As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Argument About Obamacare

24567114

Posts

  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Which left States almost a year and a half to accept the funds and set up their exchanges.

    Any State that didn't is completely at fault for their own fuckup.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    bficky wrote: »
    Here is an article I just stumbled upon that goes a little bit into the ACA coverage gaps. Apparently there's a minimum amount you must make in order to qualify for the subsidized prices, which seems really odd. I guess because they're supposed to flow right into Medicaid, except for people who live in states that didn't expand Medicare? God that sucks.

    I think the idea was people under a certain income level would go on Medicaid and States wouldn't be such bullshit partisans as to refuse free money to expand Medicaid and leave the working poor on the hook, right?

    There is a legitimate concern that, having taken the money, the States would be subjected to what amounts to blackmail by the federal government in areas unrelated to healthcare. This is a thing that already occurs with federal highway and education funding. For example, the reason the speed limits were once 55mph and the drinking age is 21 is that the federal government threatened to withhold federal highway dollars unless the States all enacted laws to that effect.

    As we covered last time we argued about this, this has not been a legitimate concern since after the Supreme Court decision barring that.

    You gotta remind me, I never remember that case...

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    Luckily my situation is one where I can swing the $500. If I couldn't, the ACA would leave me a spot where the family stays uninsured.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    that's not really a hole, the law is supposed to more or less maintain the status quo for middle class families who already have coverage

    a hole would be someone who makes enough where they hit the subsidy but have lots of unusual expenses that leave them broke as fuck

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    Luckily my situation is one where I can swing the $500. If I couldn't, the ACA would leave me a spot where the family stays uninsured.

    Yeah, my insurance is, thankfully, both awesome and affordable. ACA does nothing for me. I know shitloads of people that are going to benefit from it, though. And a few more that probably could if they'd quit posting anti-obama image macros to facebook long enough to go check out the calculator.

    ACA's a start. It's going to need more work to fix odd situations like spool's. Social Security was a fucking mess at the start, too.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    I also have an issue where the ACA bumps up my taxable income due to the cap on FSA contributions. That one is really frustrating, because it functions as an up-front 0% interest loan of the entire amount for the year. FSA is a great plan if you have fixed regular expenses or if you know you're going to have something expensive (like braces) coming up. The change adds an extra $500/yr to my taxable income, which is not huge at all in terms of tax burden but is disappointing in that it takes me about 7-8 months to save up $500 that I would otherwise have immediate access to.

    spool32 on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    What do doctors say about Obamacare?

  • bfickybficky Registered User regular
    Yeah, that would have been my situation at my last job. My old place paid 100% of my premium, but 0% of my family's. To cover all of us, it was $900/mo. I would have fallen into that gap where all of us didn't qualify for subsidies for the exchange plans since I can get it for free.

    Again, the ACA isn't hurting people in that case, just not helping them at all (apart from the free preventative care and the potential for premiums to not increase as much as before).

    (As an aside, I now have the best healthcare plan I've ever heard of:
    My current employer offers a high deductible ($3500/self, $7000/family) plan where they pay all but $30 of my premium and 75% of my family's premiums, AND they pay for 100% of our deductible through various methods (HSA contribution, expense checks, bonuses). We had our third child a few months ago and our TOTAL out of pocket was only the 20% portion of the bills that was in between the employer-paid deductible and the Max Out Of Pocket for our plan.
    but I have a ton of friends who are not fortunate enough to be in my position. If I'm going to champion the ACA as a good thing, I want to be as informed as possible.)

    PSN: BFicky | Switch: 1590-9221-4827 | Animal Crossing: Brandon (Waterview) | ACNH Wishlist
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    that's not really a hole, the law is supposed to more or less maintain the status quo for middle class families who already have coverage

    a hole would be someone who makes enough where they hit the subsidy but have lots of unusual expenses that leave them broke as fuck
    If the structure of the law is such that it helps poor people (who don't vote), does nothing for the middle class (ie almost everyone who votes) and screws the rich (who have the most power to skew the opinions of voters) you can't really be surprised when voters kind of hate it.

    I've heard since the day it passed that "it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative!" We'll for people like Spool and I, in most ways it's exactly like the alternative based on our past experiences.

  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    that's not really a hole, the law is supposed to more or less maintain the status quo for middle class families who already have coverage

    a hole would be someone who makes enough where they hit the subsidy but have lots of unusual expenses that leave them broke as fuck
    If the structure of the law is such that it helps poor people (who don't vote), does nothing for the middle class (ie almost everyone who votes) and screws the rich (who have the most power to skew the opinions of voters) you can't really be surprised when voters kind of hate it.

    I've heard since the day it passed that "it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative!" We'll for people like Spool and I, in most ways it's exactly like the alternative based on our past experiences.

    Well, yeah, but the problem might be only worrying about how it affects you (or, rather, doesn't change at all for you) and railing against it when it is an immense help to literally millions of people.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What do doctors say about Obamacare?

    It's one weird trick doctors HATE!

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    So I've taken a gander at Washington state's website since

    1. It's been working

    and

    2. That's a big contender for where I'm hoping to retire to

    And God damn you people pay way too much for health insurance.

    Like fuck that stuff's expensive.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Chanus wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    that's not really a hole, the law is supposed to more or less maintain the status quo for middle class families who already have coverage

    a hole would be someone who makes enough where they hit the subsidy but have lots of unusual expenses that leave them broke as fuck
    If the structure of the law is such that it helps poor people (who don't vote), does nothing for the middle class (ie almost everyone who votes) and screws the rich (who have the most power to skew the opinions of voters) you can't really be surprised when voters kind of hate it.

    I've heard since the day it passed that "it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative!" We'll for people like Spool and I, in most ways it's exactly like the alternative based on our past experiences.

    Well, yeah, but the problem might be only worrying about how it affects you (or, rather, doesn't change at all for you) and railing against it when it is an immense help to literally millions of people.

    And I'm saying if you expect a vast block of people for whom healthcare is still a major expense to love a law and protest it's repeal vehemently, even though does nothing for them because it helps people they've never met? IMO you're making a sucker's bet.

    Does that mean giving healthcare to millions is bad? No; but it does mean you're not going to see masses of voters demanding the head of any politician who threatens Obamacare anytime soon.

    JihadJesus on
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    wait but ... I'm confused

    so you're losing your employer coverage? or ?

    No, the "trap" was that his employer offers HIM (and only him) "free" health care. Adding his wife and children to the plan costs $500/mo. However, because the exchanges calculate based on HIS insurance, not his family, he is ineligible for any of the subsidies. This is likely an oversight in the wording of the law.

    No, he's not worse off than he was before, but due to a loophole, he's not better, either, when he might have been.

    that's not really a hole, the law is supposed to more or less maintain the status quo for middle class families who already have coverage

    a hole would be someone who makes enough where they hit the subsidy but have lots of unusual expenses that leave them broke as fuck
    If the structure of the law is such that it helps poor people (who don't vote), does nothing for the middle class (ie almost everyone who votes) and screws the rich (who have the most power to skew the opinions of voters) you can't really be surprised when voters kind of hate it.

    I've heard since the day it passed that "it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative!" We'll for people like Spool and I, in most ways it's exactly like the alternative based on our past experiences.

    Well, yeah, but the problem might be only worrying about how it affects you (or, rather, doesn't change at all for you) and railing against it when it is an immense help to literally millions of people.

    And I'm saying if you expect a vast block of people for whom healthcare is still a major expense to love a law and protest it's repeal behently, even though does nothing for them because it helps people they've never met? IMO you're making a sucker's bet.

    Welp if you have no faith in humanity then yes it would be weird to see people caring about strangers or people worse off than them!

    Some of us have a different worldview.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    ACA is interesting to me on a few levels. I mean, it's sort-of bad because:

    1) Not single-payer. And there's no reason for it not to be, aside from dog whistling and murmurings about 'welfare queens' or the 'nanny state' or whatever. This actually does negatively impact people in Vermont, where the ACA will supercede their single-player system.

    2) It sort-of feels wrong to me to be mandating the purchase of insurance from what has essentially become a racket. Of course, the ACA is supposed to clean-up their behavior a bit... but I'm rather skeptical.

    ...But, it does fundamentally address the big problems (uninsured people, insurance companies refusing to insure people, insurance companies refusing to pay out for a variety of reasons - but most notoriously due to pre-existing conditions)


    I was originally opposed to the plan because I really wanted to see the implementation of a public program, but all of the flagrantly racist opposition have made me a tentative supporter. It'll be interesting to see what the impact of the ACA is (assuming it survives).

    @zagdrob I don't agree that we would see the same reaction if Hillary Clinton were POTUS. There would be a lot of butthurt and bickering and the typical Foxisms, sure, but I very much doubt that the Republicans would've allied themselves with the likes of Rand Paul and raised the stakes as high as they've currently raised them. I mean, they're basically all-in at this point.

    A historic bill passed by a white girl from one of the established rich white families in Washington would be unpalatable. A historic bill passed by some black guy from Chicago outside of the any of the white rich boys clubs is unthinkable.

    With Love and Courage
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    ACA is interesting to me on a few levels. I mean, it's sort-of bad because:

    1) Not single-payer. And there's no reason for it not to be, aside from dog whistling and murmurings about 'welfare queens' or the 'nanny state' or whatever. This actually does negatively impact people in Vermont, where the ACA will supercede their single-player system.

    2) It sort-of feels wrong to me to be mandating the purchase of insurance from what has essentially become a racket. Of course, the ACA is supposed to clean-up their behavior a bit... but I'm rather skeptical.

    ...But, it does fundamentally address the big problems (uninsured people, insurance companies refusing to insure people, insurance companies refusing to pay out for a variety of reasons - but most notoriously due to pre-existing conditions)


    I was originally opposed to the plan because I really wanted to see the implementation of a public program, but all of the flagrantly racist opposition have made me a tentative supporter. It'll be interesting to see what the impact of the ACA is (assuming it survives).

    @zagdrob I don't agree that we would see the same reaction if Hillary Clinton were POTUS. There would be a lot of butthurt and bickering and the typical Foxisms, sure, but I very much doubt that the Republicans would've allied themselves with the likes of Rand Paul and raised the stakes as high as they've currently raised them. I mean, they're basically all-in at this point.

    A historic bill passed by a white girl from one of the established rich white families in Washington would be unpalatable. A historic bill passed by some black guy from Chicago outside of the any of the white rich boys clubs is unthinkable.

    And then liberals point to 1994 (also JFK, Truman) and laugh at you so very much.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    I'm pretty sure the only person Republicans would hate as much as a black President is Hillary Clinton as President.

    I mean, she's like Bill Clinton and she's a woman.

    Though, really, we know the truth is they would rabidly, vehemently oppose anyone who's not a Republican, since, you know, that's what they do.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    Didn't Rush Limbaugh tell all his listeners to go support Hillary in the primaries because he thought she was better than Obama? Or something?

    Anyway, I think Hillary (or whoever the democrats wind up picking) is a lock for 2016, so I guess we'll get to test the hypothesis soon.

    I think republicans will quickly manage to hate the current democratic president as the worst president ever, no matter who it actually is.

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    Vorpal wrote: »
    Didn't Rush Limbaugh tell all his listeners to go support Hillary in the primaries because he thought she was better than Obama? Or something?

    "Or something" would be correct, yes.

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So I was just talking to my parents on the phone, and they're very uninspired by this whole thing. According to their calculations they can't afford even the most basic of plans, and so will have to defer and pay a fine.

    Is that actually how it works? I'm more than a little unhappy that they will have to pay money because they can't afford to pay for insurance.

    "Can't afford" means different things to different people. Here are the numbers:

    If the cheapest bronze plan available costs more than 8% of your income, then you are exempt from the mandate.

    If you have bona fide economic hardship, then you are exempt from the mandate.

    If they make less than $62k a year (the cutoff for a family of 2), they'll qualify for a subsidy.

    A few other categories of people are exempt (reservation residents and so forth) but I'm guessing those probably don't apply here.

    Thanks for the details. But yeah, that lines up with what I was looking at.

    The fine thankfully isn't killer, just annoying and unfair from their perspective. But I think they do get the outlier thing, so at least there's that. I'm just hopeful they overlooked something

    FWIW, I know a number of people in a similar boat. I live in a high cost-of-living area, so I know a lot of people who make more than the subsidy cutoffs, but putting aside (for example) 6% of their pre-tax income for health insurance isn't really feasible with some pretty significant reduction in quality-of-life in other places. It's a symptom of living in a town where 50% or more of your net income goes towards rent.

    I don't want to be Pollyannaish about this. A lot of people are falling through the cracks between these numbers. I still support the law, because the cracks will be smaller in 2014 than they were in 2009.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    And then liberals point to 1994 (also JFK, Truman) and laugh at you so very much.

    Clinton's HSA did not trigger a government shutdown (and I believe it was in '93, not '94). It was dead on arrival thanks to a coalition of Republicans & conservative Democrats.

    With Love and Courage
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    If I were unable to afford the $500/month to cover my family, I would still not qualify for the subsidy because my employer offers me personally a free plan. So I would be left in a situation where I could not buy insurance for my family through my employer, and I could not afford it on the Exchange either, because the subsidy is disallowed. My wife and kids would be left without insurance regardless of the ACA. If I were only a little bit poorer than I am, this would be a situation I'd have to deal with.

    Now, it appears that the wife and kids could apply independently, but to do that I would need to file a separate IRS return from her in 2014, and that would dramatically raise my tax liability due to no longer having dependents to claim. So it's a wash either way (though this is sort of an open question on the exact figured and I don't think the tax law is very clear on this at all yet).

    Bee tee dubs, this problem has been corroborated by others, including Bill Clinton:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/320255-clinton-praises-obamacare-calls-for-more-tax-credits
    The worst problem in the Affordable Care Act, Clinton said, is a provision related to healthcare coverage for families.

    In some cases, one family member might be able to affordably insure himself or herself through an employer, but not the rest of the family. And the rest of the family could not receive tax subsidies to buy coverage through the healthcare law's exchanges.

    "It's obviously not fair, and it's bad policy," Clinton said.

    He said he believes the provision was a drafting error.

    "If this is the only unintended consequence of the law, they did a pretty good job," he said.

    And of course I 100% agree with Clinton that the GOP should be focusing on amending/reforming the worst parts of the law instead of digging their heels in on the whole damn thing.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Didn't Rush Limbaugh tell all his listeners to go support Hillary in the primaries because he thought she was better than Obama? once open his mouth, giving birth to all known species of stupidity? Or something?

    I believe so.

    With Love and Courage
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What do doctors say about Obamacare?

    Who cares?

    I mean seriously who the fuck cares. Medical education is exactly that - medical. A physician could be brilliant but not know a damn thing about finance or the economy. I love Warren Buffett, but I wouldn't ask him to excise a tumor. And Ron "gold standard" Paul was a physician.

    Polls show that physicians are only slightly more informed than the general public about what the ACA even does.

    Here's a summary of the AMA position, with a caveat that there are more physicians who aren't AMA members than physicians who are, and even within AMA not all members agree with the AMA leadership: http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/news/medicare-faqs/individual-faq?faqId=d7a04b02-28b7-47dd-a838-88561f629624

    The TLDR version? The AMA likes anything that means more money for doctors. They like the mandates, the exchanges, and the promise of getting more patients in the door. They hate anything that means less money for doctors, which means they hate the Medicare payment reforms and cost controls.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Yeah the governor of my state is a medical doctor, and he refused the medicaid expansion. Alabama, it's number two on that list behind Arkansas for "WTF!?!"

    Clearly, having a medical degree doesn't mean you want to help people, keep them from dying, or really any of the things that people claim about doctors!

    Turns out you can be a doctor and also be completely reprehensible and hateful towards life, who knew?

    Regina Fong on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What do doctors say about Obamacare?

    Who cares?

    I mean seriously who the fuck cares. Medical education is exactly that - medical. A physician could be brilliant but not know a damn thing about finance or the economy. I love Warren Buffett, but I wouldn't ask him to excise a tumor. And Ron "gold standard" Paul was a physician.

    Polls show that physicians are only slightly more informed than the general public about what the ACA even does.

    Here's a summary of the AMA position, with a caveat that there are more physicians who aren't AMA members than physicians who are, and even within AMA not all members agree with the AMA leadership: http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/news/medicare-faqs/individual-faq?faqId=d7a04b02-28b7-47dd-a838-88561f629624

    The TLDR version? The AMA likes anything that means more money for doctors. They like the mandates, the exchanges, and the promise of getting more patients in the door. They hate anything that means less money for doctors, which means they hate the Medicare payment reforms and cost controls.

    A summary of medical opinions:

    1. *whine whine whine bleat moan whine whine whine* about medicaid not paying them enough and how they are going private practice and fuck everyone forever

    2. *graft theft theft graft lying fraud fraud graft fraud fraud fraud fraud exploit graft fraud* as they milk medicare for every fucking dime laughing all the way as they order more tests and procedures for octogenarians who are perpetually kept hovering at the brink of death.

    3. Golf.

    By all means. Seek these wise sages out for advice on governance you will surely be glad you did.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Yeah, I don't get the fetishization of doctors. Medical science? Sure. But most doctors I know combine the ego and greed of a lawyer with the sancrimonious self righteousness of a priest.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't get the fetishization of doctors. Medical science? Sure. But most doctors I know combine the ego and greed of a lawyer with the sancrimonious self righteousness of a priest.

    Some people (myself included) have had their lives saved & had restorative 'cosmetic' work done by doctors. So I tend to regard doctors with a lot of respect as a result of that bias.


    EDIT: Also, none of the doctors I was a gofer for played fucking golf in their off time or whined about their pay, even though they made extremely little money and lived in tents.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't get the fetishization of doctors. Medical science? Sure. But most doctors I know combine the ego and greed of a lawyer with the sancrimonious self righteousness of a priest.

    Some people (myself included) have had their lives saved & had restorative 'cosmetic' work done by doctors. So I tend to regard doctors with a lot of respect as a result of that bias.

    I'm just not sure how you get from there to "these are the people who have the best answers to the problem of how to provide healthcare to the masses."

    It's expecting your auto mechanic, who is a totally awesome auto mechanic and rebuilt your tranny when everyone else said 'fuck it, buy a new car' to design a working public transit system.

    That's not what your auto mechanic is trained to do. He even has some possible conflict of interest, because he ultimately relies on people bringing him broken cars, and a bus system is not necessarily the best thing for his business personally, even though it is unquestionably a huge benefit to society.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I'm assuming they're middle aged or greater?

    I would imagine <8% of their income for insurance would be a worthwhile expenditure

    Yeah they're getting up there.

    Not having lived in the states most of their lives, they're pretty much buried with expenses that don't earn them tax credit. They make a decent living by the numbers, but there's literally no money. I know that's not a normal circumstance so I'm not sure if they calculated wrong or if their situation just isn't something you build nation-wide laws around.

    If I wanted to seriously go over the options, is the government ACA website the best option? or are there any known third party sites that have a better breakdown? If they have to pay a fine I figure there has to be at least a reasonable plan to spend the fine money on

    If they go to www.healthcare.gov and apply, they should be able to calculate their costs and look at available plans. This is the place to go, although some people (Spool for example) have had some issues with the page.

    Some states also provide their own exchange, but since I don't know what state your parents live in the www.healthcare.gov site is probably the best bet.

    I really would be shocked to see the fine + their out of pocket medical expenses be substantially less than honest to god insurance.

    Thanks, I'll run the numbers there myself. It's not that it's that they pay less with out of pocket medical expense, it's that they can't afford that either. The fine for not being able to afford healthcare came across a bit like a slap in the face.

    But hopefully with the info I got here I can take a more comprehensive look and figure out if they missed something. Thanks all for the heads up on this, I'm hopeful something was simply overlooked.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't get the fetishization of doctors. Medical science? Sure. But most doctors I know combine the ego and greed of a lawyer with the sancrimonious self righteousness of a priest.

    Some people (myself included) have had their lives saved & had restorative 'cosmetic' work done by doctors. So I tend to regard doctors with a lot of respect as a result of that bias.

    I'm just not sure how you get from there to "these are the people who have the best answers to the problem of how to provide healthcare to the masses."

    It's expecting your auto mechanic, who is a totally awesome auto mechanic and rebuilt your tranny when everyone else said 'fuck it, buy a new car' to design a working public transit system.

    That's not what your auto mechanic is trained to do. He even has some possible conflict of interest, because he ultimately relies on people bringing him broken cars, and a bus system is not necessarily the best thing for his business personally, even though it is unquestionably a huge benefit to society.

    Oh yeah, I agree - I'm just telling you why I have a bias towards the opinions of doctors if all other things are equal. It's not a good thing to have that bias, but it's stuck there.

    With Love and Courage
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What do doctors say about Obamacare?

    Who cares?

    I mean seriously who the fuck cares. Medical education is exactly that - medical. A physician could be brilliant but not know a damn thing about finance or the economy. I love Warren Buffett, but I wouldn't ask him to excise a tumor. And Ron "gold standard" Paul was a physician.

    Polls show that physicians are only slightly more informed than the general public about what the ACA even does.

    Here's a summary of the AMA position, with a caveat that there are more physicians who aren't AMA members than physicians who are, and even within AMA not all members agree with the AMA leadership: http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/news/medicare-faqs/individual-faq?faqId=d7a04b02-28b7-47dd-a838-88561f629624

    The TLDR version? The AMA likes anything that means more money for doctors. They like the mandates, the exchanges, and the promise of getting more patients in the door. They hate anything that means less money for doctors, which means they hate the Medicare payment reforms and cost controls.

    A summary of medical opinions:

    1. *whine whine whine bleat moan whine whine whine* about medicaid not paying them enough and how they are going private practice and fuck everyone forever

    2. *graft theft theft graft lying fraud fraud graft fraud fraud fraud fraud exploit graft fraud* as they milk medicare for every fucking dime laughing all the way as they order more tests and procedures for octogenarians who are perpetually kept hovering at the brink of death.

    3. Golf.

    By all means. Seek these wise sages out for advice on governance you will surely be glad you did.

    Bureaucrats are going to write up regulations informed by doctors' recommendations.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    1) Not single-payer. And there's no reason for it not to be, aside from dog whistling and murmurings about 'welfare queens' or the 'nanny state' or whatever. This actually does negatively impact people in Vermont, where the ACA will supercede their single-player system.
    Vermont will be able to apply for a waiver in 2017, so they'll still be able to have a single payer system if they can meet the requirements for one. There was an amendment to move that date up to 2014, but that went nowhere.

    Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I always thought the best settler of the stupid 'Is it constitutional to compel a purchase' question is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Militia_Act_of_1792
    That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

    You have to sign up for the militia and buy a gun/bayonette/ammo/etc at your own expense. It was passed by the 2nd Congress(which was choked full of constitutional delegates) and signed by George Washington.

    Also not on point because it's not regulation of commerce, it doesn't cover every citizen. I could go deeper as well, regarding the difference between military service and just being a citizen and other differences as well.

    You guys have a list of 'gotcha' quotes mined from the days surrounding the SCOTUS case and none of them hold up.


  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    From Congress Thread
    Like, the only "handout" I can really think of (aside from the thousands of new customers to insurance companies) is the expansion of Medicaid in the not retarded states.

    And that is objectively good thing and only a monster would start screeching about moochers.

    I guess I just want to know what you're talking about, Spool, cause I know you're not a monster.

    *stares at neck for mask lines*

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    I'm interested to see how this law will play out with young people. From how I understand the law, I don't think it's going to go very well.

    Consider a person in their 20s/early 30s, making 20-40K a year at their job. The job they do isn't important enough to be worth providing health insurance, so right now they just go without. For the most part that works out for them - they stay fairly healthy, pay out of pocket when they go to the doctor once or twice a year, and just generally hope that they don't get sick. I know a lot of people in this exact situation right now.

    Obamacare comes along and suddenly these people have to pay. Sure, they can get a subsidy, but we're still talking $40-70 a month out of pocket. Once more, the way they're using the health insurance that monthly fee doesn't give them anything - they'll have a high enough deductible that they're still paying out of pocket for their 1-2 yearly doctor visits, so from their perspective its basically money thrown down the drain. It's a non-trivial amount of money too, many of the people I know working low-wage jobs don't have $50 in their bank account right now. Tacking on a big monthly fee for health insurance that they barely use represents a pretty big hardship.

    "But if they get cancer it will help them!" Okay, sure, but most of them won't get cancer. Most of them will just be subsidizing the (mostly old) people who do get cancer. And this is coming from the government and society that, for a young person's entire adult life, has been dedicated to fucking their generation in the ass in every conceivable way.

    I don't think it's going to play well at all. And when the 'good' plan is the one that screws you this hard, it becomes that much easier to throw up your hands and not vote while bitching that both sides are bad. Because you know what? They are.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Vorpal wrote: »
    People who have zero interest in facts don't deserve consideration

    and the GOP should accept Obamacare as a lost battle BECAUSE THEYVE LOST

    Do you think the pro-union activists in Wisconsin who tried to continue on the battle against Walker's union-busting should have just given up because they lost? Democrats did everything they could to slow the implementation of those laws. I don't recall seeing you castigate them for their intransigence.
    Public opinion has not turned on the law like they hoped.

    Au contraire. Public opinion has always largely been against Obamacare. The lack of public opinion turning has been in the signal lack of people rushing to embrace Obamacare that many democratic strategists assumed would happen after its passage. Now that a significant component of it (the exchanges) has been implemented, that may change.


    Wrongo. People support what Obamacare actually does. They've just been poisoned against the name.

    People always support being given stuff, especially when you don't mention the cost or consequences.

    Oh man yeah I mean my girlfriends parents aren't even literally about to choose between dying of starvation or dying of chronic medical issues anymore.

    Oh fuuuck I didn't even realize how horrible it was. I mean on the one hand, two excellent people will not have to select from painful death or also fucking painful death

    But on the OTHER hand, I heard your premiums might go up! That's gotta suck.

    Probably slightly less than slow, painful death while your daughter weeps herself to sleep with worry over her inability to sufficiently protect the people who raised her from the harsh reality of modern America being a country with worse healthcare than every other modern nation but I mean


    Edit: For real though sell me on the awful consequences of loved ones not dying from preventable diseases that they really only have now because of the horrifically fucked value system the US has with regards to health care. Sell me on the idea that it's their fault dude.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.