OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[iamshack]

Isn't this pretty common sense stuff? I just started this job, I should probably not be talking to a major news outlet about the most controversial thing having to do with this employer...perhaps if I do, and say something negative, I could lose my job?

 

Nooooooo!

[Jake]

She had been on the job for a matter of weeks, she was paid like $26k so it's not like she's the brightest person in the department , and she claims that she was never told anything about talking with the media (a claim I believe given she's a call center employee).

 

Ohhhh, so people making less money aren't very smart. This will make my evaluations of people much easier

[Jenksismyhero]

Ohhhh, so people making less money aren't very smart. This will make my evaluations of people much easier

 

As compared to people making more money? Yeah, id say as a general rule that's pretty true. Unless all that data about making more money with more education is bulls***.

[NorthSideSox72]

As compared to people making more money? Yeah, id say as a general rule that's pretty true. Unless all that data about making more money with more education is bulls***.

There is a difference between smart and educated.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There is a difference between smart and educated.

 

And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are?

 

 

[pettie4sox]

I agree that's is pretty SOP to refer to a superior when encounter by the media. They are liaisons for situations like that.

[cabiness42]

And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are?

 

As a general rule, yes, but my wife does not yet have a college degree and is smarter than a lot of people who do.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are?

I actually see them as fairly seperate things.

 

Smarter does, all things equal, mean better chances of getting into a college and finishing a degree. But there are so many other factors that dictate those accomplishments as well, that simple smarts gets outgunned in a lot of cases. Income level, lower level schooling, emotional condition and maturity, home life, all sorts of other factors involved. I've known plenty of very smart people who never graduated college, and plenty of morons with degrees.

 

Heck, my own mother never went to college - retired as an executive from a major bank. Worked her way up from being a teller. Nowadays that would be nearly impossible to do, with the requirements jobs often have. Then there are all the smart kids who grow up in crappy homes, in crappy neighborhoods with crappy schools, and college is never in the equation.

 

 

[Soxfest]

Website fixed by end of November.................what a joke.

[Jenksismyhero]

So by January really.

[Soxbadger]

And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are?

 

No I wouldnt and I generally win the "who has the most degrees/who got the most quickest" battle.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Yeah the assumption that your wage reflects your intelligence or even your education level is pretty ridiculous.

[TaylorStSox]

"Smart" is a measure of one's aptitude to learn. It's independent of your level of education or how much money you make. Shockingly, there are actually people that aren't completely monetarily driven and have values outside of of their net worth.

 

I also appreciate the parallels people seem to be drawing between the validity of socialized medicine and the performance of a website. "I told you 'Obamacare' was a farce. The website doesn't even work." We live in a country where access to reasonable medicine is viewed as a privilege. Go USA!

[StrangeSox]

e.g. Christopher Langan, reportedly the "smartest man in America" with an IQ of around 200, worked all sorts of blue-collar physical labor jobs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

[Jake]

Nobody is going to argue that there is bound to be some correlation between income and intelligence, but income is about as useful to measure intelligence as skin color is useful to predict criminality (not very useful)

[Jenksismyhero]

Some Obamacare "expert" from Northwestern's business school was on WGN this morning. He basically called Obama a liar about his "no one will have to change their current insurance plan" promise. He estimated that 75% of private insureds will have to get a different plan, one that significantly bumps their premiums to pay for the mandatory coverage that the law imposes on insurers. Most significantly, your ability to choose a low premium/high deductible plan (ya know, the best option for the vast majority of people out there) is basically non-existent now.

 

So enjoy your higher premiums folks. Hope the massive cost is really worth insuring that small minority of people out there. I'm sure this will also really help the economy over the next 6 months to a year.

[Texsox]

First off, this has been talked about for years. Plans that do not conform have to be changed. We'll see about increases. My plan dropped this year by a few bucks a month for the same coverage. My dental and vision went up. Seems odd.

[cabiness42]

Some Obamacare "expert" from Northwestern's business school was on WGN this morning. He basically called Obama a liar about his "no one will have to change their current insurance plan" promise. He estimated that 75% of private insureds will have to get a different plan, one that significantly bumps their premiums to pay for the mandatory coverage that the law imposes on insurers. Most significantly, your ability to choose a low premium/high deductible plan (ya know, the best option for the vast majority of people out there) is basically non-existent now.

 

So enjoy your higher premiums folks. Hope the massive cost is really worth insuring that small minority of people out there. I'm sure this will also really help the economy over the next 6 months to a year.

 

To think, if the Republicans had just passed CR/debt ceiling bills in September instead of shutting down the government until October 17, we could have been discussing this three weeks ago and be well down the path to fixing it. Plus, the Republicans would have had more credibility behind their complaints.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

To think, if the Republicans had just passed CR/debt ceiling bills in September instead of shutting down the government until October 17, we could have been discussing this three weeks ago and be well down the path to fixing it. Plus, the Republicans would have had more credibility behind their complaints.

 

That's a complaint about the law and a consequence of the law that differs from what the President told the American people years ago (if you want to keep your plan, keep it, this law lets you do that). It has nothing to do with the website or the shutdown or anything in your post.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

First off, this has been talked about for years. Plans that do not conform have to be changed. We'll see about increases. My plan dropped this year by a few bucks a month for the same coverage. My dental and vision went up. Seems odd.

 

My wife's employer (a gigantic f***ing hospital of course) sent out a warning that premiums will be rising and various options they normally offer won't be available because of the mandatory minimums from the new law. I'm waiting for the information packet they send every year to see how much we're talking.

 

 

[cabiness42]

That's a complaint about the law and a consequence of the law that differs from what the President told the American people years ago (if you want to keep your plan, keep it, this law lets you do that). It has nothing to do with the website or the shutdown or anything in your post.

 

Yes it does, because:

 

1) The shutdown dominated the news cycle for 17 days, which delayed news like this from coming out, which delayed the process of fixing this.

 

2) Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, negative statements about the Administration are taken with a grain of salt due to the overwhelming unpopularity of Republicans in Congress.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes it does, because:

 

1) The shutdown dominated the news cycle for 17 days, which delayed news like this from coming out, which delayed the process of fixing this.

 

2) Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, negative statements about the Administration are taken with a grain of salt due to the overwhelming unpopularity of Republicans in Congress.

 

There is no "fix" to this problem. It's insurance companies being forced to comply with the mandatory minimums of the law. This has nothing to do with the website issues.

 

And have you seen the last two weeks of news headlines? I don't think negative statements about the WH have been taken with a grain of salt. He's being raked over the coals (well, as much as Obamajesus can be) for the messy implementation of the website. And this week we've got the added "news" that millions of Americans will be paying more and/or are being forced into new plans because of the law and that this information was known by the WH from the beginning.

 

Why are you making this a partisan issue?

[StrangeSox]

There is no "fix" to this problem. It's insurance companies being forced to comply with the mandatory minimums of the law. This has nothing to do with the website issues.

 

And have you seen the last two weeks of news headlines? I don't think negative statements about the WH have been taken with a grain of salt. He's being raked over the coals (well, as much as Obamajesus can be) for the messy implementation of the website. And this week we've got the added "news" that millions of Americans will be paying more and/or are being forced into new plans because of the law and that this information was known by the WH from the beginning.

 

Why are you making this a partisan issue?

 

Anybody who is surprised that the high-deductible, low premium "catastrophic" plans were not going to be available in the future is a dummy. This is has been clear law since the start of the thing. A major part of the reform was the mandatory minimums to ensure that health insurance plans are actually decent plans and not largely useless, and Obama and the Democrats specifically rejected McCain's campaign policy of expansion of those types of catastrophic plans.

 

The WH knew that these minimal coverage plans were going away because that was a major point of the "Protection" part of the law. The WH knew it, Congress knew it, anybody who paid minimal attention to what PPACA actually was should have clearly known it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Anybody who is surprised that the high-deductible, low premium "catastrophic" plans were not going to be available in the future is a dummy. This is has been clear law since the start of the thing. A major part of the reform was the mandatory minimums to ensure that health insurance plans are actually decent plans and not largely useless, and Obama and the Democrats specifically rejected McCain's campaign policy of expansion of those types of catastrophic plans.

 

The WH knew that these minimal coverage plans were going away because that was a major point of the "Protection" part of the law. The WH knew it, Congress knew it, anybody who paid minimal attention to what PPACA actually was should have clearly known it.

 

I don't think it's that cut and dry. It's not only the "pay 50/month premium with a 10k" deductible plan that is going away. I'm going off of what my wife's employer is warning their employees about, so I guess we'll see how the final numbers pan out.

 

The fact is the country was "sold" on an insurance reform bill that gave people the option of a government backed exchange for those that wanted it, and no changes to anyone who didn't. That was a flat out lie.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[CrimsonWeltall]

Anybody who is surprised that the high-deductible, low premium "catastrophic" plans were not going to be available in the future is a dummy.

 

Right, now the "catastrophic" plans have high premiums too.

 

f*** you, healthy young people.