StrangeSox

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) The college of common sense. If our infrastructure is crumbling then Canada never had any to begin with, its really just an excuse for liberals to satiate their compulsive need to spend other people's money. Oh, so you have no qualifications to judge structural integrity then. That explains your "bridges just collapse sometimes!" comment. I'm also not sure if you're aware of this from your education at the College of Common Sense, but things like infrastructure need maintenance and expansion to keep up with growing populations and usage.

Also, the ASCE isn't a government institution, and they're the ones frequently giving our infrastructure such poor grades. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

So where did you get your structural/civil engineering degree from again?

I thought it was a sufficiently over-the-top statement showing how that logic leads to absurd conclusions. I have nothing against truck drivers and think it's a fine job that takes people from all walks of life.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) I really cannot believe youd read something like this then continue believing the government is capable of doing anything right. I don't know how you could read a thread like this and think that truckers are capable of even the simplest thoughts and should be allowed to operate on our roadways.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) This practice is all around, and here you are thinking it's something new. Nobody is thinking this is something new. I'm not sure why you're being so smug and assuming that anyone is thinking that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) I completely understand that, but you left off the final part of my post -- and my post doesn't mean much without it. You are, once again, wishing companies had such moral obligations, and they do not. But your Ford/Chevy example still makes no sense. And I don't see Crimson (or anyone else) wishing or naively believing that for-profit private companies have some moral obligation to consumers. Recognizing that general principle doesn't mean any journalism to show it in practice is stupid.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 01:26 PM) You aren't getting one. Not yet, anyway. I don't think anyone is under the impression otherwise.

Texas Voter ID laws stopping former Speaker of the House Jim Wright from committing voting fraud registering to vote. Jim Wright will be okay because of his profile, but what about all of the other people negatively impacted by these needless laws that only really serve to suppress votes?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) While a quandary many of you are unable to deal with, these companies are just that, companies...and they have no moral obligations as such. We fully understand that, which is why we want a socialized system.

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

WaPo has another story digging into what exactly went wrong with Healthcare.gov and why HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) If you're totally unemployed next year, move to a state that expanded Medicaid. It's working well, your state just wants its poor people to, as you said, rot and die. Medicaid was supposed to be expanded to cover people with incomes below the poverty line, but your state opted out of that and consequently there are no options or subsidies available whatsoever. If that's too complicated of legalese...blame your state leaders who chose not to accept free money from the Federal Government. If you're making $16000 next year (just over the poverty line), on average, insurance in Kansas should cost you $320 next year for the entire year to cover you and a spouse. Also blame Roberts for his horrible legal "reasoning"

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) I don't necessarily see how everybody paying the same amount benefits the higher paid employees. They are not getting better coverage for their money. If you assume that the total plan cost for 1000 employees is a fixed cost, then you could split the total cost evenly across 1000 people, or you could come up with a progressive cost distribution, which would lower the cost to those at the bottom of the salary scale and raise it for those at the top.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Really? Every employee pays the exact same rate? The CEO making 5 million a year pays the same as the mail clerk making 15/hour? I'd have to look over the plan documents again, but I believe everyone was given the same rate information. The plan costs $X, the company subsidizes y%. What companies might change based on salary level would be how much the company contributes. That doesn't change the actual policy cost.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) It means he isn't really in favor of the idea. Ok? It says nothing about the merit of the idea, like I said.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:31 AM) No, it's not totally. But my point was we should be designing a system whereby if you do choose to do those things (smoking, drinking excessively, eating horribly) and develop the known associated illnesses because of it, in general sense, I don't agree that the rest of society should just pick up the tab. We have excise taxes on those types of things, why can't we do the same when it comes to healthcare? In fact, don't we already? Especially with smoking? Smoking is specifically excluded from the community rating requirements, so yea you can be charged more for that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) This is 100% true - that's where those savings are being put. But the end result is 25 million people getting extra coverage thanks to those savings. But part of the goal was to bend the overall healthcare cost curve, not just for Medicare(aid). Otherwise we'll end up with 40% of our economy being healthcare in a few decades.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) Yep. We shifted the pile of money from one place to the next. At a significant cost. And millions of people at a minimum getting affordable health care access through the Medicaid expansion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:26 AM) Let's be 100% clear what you're saying though. Everyone in the country is covered by Medicare once they reach a certain age. If the amount being spent by Medicare is actually dropping...that means that Medicare is either refusing more procedures or is spending less per patient already. Although Medicare should be refusing more procedures (the IPAB, if it ever gets off the ground, should be doing exactly that based on science), that part of the bill has yet to take effect. The only ways for Medicare to be saving money already are either; the average person turning 65 is already healthier or the rate of cost growth has actually slowed. The results actually are in the 2nd...costs are actually growing at a rate less than predicted prior to passage of the PPACA. Okay, but what Y2HH is saying (and I'd be curious to see some background to support it) is that the reduced Medicare costs are just being shifted into increased costs for private insurance patients, so the net effect is a transfer from the young(er) to the older.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:26 AM) Didn't we just discuss how this claim is bulls***? And that some people who have an employer-sponsored plan are having options taken away, and price may go up? No, I think we saw some assertions that it was bulls***?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:25 AM) No. The same amount of money is flowing into it WITHOUT those added 25 million. They will increase the amount going into it, by a lot. Which is why insurance and health care companies stock prices have all skyrocketed, along with their revenues. If the opposite was actually true, their stocks would be tanking right now. But that isn't happening. Wait, so this wasn't a socialist scheme from the Marxist Kenyan Obummer to destroy the free market and have the government agents take over my healthcare with death panels?!! That's why a lot of people on the left dislike ACA, actually.

Hypocrisy is a personal failure, not an argument against an idea.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) I work for BCBS, as you probably know...and it works like that for us. There are 5 tiers of costs for the same exact plans, all based on how much you make. The more you make, the larger share you pay per month. Is the actual plan pricing different, or is the portion covered by your employer different? I was taking Jenks' proposal and what he said about his plan to mean that the plan cost itself would change based on your income, not the benefits package you receive from your employer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) These cost controls are only benefiting those on Medicare, which while good, doesn't help anyone else, as they simply shift the cost down. If Medicare patients pay less for Drug X, you and I make up the difference by paying that much more for Drug X. These cost savings haven't materialized like people keep saying. How do other countries keep their costs drastically lower than ours? Why shouldn't I believe the CBO reports that cost growth has slowed?