Originally Posted by Danilynn

They are actually very comfortable. Hold up well to adverse conditions and can be made quite stylish with the right jeans and shirt. Just sayin' don't knock the boots.

I would love to get a pair of Desert Boots. My old Jungle Boots crashed decades ago.

The first step to transformation is understanding the truth.

Here's what the former CMS administrator Thomas Scully told Wall Street.

Note: "He has been a major player in injecting more capitalism into health care. This article describes his mindset, including the fact that he intends to get his share of the mega-wealth that health care privatization is creating."

Tom Scully's message on privatizing health care

The President Wants You to Get Rich on Obamacare



"(Tom) Scully was scheduled to deliver the keynote address at an event hosted by the Potomac Research Group, a Beltway firm that advises large investors on government policy (tag line: “Washington to Wall Street”).

When Scully finally began his speech, he noted that the prevailing narrative among Republicans — assuming that many in the room were, like him, Republican — was incorrect. “(Obamacare) is not a government takeover of medicine,” he told the crowd. “It’s the privatization of health care.”

Scully then segued to his main point, one he has been making in similarly handsome dining rooms across the country: No matter what investors thought about Obamacare politically — and surely many there did not think much of it — the law was going to make some people very rich."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/octobe...ng-health-care

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What, my mom wears army boots is a stronger case than pointing out where his financial interests really lie? Gimme a break.

No, that fouling the water serves no one well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The whole intent of the law was to lower costs by covering more people, and to make it more affordable for businesses too.

That's mathematically impossible unless the marginal cost of insuring a new person is negative.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The first step to transformation is understanding the truth.

Here's what the former CMS administrator Thomas Scully told Wall Street.

Note: "He has been a major player in injecting more capitalism into health care. This article describes his mindset, including the fact that he intends to get his share of the mega-wealth that health care privatization is creating."

Tom Scully's message on privatizing health care

The President Wants You to Get Rich on Obamacare



"(Tom) Scully was scheduled to deliver the keynote address at an event hosted by the Potomac Research Group, a Beltway firm that advises large investors on government policy (tag line: “Washington to Wall Street”).

When Scully finally began his speech, he noted that the prevailing narrative among Republicans — assuming that many in the room were, like him, Republican — was incorrect. “(Obamacare) is not a government takeover of medicine,” he told the crowd. “It’s the privatization of health care.”

Scully then segued to his main point, one he has been making in similarly handsome dining rooms across the country: No matter what investors thought about Obamacare politically — and surely many there did not think much of it — the law was going to make some people very rich."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/octobe...ng-health-care

Yea, that's the ticket. Let's bring about single payer by getting into the face of the American enterprise system. That's just gonna wow the whole country!

Sorry, but I think you might be overestimating even you're power of persuasion -



- even though you obviously got John under control now -

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

That's mathematically impossible unless the marginal cost of insuring a new person is negative.

psss, govt subsidies....

a year or so for that fat lady to sing -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...worriers/?_r=0

Valium for Obamacare Worriers

Suppose that healthcare.gov isn’t fixed by the end of next month. How bad is it for Obamacare? Would the program be doomed?

No, says Jonathan Cohn, because there are two layers of protection against poor signup. First, there is a system of cross-subsidies to insurance companies that was intended to prevent companies from surreptitiously gaining an advantage by only signing up healthy people (hey, our policy is available to anyone — but you have to sign up in our sixth-floor walkup office.) As it turns out, this system would end up compensating insurance companies in general if the risk pool is worse than expected. Second, the subsidies to individuals are designed to hold health costs down to 8 percent of income, which means that they will rise if costs are higher than expected.

Neither of these would be a good thing, since they would increase the budget cost, but they do mean that Obamacare’s survival probably isn’t on the line.

Actually, the biggest reason Obama and co. should be anxious to fix these things now, I’d argue, isn’t the fate of the program itself, which can survive even large early wobbles, but the midterm elections. If Obamacare is fixed, Republicans will be in the position of attacking a program that is benefiting millions of Americans; if it isn’t, they can still run against the legend, not the fact.

So a lot is riding on fixing the technological botch — but not in quite the way people imagine.

Let's see a year from know -

- millions of people now enrolled in Blue state Medicaid Expansion; some in a sprinkling of Purple states (OH, maybe FL)
- millions of people pissed off because they can't enroll in Medicaid that they would otherwise be eligible for - registering to vote in waves
- millions now insured for the first time ever
- millions wondering why they were talked out of it by t-baggers (and Far Lefties) waiting to be first in line when open season comes in October - little over a month before the 2014 election.
- millions listening to t-baggers telling them they want to bump their kids off of the family insurance because they turned 18 or have a pre-existing condition
.
.
.
.
Priceless.

Originally Posted by playwrite

psss, govt subsidies....

Psst, most cost-shifting, no cost-saving.

Unless, of course, the Treasury gets to printing those platinum coins. But hey, if even a public option that is popular with both voters & economists isn't "politically realistic," we should get back to talking about which corporations should get tax cuts and subsidies next. Reality, and what-not.

At least someone is cutting through the mass hysteria -

https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/st...667264/photo/1

[/URL]


Oh, and we're starting to hear more corrections like this one -

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars....story-debunked

Yet Another Obamacare Horror Story Debunked

Deborah Cavallaro got a letter from Anthem Blue Cross which stated, “Because of the requirements of the new laws, we can no longer offer your current Anthem policy.”

Deborah Cavallaro was all over the news on Wednesday as an example of someone who lost her existing health insurance thanks to Obamacare. Except one problem -- the plan she qualifies for is better. Under her current plan, she is limited to two doctor visits a year, pays $293 a month with a yearly deductible of $5,000. Cavallaro says she was told by her insurance broker she would be paying $478 a month -- but she didn’t check the website herself. There, she would have found a better plan, with only a $2,000 deductible and all doctor visits covered by a copay...for only $40 more a month.

Cavallaro told CBS Los Angeles that she received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross which stated, “Because of the requirements of the new laws, we can no longer offer your current Anthem policy.”

“I was infuriated, totally infuriated,” she said. “It’s sort of forcing you to walk the plank.”

CBS:

"The letter also said that Cavallaro is being offered a new policy and her monthly payment will increase from $292 to $484.

“The president kept saying, you know, ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Your premiums will be going down.’ But, in fact, the letter is completely contradictory to that,” said Cavallaro.

Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, said major health insurance companies are simply taking advantage of the confusion surrounding the new health care law to engage in price gouging.

“This is not the fault of the Affordable Care Act or President Obama. This is the fault of the insurance company. This is a handful of insurance companies that have convinced a very gullible state agency, Covered California, to allow them to drop plans that could very easily…with a few little tweaks… be compliant under the Affordable Care Act, and people wouldn’t have to leave their plans,” said Court."

Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times talked with Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance:

"Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.

As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.

Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.

Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead."

Hiltzik notes that "The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her. And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too."

Excellent journalism, Mr. Hiltzik.

and some more sanity still -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...e-on-the-story

Another Angle on the Story

There's been so much misinformation swirling about plan cancellations and rate hikes (along with a lot of these that are real and affecting certain people adversely) that it is kind of hard to keep up. But TPM Reader JP focuses our attention on something that I think he is correct is getting very little attention ...

With all of the political noise associated with the pricing of insurance pricing, it amazes me how silent the press has been about the calculation and long term credibility of the pricing. Keep the following points in mind:

* The insurance companies have very little history regarding the claims of the new pool of insured's to actually calculate pricing.

* The insurance companies have every incentive to maximize pricing in the short run because of the regulatory lag in getting pricing changed to reflect actual utilization. If they underprice, it will take a significant period of time to get rates changed.

* I suspect that the insurance companies want to price the plans to be able to sell them, but a primary focus will still be to protect their bottom line.

* While the federal government dictates the law, it is up to the local states to approve insurance company pricing. Red state opposition to HCR can be reflected in the ultimate pricing that the states approved for plans available on the exchanges. More expensive plans means more likely that the plans will be a failure.

*The interplay of the 80% MLR to the plan mix the population enrolling selects and the ultimate claims experience.

At the end of the day, Obamacare has a price correcting mechanism, that NONE of the defenders of the law are even mentioning. If the rates charged for plans as of 1/1/2014 are indeed too high and the plans are not being used at that level, then all of the insureds will get a nice fat check in the mail come 2015. Given the incentives that insurance companies have to overprice today (little actual experience with the projected people insured under the new plans), this may very well mean a much larger check when they are calculated and distributed. Alternatively, if indeed the plans do incur 80% or more of their premiums being used to pay claims, then the plans have done what they were intended to do....provide insurance protection.

I sure like the idea of millions getting big fat rebate checks from the meanie insurance companies just a couple months before the 2014 election!

Yes, t-baggers its terrible that I got real insurance for the first time, my wife and kids are covered, I don't have to worry about going bankrupt over medical bills, and I got this big fat rebate check. Yes, sir, I'm gonna vote for you so we can repeal this horrible horrible law! Hey, what ever happen to those death panels and why haven't we invaded Syria yet?!

I now return you back to the more usual routine around here -

You're getting sleepy, sleepy; resistance is futile, futile...

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

That's mathematically impossible unless the marginal cost of insuring a new person is negative.

The idea is that insurance is expensive before ACA, because only old and sick people have it, and young healthy people opt out, unless they are covered by their large employer. So the math is this: more people paying, cost goes down. Everyone knows that.

The problem may be that insurance companies, still in the drivers seat under ACA, although now regulated, will decrease coverage and increase co-payments to make up for the gouging they used to be able to do before ACA. A public option coverage system would have been more competition for these companies, and would have forced costs down. The Silents in the Senate blocked that public option, so we don't have that yet. At least Medicare operates in that way to still reduce overall insurance prices. Whether the math of more people in the system, and other controls, subsidies and the exchanges, outweigh insurance company schemes to get around the law, remains to be seen. If as playwrite mentions, the companies have to pay rebates if they overcharge (and this has already happened), that could bring costs down.

It is complicated, and we'll have to see how it works out. It's wise not to be too ideological, but look at results over the long term, and hold politicians accountable to make further reforms. It is further wise to get rid of the Republican politicians, who are only interested (based on their rigid ideology) in seeing that the old system is restored, so that insurance and other medical private interests continue to rake in as much profit as they can. Then at least we have some options for further reform, based on what really works.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's just that whole 'equivalency' thing we get 24/7 from the mass media numbnuts pushes one of my buttons.

Mass media: "Scientists say earth is round, Flat Earth Society disagrees! We're too lazy to actually research the issue, so both sides must be equal!"

Yudkowsky: "Just because someone disagrees with you about one thing doesn't mean they've 'taken the enemy's side.' Also, don't make the mistake of assuming the middle position is automatically right."

Not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

If you want any questions answered I will. If I don't know I will research it for you. and Thank you

Well Danilynn, you're welcome.

I'll let you know if I have any questions
(I've got a good feeling your knowledge will
come-in handy trying to clean-up The ACA. )


Prince

Originally Posted by playwrite

Go back and this time actually read the post and the links - all from 2010.

I already did(You ol' 'blog-head', you! )
Your "links" are from Oct. 2013
Your "posts" that you posted are from 2010, though.

Oh, I think I see what's causing my confusion here:

Originally Posted by PF

This "news" is 3 years ago and only news to those that are full of shit.

So, who claimed this was "news"?(and by "news" I mean something to be suprised about);
Not me. I actually started to make criticisms in the past, but you and a bunch of posters here
were more interested in "politics"(ie: BS), so I let it be(FWIW, IIRC, you actually said I was
"clueless" i/r/t The ACA). I don't take it personally; I believe most of us Xers on this MB are
quite aware by now of your complete lack i/r/t 'critical-thinking skills'!

Anyway, no, I don't believe it's "news" that the president(and more importantly, supporters
of The ACA), parroted mis-representations(ie: lies) like that. That's just what you guys do;
You all have a difficult time thinking for yourselves; I get it.

Actually, that's why I said I'm on your team now; I'm offering you my services on how to
better "trick" and/or "force" the 'young invincibles'(eg: Chas, Jordan, JP) into enrolling in
The ACA. I've got some really great ideas! <heh-heh!>


Prince

PS:

"And all free, ....Today!"(but not necessarily, "Tomorrow"! !)

<chuckle! !>

Oh, PW. I almost forgot. Since I'm on your team now,
I need to get the terminology straight.


So, by "real insurance", you mean: A policy that conforms to The ACA.
And, by "insurance", you mean: A policy that doesn't conform to The ACA.

So, if we have 2 identical policies(A and B),
but policy B differs only in that it doesn't cover
one of The 10 ACA requirements, then:

Policy A="real insurance"
Policy B="'fly-by-night', 'junk', 'horseshit', 'etc.' insurance"

OK. I think I've got it.


Oh, and it's not the Fed Govt. that passed the law that requires insurance-companies
to change non-conforming policies, it's just the insurance-companies that we're blaming.

Got it. Good stuff there.


OK. Last thing for now. The Govt. Tax Credit/Subsidy and/or Rebates are the 'goodies' that we're using, right?
(I'm already set with how we can(ie: are going-to!) screw-around with them and deductables(!) going-forward ).

Yeah, I think I got it.


Prince

PS: I believe I'm now ready to start selling The ACA(aka "shit sandwich").

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I already did(You ol' 'blog-head', you! )
Your "links" are from Oct. 2013
Your "posts" that you posted are from 2010, though.

Oh, I think I see what's causing my confusion here:



So, who claimed this was "news"?(and by "news" I mean something to be suprised about);
Not me. I actually started to make criticisms in the past, but you and a bunch of posters here
were more interested in "politics"(ie: BS), so I let it be(FWIW, IIRC, you actually said I was
"clueless" i/r/t The ACA). I don't take it personally; I believe most of us Xers on this MB are
quite aware by now of your complete lack i/r/t 'critical-thinking skills'!

Anyway, no, I don't believe it's "news" that the president(and more importantly, supporters
of The ACA), parroted mis-representations(ie: lies) like that. That's just what you guys do;
You all have a difficult time thinking for yourselves; I get it.

Actually, that's why I said I'm on your team now; I'm offering you my services on how to
better "trick" and/or "force" the 'young invincibles'(eg: Chas, Jordan, JP) into enrolling in
The ACA. I've got some really great ideas! <heh-heh!>


Prince

PS:

"And all for free, ....Today!"(but not necessarily, "Tomorrow"! !)

<chuckle! !>

I see you caught up to the clown car and jumped in. I knew you were up for it.

The point is you all are just re-hashing the same stupid clown shit you hashed out 3 years ago. Big deal.

Yes, there are still morons that will listen to your horseshit; but a year from now, many of them will be scratching their collective heads and wondering why they did. And of the remaining morons, a number of them will be receiving their Darwin Awards post humorously.

The tide is gong out on you all; just a matter of time now.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I see you caught up to the clown car and jumped in. I knew you were up for it.

The point is you all are just re-hashing the same stupid clown shit you hashed out 3 years ago. Big deal.

Yes, there are still morons that will listen to your horseshit; but a year from now, many of them will be scratching their collective heads and wondering why they did. And of the remaining morons, a number of them will be receiving their Darwin Awards post humorously.

The tide is gong out on you all; just a matter of time now.

Or, in more condensed form:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Oh, PW. I almost forgot. Since I'm on your team now,
I need to get the terminology straight.


So, by "real insurance", you mean: A policy that conforms to the ACA.
And, by "insurance", you mean: A policy that doesn't conform to The ACA.

So, if we have 2 identical policies(A and B),
but policy B differs only in that it doesn't cover
one of The 10 ACA requirements, then:

Policy A="real insurance"
Policy B="'fly-by-night', 'junk', 'horseshit', 'etc.' insurance"

OK. I think I've got it.


Oh, and it's not the Fed Govt. that passed the law that requires insurance-companies
to change non-conforming policies, it's just the insurance-companies that were blaming.

Got it. Good stuff there.


OK. Last thing for now. The Govt. Tax Credit/Subsidy and/or Rebates are the 'goodies' that we're using, right?
(I'm already set with how we can(ie: are going-to!) screw-around with them and deductables(!) going-forward ).

Yeah, I think I got it.


Prince

PS: I believe I'm now ready to start selling The ACA(aka "shit sandwich").

Well, you got some things half right which should be expected from someone with less than half a brain - in fact, you're playing above your potential; two thumbs up for you!

Yes, the ACA sets minimums. And if a policy doesn't meet those minimums, it is junk. And yes, those are the policies that are being replaced as the ACA rolls out. I think this person has it about right -

http://articles.courant.com/2013-10-...ance-companies

Canceled Policies Are Mostly Garbage

Jonah Goldberg's shrill and distorted column Thursday had me shaking my head at his ignorance [Oct. 31, Opinion, "Obama's Great Big Lie About Health Care Law"]. I worked in the health insurance industry for 30 years. I know the kinds of policies that are being canceled -- which could have been grandfathered if those companies wanted to.

They are trash policies that would have left policy-holders paying thousands out of their own pockets at time of claims. Non-guaranteed renewable, limited in benefit coverage, no preventive care, and most have absolutely no drug coverage. The maximum limit of coverage, which is a lifetime maximum, and is soon reached in this day and age.

The insurance companies issuing these policies knew they had three years to comply with the mandates of the Affordable Care Act, and they decided this was the way to get rid of that line of business, and rack up more premiums on better plans. The small percentage of people whose policies are being canceled should really thank God that it is forcing them to re-look at what they have in the way of health care. Most don't even know they had inferior policies they were paying for.

Let's bring this country of under-insureds up to normal and reasonable limits for the 21st century.

What you're obviously clueless about is an insurer can still offer more than what is minimally required by the ACA. The insurer can offer policies outside of the healthcare exchanges (that should be obvious since most of the insurers' business is outside of the health exchanges). Here's the part that might be a little too taxing for your brain - the insurer can also continue to offer substandard insurance (i.e. doesn't meet the ACA minimums) outside the exchanges as long as it offers no policies inside the exchanges - if they offer policies both within and outside, it is considered one risk pool and has to meet the same minimums. There are some insurers, even some big ones (e.g. AETNA, but for different reasons) that stayed out of the exchanges - dumb asses, like you for instance, can still go buy their cheap ass insurance from them - you just won't qualify for any subsidy and even less people will give a shit when you need that insurance for a claim and it tells you to go F yourself.

We expect minimum standards on the cars we drive because substandard cars not only kill their passengers but can kill others as well. We accept standards for water supplies and food because cholera, typhoid and other epidemics don't just kill the stupid people that drink bad water or eat bad food.

Why should we not accept minimum standards for health insurance as well. Sick/injured people showing up at emergency rooms uninsured drive up medical costs and insurance premiums for all the rest of us. Moreover, not seeking proper medical care, particularly for children and vaccinations and other preventative care, because of a lack of financial resources, puts my kids at risks as well as the kids of dumb asses such as yourself. Which reminds me, have you've gotten that feline distemper shot yet?

Another consideration I posted earlier and you may have missed is that the actual rates on any offered insurance (in the exchanges or out) are subject to each state's insurance commission set-up. Do ya think that some of those in fire-breathing ACA-hating Red states may have set those rates a little higher to cause some heartburn? It will be interesting when the rebate checks come in because those insurers' overestimated premiums were blessed by the State's GOP knuckle-draggers but eventually those insurers get caught by the Medical Lost Ratio - we smart Progressives are going to jump on that next October and pound the shit out of those Red state governors and their minions - it will help us with our objective of taking down the GOP regimes in NC, FL and TX - to add to our victory in VA this coming Tuesday!

I love setting up nasty stupid people, which reminds me to return you to your usual perspective, Mr. Shit Sandwich -



- you're so cute! And, your next meal is on its way!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or, in more condensed form:

Drat! It's one of "those meddling kids" again!

Don't worry Mr. Playwrite(aka Dr. Claw), I'll defend you!


You Randian-nightmare idiots are just so typical
(or are you one of those Tea Klux Klan-bagging,
Libertarian Xer, Anarchists? Eh? I forget. )

Anyway, you all and your damn 'logic' and 'observational skills'
are gonna be sorry once you see how awesome Mr. Playwrite is.
He's always right. You'll see; You'll see. You'll see..........!


Prince(uh, I mean M.A.D. Cat).

PS: See, Mr. Playwrite? I got your back!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, you got some things half right which should be expected from someone with less than half a brain - in fact, you're playing above your potential; two thumbs up for you!

Cool. Thanks!
(Considering that I am very concerned with what you think of me. )

Originally Posted by PW

Yes, the ACA sets minimums. And if a policy doesn't meet those minimums, it is junk. And yes, those are the policies that are being replaced as the ACA rolls out. I think this person has it about right -

http://articles.courant.com/2013-10-...ance-companies

OK. So, Pam Bergren from East Hartford CT(whoever the hell that is)
doesn't like some dude named Jonah Goldberg(whoever the hell that is).

Originally Posted by PW

What you're obviously clueless about is an insurer can still offer more than what is minimally required by the ACA. The insurer can offer policies outside of the healthcare exchanges (that should be obvious since most of the insurers' business is outside of the health exchanges).

Wow! Really?

Originally Posted by PW

Here's the part that might be a little too taxing for your brain - the insurer can also continue to offer substandard insurance (i.e. doesn't meet the ACA minimums) outside the exchanges as long as it offers no policies inside the exchanges - if they offer policies both within and outside, it is considered one risk pool and has to meet the same minimums.

Huh. Are you sure? This Oct. 15th NYT Article from someone named Ann Carrns
says this:

Originally Posted by Article

...In general, health policies effective Jan. 1, whether sold on the exchanges or off, must comply with the Affordable Care Act. That means they have to offer the same menu of essential benefits, like drug coverage and maternity care, and can’t deny you coverage if you’re already sick. And, insurers who sell policies both on and off the exchanges must sell the same plan for the same price....

She does say "in general", so....
I guess I'll have to go to The actual ACA and find out when I get a chance.

What say you?

Originally Posted by PW

There are some insurers, even some big ones (e.g. AETNA, but for different reasons) that stayed out of the exchanges - dumb asses, like you for instance, can still go buy their cheap ass insurance from them - you just won't qualify for any subsidy and even less people will give a shit when you need that insurance for a claim and it tells you to go F yourself.

Yup. That's me...currently. We'll see, though.
I may have to opt-out and just pay the "tax".

Originally Posted by PF

We expect minimum standards on the cars we drive because substandard cars not only kill their passengers but can kill others as well. We accept standards for water supplies and food because cholera, typhoid and other epidemics don't just kill the stupid people that drink bad water or eat bad food.

Why should we not accept minimum standards for health insurance as well. Sick/injured people showing up at emergency rooms uninsured drive up medical costs and insurance premiums for all the rest of us. Moreover, not seeking proper medical care, particularly for children and vaccinations and other preventative care, because of a lack of financial resources, puts my kids at risks as well as the kids of dumb asses such as yourself. Which reminds me, have you've gotten that feline distemper shot yet?

I may get back to this in the future.

Oh, look! You added stuff!
You guys just type and type and type and type, don't you?

Originally Posted by PW

Another consideration I posted earlier and you may have missed is that the actual rates on any offered insurance (in the exchanges or out) are subject to each state's insurance commission set-up. Do ya think that some of those in fire-breathing ACA-hating Red states may have set those rates a little higher to cause some heartburn? It will be interesting when the rebate checks come in because those insurers' overestimated premiums were blessed by the State's GOP knuckle-draggers but eventually those insurers get caught by the Medical Lost Ratio - we smart Progressives are going to jump on that next October and pound the shit out of those Red state governors and their minions - it will help us with our objective of taking down the GOP regimes in NC, FL and TX - to add to our victory in VA this coming Tuesday!

You had to start with the political-BS, didn't you?
Eh? What else should I expect from just another
"Quasi-Political/Macro-Economic Sycophant/Wannabe"?* !


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by PW

I love setting up nasty stupid people, which reminds me to return you to your usual perspective, Mr. Shit Sandwich -

<snipped 'toilet cat' photo, but only so I could get my 4 smileys in>


- you're so cute! And, your next meal is on its way!

See? Now that's kinda sorta funny. Kinda. Eh?
OK. "Toilet Cat" at least sounds funny.
---------------
* A proven liar !

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Drat! It's one of "those meddling kids" again!

Don't worry Mr. Playwrite(aka Dr. Claw), I'll defend you!


You Randian-nightmare idiots are just so typical
(or are you one of those Tea Klux Klan-bagging,
Libertarian Xer, Anarchists? Eh? I forget. )

Anyway, you all and your damn 'logic' and 'observational skills'
are gonna be sorry once you see how awesome Mr. Playwrite is.
He's always right. You'll see; You'll see. You'll see..........!


Prince(uh, I mean M.A.D. Cat).

PS: See, Mr. Playwrite? I got your back!

Interesting how each of you handle having your flawed world views crumble under facts and logic.

Have you every considered the possibility of changing your proven moronic viewpoint instead of falling back on some further attempt at juvenile humor? It might not actually make your life easier but at least you'd have a better understanding of it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's a really fucking good point.
We older, financially secure types should stop complaining.

You all have really bought into that meme for the need for the 'invincibles.' What will be interesting a year from now is how you knew it all along that it was just a ploy.

It truly is amazing how little thinking is actually done as opposed to just the spreading of memes. I guess every society needs it sheeple.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Obamacare lacks key cost control: Mayo Clinic CEO

Once again, we get the perspective of someone fully insured. You do have a role here.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

(Considering that I am very concerned with what you think of me. )

You make it pretty apparent that you do.

All I can gather from the rest of what you wrote is you either need to do a lot more research and independent thinking or just slip back into your role as another one of the sheeple waiting for the next meme to pass along.

Given your stated preference for shit sandwiches, it's not hard to guess your choice.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Once again, we get the perspective of someone fully insured. You do have a role here.

Just wait until she really needs serious medical services. Once the nursing staff finds out that you are/were an MD, P.N.G. status rapidly follows. For those who show thier true personalities on the internet, it happens faster. Nothing strips off the veneer faster than being ill; you can't hide who and what you really are. See the TV Topes piece on "Who You Are In The Dark".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ouAreInTheDark

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's a really fucking good point.
We older, financially secure types should stop complaining.

Hey! Why don't you switch sides and we can work together?
"Team Friendly; World Providers!^TM"! Woo-hoo!

BTW, those "young invincibles" are really who they want(ie: need).
But, keep in mind, they only need their $$$. They definitely don't
want them actually using the insurance on actual health "care".
(In fact, they're counting on it.)

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think you can do a better Colbert impression than that.
In fact, I'm looking forward to it. (too many smilies in this message to add another)

Colbert impression? I actually never watch him.
(I know. I'm probably totally missing out).
[Note: FWIW, I really don't watch very much TV at all.
(I'm usually too busy working.*)]

BTW, feel free to snip my smileys at your discretion.


Prince

PS:

Financially secure? Me?
Heh. Yeah right.
------------
* contemplating my next tattoo and/or body-piercing!