The Sad State of the Modern GOP

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Papa John » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:30 am

Pckfn23 wrote:
When it comes down to it, nobody really gives a rip about anyone else besides themselves and their family

Thank You for exemplifying the hypocrisy of the far right, especially the more religious right.


Religion? I'm not following.
Last edited by Papa John on Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4467
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:42 am

This is how fair and balanced the ACA is. Two families, same town. Mom, dad and two kids. Both families make $55,000 a year. One has a father whose company provides health insurance. Now, this company only pays a portion of the fathers. The rest of the family has to be paid for by the the father. The second family, has no insurance through any job. So the number break down to this. Now, I am not sure of the subsidies the government gives, it's just a guess on my part because it changes depending on several factors. But you will get the idea.

Family one. Monthly premium after the company pays for the father. $1045. $12,540 a year.

Family two. Monthly premium after the Government pays the subsidy. $435. $5,220 a year.

Now, this is for the same insurance, same deductible, same co-pays. Now, family one is stuck. You see, the ACA prevents them from dropping out of the employer sponsored plan. They also cannot get a subsidy to help offset the cost. Well, they can. They just have to get the fathers employer to write a letter and fill out about 20 pages of information, while the family has to submit multiple pages of information verifying household income to be considered for help. Now, they would have to do this every year. And there is no guarantee that they will get help from the Feds. But this is the fair and affordable healthcare we were promised.

On a personal note. In 2009 My wife and I had healthcare coverage through her company. We paid $435 a month. $1,000 deductible, $25 co-pay per doctors visit, $100 per emergency room visit. $35 per specialist visit. Our new plan starting May 1st is $854 a month, $2,500 deductible, $50 co-pay per doctor visit, $500 per emergency room visit, $75 per specialist visit. So let's get this down. The ACA has doubled just about everything to do with my healthcare. And they are not done yet. Next year the premiums will go up again. But at least if I get pregnant, I'm covered.

One final note. There is not one line, not one regulation that was written into the ACA that lowers the cost of healthcare in any way.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Papa John » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:17 am

yoop wrote:
Papa John wrote:
I guess the thought was/is that if I can afford it to hell with everyone else, quite typical of your party by the way.


"If someone else can afford to pay for me, then they should, and if they don't want to pay for me, then they're greedy."

When it comes down to it, nobody really gives a rip about anyone else besides themselves and their family- and why should they? Whether you want to admit it or not, this applies to you too. A man who spends his life acquiring resources in order to support his family does not exhibit greed when he decides that he does not want to spend those resources on a stranger. Also, there is absolutely nothing noble about forcing the man to spend them on someone else via governmental coercion.


your taking it to extremes now, I don't like this any more than you, but whether we have a NHCP or not you and I are still paying for them and always will, at least now it's forcing them to get insurance, in the long haul it will stabalize your premiums, and you have been getting coerest by insurance co.s your entire life just like I have, I don't see how the gov will be any worse, do you think a private co. would have done better with SS? I sure don't.


My premiums have gone up 50%. Quality of care is diminishing. Longer wait time to receive treatment. A privatized system, while not without flaws, is still preferable to nationalized healthcare.

The ACA only strengthens the insurance provider monopoly. Did you know that the Congressional Budget office estimates that under Obamacare, $1.071 trillion in taxpayer dollars will be transferred to big insurance companies over the next 10 years? Did you know that Obamacare caps large claims for insurers offering individual plans? The federal government picks up 80% of any insurer's costs exceeding $45,000. Additionally, the Risk Corridor Program holds taxpayers accountable for 75-80% of an insurance company's losses.

Obamacare is enabling and encouraging negligence and monopolistic practice among insurance companies.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4467
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:01 pm

Papa John wrote:My premiums have gone up 50%. Quality of care is diminishing. Longer wait time to receive treatment. A privatized system, while not without flaws, is still preferable to nationalized healthcare.

The ACA only strengthens the insurance provider monopoly. Did you know that the Congressional Budget office estimates that under Obamacare, $1.071 trillion in taxpayer dollars will be transferred to big insurance companies over the next 10 years? Did you know that Obamacare caps large claims for insurers offering individual plans? The federal government picks up 80% of any insurer's costs exceeding $45,000. Additionally, the Risk Corridor Program holds taxpayers accountable for 75-80% of an insurance company's losses.

Obamacare is enabling and encouraging negligence and monopolistic practice among insurance companies.

Remember when they told us we could keep our policy if we liked it? Well what most people don't know is that about 6 weeks after the ACA passed they made sure that could not happen. The ACA required all policies to do certain things. Like cover maternity benefits. It didn't matter if it was an old one or new one. By a certain date they all had to include it. The ACA also stated that any old policy that made "major" changes could not stay the same and had to meet all of the Deductible and other ACA standards. Even if that policy originally had better coverage. So what was a major change? Well the Dept. of Health and Human services, which controls this, made change's to the regulations as to what a "major" change in a health policy was. So essentially, no policy in place when the ACA was passed would qualify to stay the same. Because they all had to meet certain requirements, and now, changes to meet those requirements meant that they had made a "major" change to the policy. Now who was the head of the Dept of Health and Human services? Kathleen Sebelius. An Obama appointee. But I am sure the President knew nothing about this. After all, he didn't hear about it in the press.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby wallyuwl » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:45 pm

yoop wrote:right, that couldn't have been it, that was a result of the GOP throwing every monkey wrench they could come up with to try and make it fail, or simply go away,


Maybe Republicans were unanimously opposed to the bill because the Democrats completely left them out of the process of crafting or amending it, and they could see what the ramifications of the bill would be and didn't like it (as a majority of Americans still don't). No, that couldn't have been why they opposed it.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 11973
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:00 pm

raptorman wrote:In 2009 My wife and I had healthcare coverage through her company.


One of the huge issues with out health insurance system is the fact that company provided is still the primary means of getting insurance in this country, and these plans are hard if not impossible to compare to each other due to the variances in how much the company pays. Employer health care payments can pretty much be viewed as untaxed income, yet often people have no idea of how much the employer chips in for each plan (and how much it can vary from plan to plan, even within the company).

raptorman wrote:This is how fair and balanced the ACA is. Two families, same town. Mom, dad and two kids. Both families make $55,000 a year. One has a father whose company provides health insurance. Now, this company only pays a portion of the fathers. The rest of the family has to be paid for by the the father. The second family, has no insurance through any job. So the number break down to this. Now, I am not sure of the subsidies the government gives, it's just a guess on my part because it changes depending on several factors. But you will get the idea.

Family one. Monthly premium after the company pays for the father. $1045. $12,540 a year.

Family two. Monthly premium after the Government pays the subsidy. $435. $5,220 a year.


Because the employer pays for some coverage, the father of family one makes more than $55K per year. However the means in which he is paid sucks, if he was in a union chances are the situation wouldn't suck so much. Perhaps he should quit his crappy job and get a better one; at least he'll have healthcare in the interim, or unionize with his coworkers to force the employer to improve the healthcare situation.

If your employment situation sucks, improve it. That is the entire point of the American economy as it is; nobody is truly trapped in a crappy situation.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:15 am

Waldo wrote:One of the huge issues with out health insurance system is the fact that company provided is still the primary means of getting insurance in this country, and these plans are hard if not impossible to compare to each other due to the variances in how much the company pays. Employer health care payments can pretty much be viewed as untaxed income, yet often people have no idea of how much the employer chips in for each plan (and how much it can vary from plan to plan, even within the company).
They can't pay more for one plan over another. The price they pay has to be the same for all employees and plans.
Waldo wrote:Because the employer pays for some coverage, the father of family one makes more than $55K per year. However the means in which he is paid sucks, if he was in a union chances are the situation wouldn't suck so much. Perhaps he should quit his crappy job and get a better one; at least he'll have healthcare in the interim, or unionize with his coworkers to force the employer to improve the healthcare situation.

If your employment situation sucks, improve it. That is the entire point of the American economy as it is; nobody is truly trapped in a crappy situation.
Even if the company is paying $300 a month, that would make it $58,000 a year. Not a huge difference. And improving your work situation is not easy for some people. If it was, we wouldn't have people bitching about a $15 an hour minimum wage.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Trudge » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:05 am

raptorman wrote:
Waldo wrote:One of the huge issues with out health insurance system is the fact that company provided is still the primary means of getting insurance in this country, and these plans are hard if not impossible to compare to each other due to the variances in how much the company pays. Employer health care payments can pretty much be viewed as untaxed income, yet often people have no idea of how much the employer chips in for each plan (and how much it can vary from plan to plan, even within the company).
They can't pay more for one plan over another. The price they pay has to be the same for all employees and plans.
[quote="Waldo"]

Actually.......our company offers better insurance rates to our HQ office staff than the field staff but...
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5189
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:07 pm

raptorman wrote:They can't pay more for one plan over another. The price they pay has to be the same for all employees and plans.

Not true.

Just look at the gov'ts own rules:
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance ... insurance/

The feds offer employees several plan options and their are different enrollment options with each, the government and employee contribution for each in dollars varies from plan to plan. While the gov't contribution is fixed based on a formula, it is not a set dollar amount, rather it is based on percentages.

In private industry employer healthcare contributions are a wage and like any wage they are negotiable.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Lord Ben » Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:54 am

The non-discrimination portions of Obamacare aren't being enforced yet. And even when they are enforced previous plans are grandfathered in.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... a-benefits
http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-conn ... dical.html
“Quite frankly, very few people know what they’re talking about." -- Ted Thompson
User avatar
Lord Ben
 
Posts: 4286
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Deep in the bowels of the Vandelay Industries server room.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:19 am

The point I was making in a previous post is that there are very few plans grandfathered in. They made sure of it.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby BF004 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:14 pm

Waldo wrote:If your employment situation sucks, improve it. That is the entire point of the American economy as it is; nobody is truly trapped in a crappy situation.


One of my biggest issues with minimum wage. It is easy to point out one study that Drudge or HuffPo shares on their site for you to support your predrawn conclusions, but from what I objectively try to find is that it really doesn't have an impact, just shifts winners and losers, something Government loves to seem to do. In fact, if there is anyone hurt by minimum wage increases, its typically vets, disables, minorities, women, seniors and teenagers. The net whoe gain is typically 0 for small changes. I still support no minimum wage personally. One question that seems to never be answered, is $15 is so much better than $7.25 or whatever it is now, why not do $30? Why not $100? Just curious as to what you think the best wage would be and some justification for it. Why wouldn't $1000/hour minimum wage work?

But anyways, flipping burgers is never supposed to be a career. Giving someone $15 to flip burgers, A) the incentive for them to improve their professional marketability goes down, and B) if they do decide to move around, chances of finding a pay increase will likely be 0 as they will already be making the same as people much more qualified with dental and medical assistants for example.

People shouldn't be satisfied making minimum wage or very low money, if any involvment, the government should be increasing workplace training, not forcing employers to do anything.


Also agree with you that having a job should be somewhat of a prerequisite of getting health care is a dumb set up. Your job should have absolutely nothing to do with you insurance coverage, IMO. People should be allowed to go get whatever coverage they want or not without penalty. One place the gov't could help again is instead of helping hospitals cover unpaid ER fees, they should make visiting your PCP be like a $10 copay all the time for everyone, perhaps even with applications for free visits if you meet poverty requirements. However, if you go to the ER for a hang nail without insurance, then get ready to pay for it or work off the bill via community service.
Image
User avatar
BF004
 
Posts: 10672
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:38 pm
Location: Galesville, WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:53 am

BF004 wrote:Also agree with you that having a job should be somewhat of a prerequisite of getting health care is a dumb set up. Your job should have absolutely nothing to do with you insurance coverage, IMO. People should be allowed to go get whatever coverage they want or not without penalty. One place the gov't could help again is instead of helping hospitals cover unpaid ER fees, they should make visiting your PCP be like a $10 copay all the time for everyone, perhaps even with applications for free visits if you meet poverty requirements. However, if you go to the ER for a hang nail without insurance, then get ready to pay for it or work off the bill via community service.


Interesting ideas about ER's/PCP's. I think the biggest thing is that our entire healthcare system is ridiculously hard to understand. The only thing about our healthcare system that makes any sense is that you go to the hospital when something is wrong with you. They don't teach how to deal with our healthcare system in school. At your prime age for learning things like that, chances are you almost never need to use it at all. Large swaths of American society has no idea of how to deal with the problem when something was wrong with you.

The first time I had to go to the doctor for something as an adult, in my early 30's, I was freaked out, confused, etc..., I had no idea of what to do. I still have no idea of what urgent care is or what it is even for, or how you'd easily find one that takes your insurance. I've injured myself a few times working out and probably should have gone to a doctor, however going through the whole PITA to find a specialist (first of course, figuring out what sort of specialist I needed to see) that takes my insurance, forget it, too much of a hassle. Just ignore it and hope it heals.

But I do think of Obamacare as a bridge away from a primarily employer provided insurance market. The first step was to create a reasonable public market, which has largely been accomplished. In the future I think the restrictions on the marketplace plans will be lightened and the employer mandate eliminated when people (in general, the average person) start to prefer marketplace plans to employer plans. However nothing is going to happen politically until the R's decide their platform is fix and improve and instead of repeal or repeal and replace. With any repeal talk going on, the dems are going to work to protect instead of work to improve.

Was reading an interesting article today. Two key swing states, FL and Oh, would lose large numbers of insured people if OCare was repealed. At the moment every '16 GOP contender has vowed repeal. The GOP could be ceding large numbers of voters in those states if going to the ballot box is a vote to keep or lose your health insurance, a point that the Dems are going to hammer in the general election. On the hierarchy of things that matter to you, ideology and morality is much lower in importance than personal finances and personal health.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:12 am

My prediction is this. That within 3 years every employer who does not have to provide health insurance will stop doing it. Their employees will ask them to stop so they can move over to the marketplace plans and get federal subsidies on their insurance. It only makes sense. Why pay $1,000 a month when you can pay $400 a month and let the feds pick up the rest. Having a company plan will no longer be a benefit but burden for companies with less than 50 employee's.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6176
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:36 pm

raptorman wrote:My prediction is this. That within 3 years every employer who does not have to provide health insurance will stop doing it. Their employees will ask them to stop so they can move over to the marketplace plans and get federal subsidies on their insurance. It only makes sense. Why pay $1,000 a month when you can pay $400 a month and let the feds pick up the rest. Having a company plan will no longer be a benefit but burden for companies with less than 50 employee's.


Well the tax portion of it will need to be sorted out though. Remember that the employer contribution is essentially untaxed income for an employee (aka a government subsidy). Ideally the move away from employer provided plans would be tax neutral.

Ignoring the $$ aspect though, few employers can match the marketplace when it comes to plans; people need and prefer different things and don't like to switch plans unless in their best interest. When it comes to employer plans, variety is low (for most employers), and insurers often change every few years at the employers whim.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dirty sanchez, Google [Bot] and 2 guests