EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 635
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 19 2013 22:54 Danglars wrote: No one party gets to set minimum requirements. They're choices and open to criticism. Or perhaps you would prefer them up to the Cadillac plans offered to company CEOs and the like? Obamacare is not concerned with minimum standards, it's only concern is politically advantageous requirements. You might remember contraceptive coverage in the news for that reason. A change in requirements is a change, not an improvement. It is still a government bureaucrat sitting alongside you and the insurer telling you what you have to buy. That setup will lead to nobody's satisfaction. It's a very shortsighted policy. I don't even think you have a working idea of what insurance is. What you're discussing is straight welfare payouts for medical care. You can't insure against future risk if the payer can simply get it once they're diagnosed with it (pre-existing condition side effects). Calling it discrimination is demagoguery at its finest. You are literally saying that treatment for sick people being more expensive than treatment for healthy people is discrimination. We insure against these things to spread the cost and incidence across a long timeframe, not to make the treatment suddenly cheaper. It's fairy tale land and you live in it. I doubt you read my previous posts, but the solution discussed there was allowing individuals to keep their health insurance across employers. Insurance companies can correctly adjust for risks across lengths of time. Getting sick and losing your job is no longer suddenly a pre-existing condition for the next policy ... you're still on the same policy. It's a form of income and should be taxed as such. The market inefficiency must be corrected (and not by adding on more inefficiencies). Decreeing prosperity by mandate is idiotic. Your idea is actually a good one, too, but it would have the a similar effect to the ACA since insurance companies would start cutting benefits on everyone's employer-provided insurance to price in the cost of being able to keep their policies indefinitely, and therefore having coverage of what would have been pre-existing conditions.at some point under the previous system. It is also a fact that the total cost treating everyone early is cheaper than treating people selectively, so there really is a free lunch by mandating preventative care. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On November 20 2013 00:32 WhiteDog wrote: Put it with all the news about things politicians in all countries do and things that everybody knows about. What? In the event that this was true, then it would be far from acceptable behavior and absolutely deserving of a "shitstorm". A government manipulating data to promote their reelection steps right over a line we absolutely cannot allow a government to cross. Something like this happening because one individual down the line wanted to help his preferred president achieve reelection would be one thing, and only he would really be culpable then, but this happening due to orders from above is not at all okay. Now, it doesn't seem credible enough to warrant any outrage, but dismissing it because it is okay is well, not okay. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 20 2013 03:52 Jonoman92 wrote: COBRA looks wayyy too complicated for me to bother with and I was only employed for 3.5 months so I doubt it. It looks like I'd have to ask my past employer about it. They employ more than 20 people so it seems that should have to have COBRA, but I don't think it's worth my time. Better to just figure out the insurance quickly and apply to jobs. Just live like Bubble Boy for the next month and a half till your insurance kicks in. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 20 2013 02:42 farvacola wrote: Are y'all seriously taking a NY Post article at face value? Really? Lol I only pay attention to articles that tell me what I want to hear. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 20 2013 12:34 ziggurat wrote: I only pay attention to articles that tell me what I want to hear. In fairness to farv, he's not one of the bad offenders in this regard. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18007 Posts
On November 20 2013 12:34 ziggurat wrote: I only pay attention to articles that tell me what I want to hear. With a big story like this, if the only source that's bringing it is a rather unreputable one, there is probably something fishy about the story. In fact, a very brief google search turned up a huffington post article completely debunking the original: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/unemployment-rate-faked_n_4302907.html?utm_hp_ref=business So yeah... farvacola was well within reason for dismissing a column in a silly gossip paper as a trumped up fabricated piece of noice JUST because it was published only in that silly gossip paper... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 20 2013 00:32 RCMDVA wrote: And now there's an investigation from the Commerce Department http://www.cnbc.com/id/101210063 How many people crapped all over Jack Welch last year when he called out the BLS on that number? Maybe these two owe him an apology : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/08/1141499/-Stiglitz-and-Krugman-Slam-The-Door-On-Jack-Welch-s-BLS-Truther-Bullsh-t# So how many frauds has Obama (or his administration) perpetrated so far? It's getting hard to keep count. The only one that's burning him is Obamacare, because that's the only one that the media can't ignore. | ||
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
Between those election robo-calls to supress votes and Harper's handling of the Senate scandal, I am for the first time wondering if I can vote Conservative in the next election  I don't like this stuff in politics espcially if it is my party. No more would I want to see it with Obama. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Possible cyberattacks on healthcare.gov by rightwing groups. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On November 20 2013 13:09 ZeaL. wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least some evidence. At the moment it's an anonymous guy leaking to a tabloid ... I wouldn't get my conservapanties wet just yet. So much win in this post. But it is not like conservatives have held their tongues until the evidence spills out in any of these phony baloney scandals. Look at how fast Senator Graham was all over that 60 minutes Bengahzi expose (which was exposed to be 100% pure Tea Party fan fiction with no basis in reality at all). The entire conservative media jumped on this "numbers are faked" story without anything beyond one anonymous quote somewhere. This conspiracy theory seems deeply implausible as the 7.8% number fits the trend line well, and the BLS has had a long time to revise that number if it was incorrect. That people are sticking to the <8% as a big deal just reveals the numerology bias. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2003_2013_all_period_M10_data.gif | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 20 2013 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Your idea is actually a good one, too, but it would have the a similar effect to the ACA since insurance companies would start cutting benefits on everyone's employer-provided insurance to price in the cost of being able to keep their policies indefinitely, and therefore having coverage of what would have been pre-existing conditions.at some point under the previous system. It is also a fact that the total cost treating everyone early is cheaper than treating people selectively, so there really is a free lunch by mandating preventative care. If we stipulate the good intentions of the ACA creators, the desired impact of lessening the plight of the uninsurable, then you and I agree on that. To borrow a phrase from another, there are sometimes, and I argue is present in this case, the do-gooders and the special interests behind a plan. I'll give a qualified yes on our being in agreement that the sincere reformers want similar effects to my preferred ideas. Now, the new benefit mandates are a one-size-fits-all that does not work for Americans. A very easily accounted for cost, virtually the same every year, could be doctor's visits and a yearly MRI or something of that nature. Insurance is pro at defraying the costs of a sudden hospitalization or illness that requires expensive medicine or treatments. The company makes an actuarial assessment and you pay small amounts on a monthly or quarterly basis to insure against financially drowning in that time. Requiring it to cover the "10 essential benefits" won't work for younger Americans that want the money for other pressing needs ... not forced to buy it because that's the level of preventative care the bureaucrat decrees is a new minimum. Contraception must be offered with 0 out of pocket cost (co-pay). For a woman that doesn't need that covered, too bad, you're paying for it. Simply put, there were choices available to consumers about what they wanted to pay out of pocket, and now ... too bad, the plan must cover 60% of your actuarial value. Ask Aetna and they'll tell you the largest factor in cost increase that current consumers face is the new 60% actuarial benefit mandate. Over half of Americans today have private insurance in the under-50% AV for the "essential benefits" category. 20% increase straight from the box. (Then 4-5% new taxes and fees, and the added benefits required as discussed). Just like if employees had the right to have their current employer pay into a plan that covers them for very long periods of time across multiple employers ... the risks can be estimated and the current problem of pre-existing conditions is virtually eliminated (statistically, the vast majority are those that lose coverage while sick and cannot get new coverage). You're on the same plan! The more pessimistic approach was that the ACA system was designed to make healthy Americans with cheaper plans to buy more expensive plans in order to pay more into the system ... a tax by another name. With the dissatisfaction with the new "private" health insurance plans, the next Democratic president could ride that wave with the new, "We gave private insurance companies the chance to design affordable plans and they jacked up the rates! They had their shot, now its time for the single-payer system run by the government." In the industry-standard turnover of 1/3 new plans every year, grandfathering old plans was an outright lie from Obama from the beginning. The only people that could get grandfathered were those that kept on the same exact plan (a SINGLE 5$ change in co-payments and you're out of grandfather range) from March 2010 to now. That's a system killing off the old plans. Some information gleaned from the Aetna CEO in two extensive interviews, one part of which is found here. For actuarial benefits or AV, this is the percentage the plan pays for the categories considered (particularly "essential benefits") out of the entirety the consumer is expected to purchase the entire year. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
I still don't know why they can't figure out a way to report the total number of unique Social Security numbers and or EIN paying withholding taxes each month. Treasury obviously reports the amount withheld... every day. We know every single person getting food stamps. We know every single person getting social security. Withholding + EIN and you should be able to figure out jobs as far as I can tell. Because they sure as hell find out quick if you are collecting unemployment and then you get a real paycheck at the same time. From the Huff Po rebuttal piece : Census surveys 60,000 households in one week, a massive task involving about 2,200 workers. It's 60,000 per month. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey) Not week. So do the math on how many surveys per employee are needed. (if those 2200 are all taking surveys, idk) Less than 2 per day. Massive task? So yes. A few survey takers would have the power to move the numbers around a couple tenths of a percent. 1% manipulation would be 600 fake/changed surveys. .1% would be just 60 fake/changed surveys. And that's what we're talking about... .2-.3% The NY post says that one identified employee was turning in 150 surveys/month instead of the average of 50. So if you were only interviewing 50 people and 92% of them had jobs to begin with... it would be impossible to move the number by faking your 4 or 5 unemployed people's numbers, changing them to employed. You'd have to create a bunch of fake people... and if he was turning in 3x the number of surveys, then he might just have. And you would need another half dozen or so people doing the same thing. (the NY Post is saying there are more). And in a follow up article the NY Post said the survey folks were paid per interview. So there's the primary incentive there. Just make shit up and get paid. So, on paper..it really is possible. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 20 2013 13:33 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So much win in this post. But it is not like conservatives have held their tongues until the evidence spills out in any of these phony baloney scandals. Look at how fast Senator Graham was all over that 60 minutes Bengahzi expose (which was exposed to be 100% pure Tea Party fan fiction with no basis in reality at all). The entire conservative media jumped on this "numbers are faked" story without anything beyond one anonymous quote somewhere. This conspiracy theory seems deeply implausible as the 7.8% number fits the trend line well, and the BLS has had a long time to revise that number if it was incorrect. That people are sticking to the <8% as a big deal just reveals the numerology bias. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2003_2013_all_period_M10_data.gif Bls doesn't calculate the unemployment rate, that's done by the census bureau via the household survey. Bls does the establishment survey which shows how many net jobs were added / subtracted in the economy in a given month. Typically the establishment survey goes through a number of revisions - I don't know if the same holds true for the household survey, my guess is not, based on its construction. The Sept 2012 data was surprising but not implausible for a few reasons. The establishment survey, which is considered more reliable, showed a weak month. That differed form the household survey which showed an unusually strong month: The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1 and 8.3 percent. Link It's not that unusual for the two different surveys to show different things, or for one month's numbers to volatile, but the timing was... convenient. So either the numbers were fixed or just good ol' RNG Gods at work  | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
I think it is certainly possible and I wouldn't be surprised if data is fudged with some regularity, if nothing else to meet the quota. But do I think a couple Census workers were approached to fake a bunch of names to move the needle and help Obama out? Not really. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 19 2013 22:54 Danglars wrote: No one party gets to set minimum requirements. They're choices and open to criticism. Or perhaps you would prefer them up to the Cadillac plans offered to company CEOs and the like? Obamacare is not concerned with minimum standards, it's only concern is politically advantageous requirements. You might remember contraceptive coverage in the news for that reason. A change in requirements is a change, not an improvement. It is still a government bureaucrat sitting alongside you and the insurer telling you what you have to buy. That setup will lead to nobody's satisfaction. It's a very shortsighted policy. I don't even think you have a working idea of what insurance is. What you're discussing is straight welfare payouts for medical care. You can't insure against future risk if the payer can simply get it once they're diagnosed with it (pre-existing condition side effects). Calling it discrimination is demagoguery at its finest. You are literally saying that treatment for sick people being more expensive than treatment for healthy people is discrimination. We insure against these things to spread the cost and incidence across a long timeframe, not to make the treatment suddenly cheaper. It's fairy tale land and you live in it. I doubt you read my previous posts, but the solution discussed there was allowing individuals to keep their health insurance across employers. Insurance companies can correctly adjust for risks across lengths of time. Getting sick and losing your job is no longer suddenly a pre-existing condition for the next policy ... you're still on the same policy. It's a form of income and should be taxed as such. The market inefficiency must be corrected (and not by adding on more inefficiencies). Decreeing prosperity by mandate is idiotic. So the solution to reforming health insurance is not Obamacare, but instead it's letting people keep their employer health insurance across jobs? Really? Why hasn't anyone thought of this genius idea? Oh wait, they have, it's called COBRA, and it's been around since 1985. It allows people to keep employer health insurance for up to 18 months. Why hasn't COBRA fixed the health insurance market in the almost three decades it's been law? Or do you mean something different, when you say that people should be able to keep their insurance plans? For example, if they can keep their employer health insurance indefinitely, that would mean no employer insurance policy can be removed or changed. You claim to be concerned with "market inefficiency", but freezing the health insurance market in this way would create a massive market inefficiency and inflexibility. But why further tie health insurance to employers? Why not tie health insurance to the brand of your car or the secondary school you attended? In fact, your idea would further increase market inefficiency, as it increases the likelihood that job search isn't entirely based on job match or suitability, but rather the ability to keep health insurance indefinitely, particularly for desperate people who can't get it any other way due to a preexisting condition. And what about these people that can't get health insurance? How does this solve the problems in the individual market, such as people with preexisting conditions unable to get affordable insurance, people being denied from renewing once they get sick, that Obamacare fixes? This idea doesn't solve anything. And what about people who aren't employed, retired, or are in a job that doesn't offer employer health insurance? Without a government decree that employers must offer insurance, like Obamacare has, they are left out in the grossly expensive individual market, without adequate protection against being dropped or running into lifetime caps that Obamacare fixes. Then there is the central issue of insurance that your idea leaves completely unaddressed: adverse selection. People who choose to extend their employer health insurance, will tend to be sick and cost more, which drives up prices for everyone. Under your idea, will people be forced to get this insurance and can people with preexisting conditions be rejected or price discriminated against? If the answer is no and no, then this will create a price death spiral due to adverse selection. So this is actually a complete nonsolution. As I said, the only way to cover people with preexisting conditions, without allowing insurers to reject these people, or drop people when they get sick, or charge absurdly higher prices is to do health insurance reform like Obamacare, which must necessarily include an individual mandate and minimum requirements in order to work, or go to a European-style, single payer system. You accuse me of not understanding insurance: sick people can just buy insurance and get treatment, and that's not insurance to you. But under Obamacare, everyone will be forced to buy insurance, so when they get sick, it's not welfare, it's making a claim on an insurance policy that they've been paying for. You seem to hate the idea that Obamacare disallows price discrimination against sick people. So it's you that doesn't understand insurance, because if sick people pay more and healthy people pay less, why even have insurance at all? How is that any different from paying everything out of pocket? This is like the common complaint that young people shouldn't be forced to subsidize old people under Obamacare. But once we rephrase that as: "healthy people subsidize unhealthy people", it becomes immediately obvious that it cannot be any other way. That's insurance. In car insurance, people who don't crash their car subsidize people who do crash their car. And how is it fair that sick people should be required to pay more for insurance, when most serious medical conditions, like cancer, are not the fault of the sick? Essentially, you're arguing that the price of insurance should be determined by a the roll of a dice: if you're unlucky, you're fucked. The point of insurance is to chop off tail risk, i.e. to give moderate and mostly predictable payments and get in return protection from large and unpredictable losses. And that's exactly what Obamacare does by forcing everyone to buy health insurance through a mandate, requiring insurance to be sold at non-discriminatory prices with minimum requirements so that people cannot create a loophole around the the mandate, then paying for medical treatment is claiming the policy benefits. The previous system, where people can be rejected from renewing or buying, isn't really insurance. It doesn't chop off tail risk: it's gives no real protection from going bankrupt just because you get sick. Lastly, the minimum requirements forced by Obamacare, listed here, are all sensible. It covers things like child birth, pediatric care, mental health care, etc. Why should women and mental people be charged higher prices for health care? Contraception (which isn't on that list, so I'm not completely sure that it is a requirement, but assume that it is) is preventive care. How is it their fault that they're a woman or mentally unwell? These minimum requirements prevents this unfair and unjustifiable price discrimination. It also prevents people from circumventing the mandate with dirt cheap policies that offer no real protection. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 20 2013 10:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: What? In the event that this was true, then it would be far from acceptable behavior and absolutely deserving of a "shitstorm". A government manipulating data to promote their reelection steps right over a line we absolutely cannot allow a government to cross. Something like this happening because one individual down the line wanted to help his preferred president achieve reelection would be one thing, and only he would really be culpable then, but this happening due to orders from above is not at all okay. Now, it doesn't seem credible enough to warrant any outrage, but dismissing it because it is okay is well, not okay. I never implied this was an acceptable behavior - altho the accusation seems a little weird. But, I was implying a lot of governments do the same kind of thing, altho they do that legally, by changing legislation and institutionnal rules to change the way they calculate unemployment. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 20 2013 12:47 xDaunt wrote: So how many frauds has Obama (or his administration) perpetrated so far? It's getting hard to keep count. The only one that's burning him is Obamacare, because that's the only one that the media can't ignore. What frauds? | ||
| ||
