then the losers will be (a) the people whose receivables were securitized into bonds no longer having accesses to the cheapest possible loans (b) the investors in those hedge funds. The broker-dealers were providing liquidity, but they didn't have unlimited ability to provide liquidity. Removing what liquidity they do provide doesn't help the situation. If part of the problem was not enough, than less isn't a solution. It was not the broker-dealers, it was the Fed that was using the broker dealers as a channel because it recognized their TBTF status. We want to end this .
Evidence? Dealers naturally provide liquidity as a part of their business. What makes you think that the liquidity provided at that point in time was strictly from the Fed? Or that even if true, that the Fed can just as easily add liquidity through alternative channels?
Show nested quote +
Where and why that liquidity was being provided doesn't affect that story. If SIVs were failing because liquidity was being pulled, and the broker-dealers filled that gap, than wonderful. You can debate the merits of the SIVs, but you can't deny the benefit of having someone else in line to provide liquidity as a backstop.
Except that providing liquidity to SIV due to fear of reputation damage --> Citi needs a bailout. That is a direct cause and effect, in fact Dodd-Frank has a provision that lawyers have dubbed the 'citi provision' that says SIFI's can no longer not list their SIVs because in a crisis what they count as off balance sheet vehicles stop being that.
The Fed paper I linked to suggests that dealers were providing liquidity to the market, not just funding their own SIVs.
Even if what you are suggesting was true, the assets held at the SIVs would be held elsewhere, and could have had liquidity needs. Who would have provided that liquidity?
Show nested quote +
As long as bank funding remains the same, market turmoil will still affect them. If money markets and hedge funds are pulling liquidity from the system, banks and broker-dealers will feel it.
No they will not, they will be scared out of their minds about the balance sheets of their counter parties and pull liquidity unless the NY Fed opens the spigots. The they these banks fund themselves, daily repo operations, means that they cannot afford to rush in blindly into a market collapse for more than a day before they lose access to liquidity. Just to be clear, in an ideal situation broker-dealers would provide liquidity and obviously get compensated by it but, crucially, they would also not be too big to fail. Thats the main issue. I dont care what form of regulation there is but the US needs to make a decision 1) Go the Canadian way, have a banking oligopoly that is strictly regulated and kept out of all exotic activities 2) Go the hard cap on broker-dealer asset sized and let them fail, which really is another way of saying that instead of the big 5 broker dealers you'd have 100 hedge-fund sized broker dealers and when they go down they dont drag the global economy with them. But 2 also means that SIFI banks have to spin off and shrink their investment banks.
2) Can you even have small dealers? Smaller hedgies didn't act as dealers during the crisis - they did the opposite.
I don't know what you are trying to say in the first paragraph here. If everyone is scared out of their minds and pulling liquidity you have a banking crisis.
Why not simply embrace option 3 - raise capital requirements?
|
On October 30 2013 08:09 Thomas Sowell wrote:From right-wing NBC News: Show nested quote +Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
I already posted this, they either ignored it or said that it was ok because the government was forcing them off of "scam" plans anyway.
That is phenomenally unclear.
I think they're being scammed and may or may not realize it. They may not have much choice. That doesn't change the nature of the scam. Being scammed is not a sign of stupidity or ineptitude, however. So that's not a good way to mock the position, because I said the exact opposite.
My apologies, I was in between classes, I only did a hurried response. My point was that you were reacting to something that was never actually advocated: that we thought the people on these plans (or the populace in general) were "stupid" or "inept."
My contention is that by saying these people are being scammed and don't know it, your position is functionally the same as Velr's, who DID say they were too stupid to choose (essentially). Your are A-OK with the administrations bald-faced lie because, in the end, "it's good for them." Just like with your other positions, we are always to leave it to the self-identified "geniuses" to make decisions for people. moreover, these people LIKE their plans, if they thought the Obamacare ones were better, they would be fine with the switch!
|
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just a granular version of the individual mandate. it's not a new issue really.
the important discussion is still when public option
|
On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high.
Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage?
|
On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage?
Whatever the mastermind's ideal is, of course.
farvacola
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high.
And so I suppose the administration is right when it demands citizens to pay more than THEY want to pay?
Obama didn't say "IF we get single payer/public option but you like your current plan, you can keep it." No, he said about HIS bill that was passed "if you like your healthcare/doctor, you can keep it." That was a lie, and now everyone here is rushing to justify it as ok because "those plans they don't get to keep were crappy anyway." Besides the fact that it's a flat out lie, it also doesn't matter what type of coverage you can get if you can't pay for it.
So much for choice. Money or coverage? It's ok, Obama has decided for you. (and there isn't even any evidence that it will do what it was intended to do.)
|
United States42778 Posts
On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage?
Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory.
|
On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory.
OK, well whatever terms you guys want to roll with. Just define what you mean.
|
The Obama administration was given stark warnings just one month before launch that the federal healthcare site was not ready to go live, according to a confidential report obtained by CNN.
Source
|
Twenty-seven Republican senators voted with Democrats on Oct. 16 to lift the debt ceiling and avert a catastrophic default. And each one of those 27 senators voted Tuesday to "disapprove" of their own votes.
The vote Tuesday was a symbolic "resolution to disapprove" of the debt limit hike. It was mandated by the deal thanks to a last-minute provision inserted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The motion failed 45-54 because all Democrats opposed it.
Even if it passed Congress, it wouldn't have stopped the debt limit hike because President Obama could veto the measure. The purpose was to give these senators the chance to say they disapprove of a deal they voted for.
Source
|
Hundreds of problems continue to plague the troubled Joint Strike Fighter, potentially calling into question the basic performance and reliability of the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, the Defense Department's inspector general charges in a new report.
In a 16-month investigation that began in February 2012, the inspector general's office — an agency within the Pentagon responsible for investigating allegations of waste, fraud, security lapses and other misconduct — identified more than 360 quality "issues" with the F-35 Lightning II — with 147 of them classified as "major."
The report, which was published Monday — hours before the U.S. government shut down because of congressional infighting — blames "ineffective" oversight by the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency that failed to catch lapses by chief contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and numerous subcontractors — issues it said "could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability and ultimately program cost."
Source
If you think of the most high-profile federal procurement debacles in recent memory, two things come to mind: the wildly over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and now HealthCare.gov.
The differences between them, of course, are obvious. The health-care Web site's cost is microscopic compared with the scale of the F-35, which has already cost $87.5 billion and is expected to need another $12.6 billion annually until 2037. You could pay for the entire HealthCare.gov procurement process with the cost of two planes. With the F-35, there is a clear lead contractor in Lockheed Martin; it's hard for the company to avoid blame as have the several contractors involved in building the health-care site. A completely virtual product like a Web site requires different development processes than does a physical product with high capital costs, like an airplane.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference is deadlines: HealthCare.gov had a hard date when it was expected to be fully operational, while the F-35 program has dragged on for a decade longer than planned because the military had other systems it could use (even if it cost more to extend their lifespans).
Source
WASHINGTON — A report from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog strongly criticizes managers and workers at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant, which makes the F-35 fighter jet, saying a lackadaisical attitude has led, on average, to more than 200 repairs for each aircraft and has cost taxpayers millions.
The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General, which assesses the department’s performance from within the massive federal agency, also criticized two internal Defense Department offices responsible for overseeing the F-35 project, saying their oversight has been weak to nonexistent.
“Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, quality-management system and the integrity of the F-35 product are jeopardized by a lack of attention to detail, inadequate process discipline and a ‘we will catch it later’ culture,” the report concluded. “We believe the quality-assurance culture at [the F-35 plant] must improve and that robust technical oversight by the government is required to ensure program performance and mission success.”
Source
|
On October 30 2013 11:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +Hundreds of problems continue to plague the troubled Joint Strike Fighter, potentially calling into question the basic performance and reliability of the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, the Defense Department's inspector general charges in a new report.
In a 16-month investigation that began in February 2012, the inspector general's office — an agency within the Pentagon responsible for investigating allegations of waste, fraud, security lapses and other misconduct — identified more than 360 quality "issues" with the F-35 Lightning II — with 147 of them classified as "major."
The report, which was published Monday — hours before the U.S. government shut down because of congressional infighting — blames "ineffective" oversight by the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency that failed to catch lapses by chief contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and numerous subcontractors — issues it said "could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability and ultimately program cost." SourceShow nested quote +
If you think of the most high-profile federal procurement debacles in recent memory, two things come to mind: the wildly over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and now HealthCare.gov.
The differences between them, of course, are obvious. The health-care Web site's cost is microscopic compared with the scale of the F-35, which has already cost $87.5 billion and is expected to need another $12.6 billion annually until 2037. You could pay for the entire HealthCare.gov procurement process with the cost of two planes. With the F-35, there is a clear lead contractor in Lockheed Martin; it's hard for the company to avoid blame as have the several contractors involved in building the health-care site. A completely virtual product like a Web site requires different development processes than does a physical product with high capital costs, like an airplane.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference is deadlines: HealthCare.gov had a hard date when it was expected to be fully operational, while the F-35 program has dragged on for a decade longer than planned because the military had other systems it could use (even if it cost more to extend their lifespans).
SourceShow nested quote +
WASHINGTON — A report from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog strongly criticizes managers and workers at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant, which makes the F-35 fighter jet, saying a lackadaisical attitude has led, on average, to more than 200 repairs for each aircraft and has cost taxpayers millions.
The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General, which assesses the department’s performance from within the massive federal agency, also criticized two internal Defense Department offices responsible for overseeing the F-35 project, saying their oversight has been weak to nonexistent.
“Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, quality-management system and the integrity of the F-35 product are jeopardized by a lack of attention to detail, inadequate process discipline and a ‘we will catch it later’ culture,” the report concluded. “We believe the quality-assurance culture at [the F-35 plant] must improve and that robust technical oversight by the government is required to ensure program performance and mission success.”
Source
The government wastes a lot of money on a lot of things:
I'm not sure why we've decided to compare a healthcare website with an attack plane. Seems like an odd comparison.
|
That's exactly my point Johnny boy. Thanks. Overspending is not unique to Healthcare.gov. In fact, the 'debacle' with regard to Healthcare.gov is utterly unremarkable given the existence of such failures like the JSF program
Oh and clearly the comparison was not to examine the resemblance between attack planes and websites -- let's not play dumb. The little issue being touched upon is that they both count as examples of 'terrible government waste'/etc. Yet certain double-thinking individuals only erupt in response to Healthcare.gov, while not giving a single fuck about far more massive facepalms
|
On October 30 2013 10:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Whatever the mastermind's ideal is, of course. Show nested quote + farvacola
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. And so I suppose the administration is right when it demands citizens to pay more than THEY want to pay? Obama didn't say "IF we get single payer/public option but you like your current plan, you can keep it." No, he said about HIS bill that was passed "if you like your healthcare/doctor, you can keep it." That was a lie, and now everyone here is rushing to justify it as ok because "those plans they don't get to keep were crappy anyway." Besides the fact that it's a flat out lie, it also doesn't matter what type of coverage you can get if you can't pay for it. So much for choice. Money or coverage? It's ok, Obama has decided for you. (and there isn't even any evidence that it will do what it was intended to do.)
Pffff. Obama has lied about a hell of a lot more than that. I don't really care about justifying that lie.
Citizens are already paying a hell of a lot more than they want to pay. By that logic, any action taken by the government is bad. And this is also the bizarre idea of "choice." The "choice" to be without healthcare? Should we get rid of food stamps because otherwise people don't have the choice to starve? This is one of those freedoms that is literally antithesis to freedom.
Having healthcare is a massive boon to freedom. With subsidies, people may even be able to not go through their employer. Which means that people can leave their company and finally create that start-up company they always wanted but that healthplan was stopping them. That's freedom. Bankruptcy, debt, and living on the edge is not freedom. Stop pretending like it is.
|
On October 30 2013 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 11:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:Hundreds of problems continue to plague the troubled Joint Strike Fighter, potentially calling into question the basic performance and reliability of the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, the Defense Department's inspector general charges in a new report.
In a 16-month investigation that began in February 2012, the inspector general's office — an agency within the Pentagon responsible for investigating allegations of waste, fraud, security lapses and other misconduct — identified more than 360 quality "issues" with the F-35 Lightning II — with 147 of them classified as "major."
The report, which was published Monday — hours before the U.S. government shut down because of congressional infighting — blames "ineffective" oversight by the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency that failed to catch lapses by chief contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and numerous subcontractors — issues it said "could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability and ultimately program cost." Source
If you think of the most high-profile federal procurement debacles in recent memory, two things come to mind: the wildly over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and now HealthCare.gov.
The differences between them, of course, are obvious. The health-care Web site's cost is microscopic compared with the scale of the F-35, which has already cost $87.5 billion and is expected to need another $12.6 billion annually until 2037. You could pay for the entire HealthCare.gov procurement process with the cost of two planes. With the F-35, there is a clear lead contractor in Lockheed Martin; it's hard for the company to avoid blame as have the several contractors involved in building the health-care site. A completely virtual product like a Web site requires different development processes than does a physical product with high capital costs, like an airplane.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference is deadlines: HealthCare.gov had a hard date when it was expected to be fully operational, while the F-35 program has dragged on for a decade longer than planned because the military had other systems it could use (even if it cost more to extend their lifespans).
Source
WASHINGTON — A report from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog strongly criticizes managers and workers at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant, which makes the F-35 fighter jet, saying a lackadaisical attitude has led, on average, to more than 200 repairs for each aircraft and has cost taxpayers millions.
The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General, which assesses the department’s performance from within the massive federal agency, also criticized two internal Defense Department offices responsible for overseeing the F-35 project, saying their oversight has been weak to nonexistent.
“Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, quality-management system and the integrity of the F-35 product are jeopardized by a lack of attention to detail, inadequate process discipline and a ‘we will catch it later’ culture,” the report concluded. “We believe the quality-assurance culture at [the F-35 plant] must improve and that robust technical oversight by the government is required to ensure program performance and mission success.”
Source The government wastes a lot of money on a lot of things: I'm not sure why we've decided to compare a healthcare website with an attack plane. Seems like an odd comparison.
I wonder how this compares to the private sector, actually. It's not like they don't have overruns. Maybe we're just really bad at everything.
But of course, this isn't an argument against government spending. It's more just an argument for government competence.
|
On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory.
On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high.
Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear....
Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over.
After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
|
On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
???
But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine?
|
On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine?
She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare.
Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates.
I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/overbudget.PNG)
