Healthcare reform

[Rex Kickass]

Key words: AFFORDIBILITY CREDITS. That's all this talks about. There's not a damn thing in here about coverage. Nothing. They are covered, or more specifically, there's nothing in the bill to NOT deny them COVERAGE.

 

 

 

Same section - services covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics... ok, looks to be like they get their coverage.

 

Besides that, one swipe of the pen, they're all legal. Poof. Argument over.

 

So you're against people paying into an insurance pool?

[StrangeSox]

There you go. They're incentivized, more or less. Give that incentive back to the individual, and give them real choice.

 

And employers would be glad to say "f*** off, get your own" when the government provides it. They're not on the hook then. And they'll probably lose their tax writeoffs when this comes down the pike as well.

 

The government option isn't any more free than any other plan. If this ends up a net loss for employees, the good ones will leave to find a company that offers higher compensation or health care benefits.

 

Oh, and you should probably stop arguing in "probablies".

[StrangeSox]

Wow. Just...wow.

 

Now, go back and re-read what Kap said, and what I reiterated, and that you ignored multiple times. Then, maybe you'll see the only argument here self-refuting is your own non-argument, since you ignored why we said people would be forced onto the public plan in the first place.

 

Please explain how they'll be forced. I've seen a bunch of circular nonsense but no actual mechanism.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bingo. And its the foundation for my intense dislike of the American political right.

Its not the whole right, and its not the right that I used to vote for. Its the new one - the fear-driven social agenda chasers.

 

And heck, I'd even be willing to debate things with anyone, if they can provide some sort of factual evidence of their fears. But what we're seeing here about illegals is akin to the fears that Bush was going to suspend the 2008 elections. Completely unfounded in anything resembling fact.

 

[kapkomet]

Has zero to do with it. The fact that a party is using it as a talking point is unrelated to whether or not its true.

 

What DOES tell me its untrue is that its NOT IN THE BILL, or at least any part of it I've seen, or has been posted here. If someone can show me something other this - something that runs counter to the bill portions shown here to specifically EXEMPT illegals - then I will start worrying about it.

 

This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue.

There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false".

 

[Rex Kickass]

So then stop saying/repeating that people can keep their private insurance, because there is no way that's reality if everyone ditches it for something "free", which will NOT be free by any stretch, especially if you toss 320+Million people on that free plan.

 

Also, if what you're saying is true, congratulations, private health insurance folds, and you have millions upon millions of unemployed workers.

 

Why do you assume that private industry will remain static?

[kapkomet]

Why do you assume that private industry will remain static?

It won't. That's sort of the point.

 

[Y2HH]

Interesting analogy, since the combination of 401k's and social security are much better for everyone involved than pensions.

 

The only way employers start begging off insurance offerings in any great numbers are if:

 

--They are deep financial trouble (in which case they might do that anyway)

--The government plan somehow becomes a truly better alternative, which I find doubtful

--Unemployment gets to some ridiculous number like 20% and employees lose all leverage

 

Healthcare is currently used as an incentive for people at jobs, they're often willing to accept less pay for good insurance, however, people wouldn't be willing to do that anymore if they know they can just fall back onto a public plan (which is touted to be just as good, with the same quality care as the private alternatives.) Even if it's not the same quality, people will take $ over stock options, just like they will take $ over insurance if they know there is something else out there for them.

 

It's the same reason why most contractors who do not have company sponsored insurance don't bother getting insurance, despite making 80+$ an hour. The entire time I worked as a contractor, I was the only person out of 6 of us that bothered getting insurance and we all made, at minimum, 43$ an hour.

[Rex Kickass]

They wouldn't last long with a mass exodus of companies and private citizens jumping to the public option...

 

Hell, most insurance companies already laid off people because of the downturn in the economy and they were the most resilient part of it.

 

They could simply find a way to make money off of it. Maybe market to opponents of the health care proposals? Or are you admitting that you'd immediately take advantage of the same things you don't want to see enacted?

[StrangeSox]

There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false".

 

Kap, I don't know the phrase for it, but you're committing a logical fallacy here.

 

They are not excluded from purchasing coverage. That does not mean they are covered. There is a distinct difference.

 

No one is dismissing it because its a talking point. Its being dismissed because its wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Healthcare is currently used as an incentive for people at jobs, they're often willing to accept less pay for good insurance, however, people wouldn't be willing to do that anymore if they know they can just fall back onto a public plan (which is touted to be just as good, with the same quality care as the private alternatives.) Even if it's not the same quality, people will take $ over stock options, just like they will take $ over insurance if they know there is something else out there for them.

 

It's the same reason why most contractors who do not have company sponsored insurance don't bother getting insurance, despite making 80+$ an hour. The entire time I worked as a contractor, I was the only person out of 6 of us that bothered getting insurance and we all made, at minimum, 43$ an hour.

 

The public plan isn't a free social safety net like welfare.

[Rex Kickass]

Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes.

 

If employers don't offer a plan, there is a penalty. To fund the public plan. I believe it's something along the lines of 7% of revenue or something like that.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting analogy, since the combination of 401k's and social security are much better for everyone involved than pensions.

 

The only way employers start begging off insurance offerings in any great numbers are if:

 

--They are deep financial trouble (in which case they might do that anyway)

--The government plan somehow becomes a truly better alternative, which I find doubtful

--Unemployment gets to some ridiculous number like 20% and employees lose all leverage

 

Ha. You know as well as I do if companies feel it will boost their bottom lines and/or stock prices, they will dump coverage in a heartbeat. Once the government plan comes in and starts being cheaper and starts closing up insurance companies, they will drop coverage for employees faster than they drop employees in a recession. At the end of the day, it is a cost to the company. If they can get rid of it, they will.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false".

You posted a review article from a PR newswire on some site I've never seen, saying that one particular part of the bill doesn't exempt them. Assuming the source is any good (and this is not a news item by the way, its a PR wire that anyone can write to), then the only fact present is that the NO ONE is being specifically kept out of that item specifically. But the bill also states, as has shown here, that no coverage will be extended to illegals. Do you really want them to put "EXCEPT ILLEGALS" after each sentence?

 

Again, it has nothing to do with who is parroting it. It has everything to do with what is actually in there. There is language, shown here, that says NO ILLEGALS, and you guys are complaining because some other part of the bill doesn't reiterate that exemption.

 

[Y2HH]

They could simply find a way to make money off of it. Maybe market to opponents of the health care proposals? Or are you admitting that you'd immediately take advantage of the same things you don't want to see enacted?

 

I'd be forced too, since I'd be unemployed.

[kapkomet]

Kap, I don't know the phrase for it, but you're committing a logical fallacy here.

 

They are not excluded from purchasing coverage. That does not mean they are covered. There is a distinct difference.

 

No one is dismissing it because its a talking point. Its being dismissed because its wrong.

No, there's no difference. You keep playing this semantics bulls*** game. They are eligible for the same s*** that I, a citizen, is eligible for, and that's wrong. Eligible, guaranteed, f***ity f***, what the hell ever word you want to use. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT AN ILLEGAL WILL GET UNDER THIS PLAN THEN WHAT I WILL GET. That is the bottom line. Why the hell is that so goddamn hard to understand? This semantics circle jerk is getting stupid.

[Rex Kickass]

I think the point is that people will be forced to switch to it because Employers will quit offering it as an option, just like they have quit offering pensions after social security came around.

But I thought pensions were bad. Isn't that why the auto industry went bankrupt, because the unions wouldn't let them adapt to the new economy and dump their pensions?

 

Plenty of people got pensions well beyond Social Security's introduction - generations beyond it in fact.

[Y2HH]

The public plan isn't a free social safety net like welfare.

 

How so? If I'm unemployed or cannot afford private insurance or afford to pay for this public option, it's subsidized for me...or anyone else.

 

So how can you say that?

 

This plan is the definition of a safety net.

[southsider2k5]

But I thought pensions were bad. Isn't that why the auto industry went bankrupt, because the unions wouldn't let them adapt to the new economy and dump their pensions?

 

Plenty of people got pensions well beyond Social Security's introduction - generations beyond it in fact.

 

How is that trend going?

[NorthSideSox72]

Ha. You know as well as I do if companies feel it will boost their bottom lines and/or stock prices, they will dump coverage in a heartbeat. Once the government plan comes in and starts being cheaper and starts closing up insurance companies, they will drop coverage for employees faster than they drop employees in a recession. At the end of the day, it is a cost to the company. If they can get rid of it, they will.

First, if this was true, then companies would provide no benefits and pay minimum wage for all jobs. Obviously that is not the case, so also obviously, there is clearly something different going on here. It is simply part of the benefits package. And as time has gone on, companies are in fact offering MORE benefits (and less salary) than they had previously.

 

And as I said earlier, the only time they will drop coverage is in truly dire circumstances, which is no different (or little different) than it is today.

 

By the way, here is something to throw out there... IMO, the ultimate solution to this whole problem is not government-provided healthcare, nor is it employee-provided health care. Chew on that for a minute.

 

[Y2HH]

But I thought pensions were bad. Isn't that why the auto industry went bankrupt, because the unions wouldn't let them adapt to the new economy and dump their pensions?

 

Plenty of people got pensions well beyond Social Security's introduction - generations beyond it in fact.

 

No pensions = better bottom line for a company. Why would they offer such things unless forced?

[Y2HH]

First, if this was true, then companies would provide no benefits and pay minimum wage for all jobs. Obviously that is not the case, so also obviously, there is clearly something different going on here. It is simply part of the benefits package. And as time has gone on, companies are in fact offering MORE benefits (and less salary) than they had previously.

 

And as I said earlier, the only time they will drop coverage is in truly dire circumstances, which is no different (or little different) than it is today.

 

By the way, here is something to throw out there... IMO, the ultimate solution to this whole problem is not government-provided healthcare, nor is it employee-provided health care. Chew on that for a minute.

 

Um, if they could, they would.

 

I don't want less salary and more benefits...you obvious do, but I do not. I want my money.

[southsider2k5]

First, if this was true, then companies would provide no benefits and pay minimum wage for all jobs. Obviously that is not the case, so also obviously, there is clearly something different going on here. It is simply part of the benefits package. And as time has gone on, companies are in fact offering MORE benefits (and less salary) than they had previously.

 

And as I said earlier, the only time they will drop coverage is in truly dire circumstances, which is no different (or little different) than it is today.

 

By the way, here is something to throw out there... IMO, the ultimate solution to this whole problem is not government-provided healthcare, nor is it employee-provided health care. Chew on that for a minute.

 

Then why don't companies offer to pay a zillion dollars an hour? Let's not pretend there aren't competive factors at work here. There are also tons of shareholder and stock price pressures that go on here. All it takes is one company to stop, and pretty much an entire industry stops, or at least that has been the argument for generations about why work gets oursourced outside of the United States.

[Rex Kickass]

How is that trend going?

 

I think you might be able to trace that to the decline of labor organizing movements than you can the advent of social security. Also, weren't there things like 401ks and IRAs that came about in the late 1970s that had more to do with the elimination of a pension than Social Security?

[NorthSideSox72]

Um, if they could, they would.

 

I don't want less salary and more benefits...you obvious do, but I do not. I want my money.

I'd rather have money too - but companies are finding that the mroe benefits less salary model saves them money, due to preceived benefit value that is above the actual cost, as well as the fact that so many employees use only some of those benefits (where as they would take ALL the cash).

 

My wife works as more or less a business psychologist for a large company HR department.