Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are two ways to look at health care. One is it is an economic good, like a car or a house, available to those who can pay for it.

The other is it is an entitlement like food or K-12 education for children.

Conservatives fall into the first camp. They oppose any sort of public provision of healthcare as immoral.

Suppose an ingenious analyst found a less heinous-looking way to torture people? Would this mollify those who oppose torture as an immoral act?

I put healthcare in the same camp as public safety, which it is to some extent. I doubt many believe that everyone should have their own private police or fire service, yet we're expected to have our own medical response. To that extent, I might be more in-line with the British NHS.

This is really good news for the ACA, and it's very interesting to look through the S&H lens of Millies being risk-averse in this case. I've never been a huge fan of the individual mandate due to the extra burden it was going to place on young people who don't make a lot of money. I would have like to seen higher taxes on the rich to indemnify against any possible death spirals. But if Millies are really this onboard with spending more to get more comprehensive health insurance (even if they don't use it to its fullest extent) then I may have to eat some crow. The aprt I'm quoting here is particularly impeccable.

SCOTUS could still throw a bad wrench in this, though...

http://time.com/money/3614626/millen...gh-deductible/

Why Millennials Hate Their Least Expensive Health Care Option

Kara Brandeisky @karabrandeisky
Dec. 8, 2014

Why are millennials choosing to pay more for health care? Turns out the “young invincibles” don’t feel so invincible after all, says Christina Postolowski, health policy manager at a youth advocacy group called—as it happens—Young Invincibles. “Millennials are risk-averse and concerned about their out-of-pocket costs if something happens to them,” Postolowski says.


High-deductible plans saddle young adults with risk they can ill afford. According to Kaiser, the average employer-sponsored high-deductible plan made singles pay $2,215 out-of-pocket in 2014 before they ever saw a co-pay.


Yet according to Bankrate, 27% of 18-to-29-year-olds have no emergency savings. A $2,200 bill could sink them. Indeed, Bankrate found that the two groups most likely to prefer a low-deductible plan are millennials and those with incomes between $30,000 and $49,999.


“Young people don’t have money in a bank account to pay for high deductibles,” Postolowski says. “Our generation is carrying $1.2 trillion in student loan debt. An unexpected medical incident isn’t just physical pain. It can be economic pain too.”


That’s why Bankrate’s Whiteman thinks millennials are being “really smart.”


“One of the concerns I have is too many people might only look at the price and neglect the fact that some of these plans that seem really cheap can come with deductibles as high at $6,000,” he says. “That’s a significant amount of money out of your own pocket.”

Originally Posted by Bronco80

This is really good news for the ACA, and it's very interesting to look through the S&H lens of Millies being risk-averse in this case. I've never been a huge fan of the individual mandate due to the extra burden it was going to place on young people who don't make a lot of money. I would have like to seen higher taxes on the rich to indemnify against any possible death spirals. But if Millies are really this onboard with spending more to get more comprehensive health insurance (even if they don't use it to its fullest extent) then I may have to eat some crow. The aprt I'm quoting here is particularly impeccable.

I like this post. I now have a whole new set of avian awards to pass out, starting here.


* eat crow award for Bronco80




Of course Eric is our champion bird collector, so time will tell how many crows Eric will eat in the future.

I'll collect that bird with honor if this comes to pass, no worries there. Pride is something I really don't care for. But let's hold off on it until we see if SCOTUS screws things up in the coming months. Then we'll have to see if Millies can deal with the premium sticker shocks.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are two ways to look at health care. One is it is an economic good, like a car or a house, available to those who can pay for it.

The other is it is an entitlement like food or K-12 education for children.

Conservatives fall into the first camp. They oppose any sort of public provision of healthcare as immoral.

Suppose an ingenious analyst found a less heinous-looking way to torture people? Would this mollify those who oppose torture as an immoral act?

Of course, 'today's conservatives' have one big exception to that -



- that's due to the vast majority of 'today's conservatives' being dumb as bricks and easily led around by the nose by the financial elites.

Here's an update on reality of the ACA at an important milestone point in its 2nd year -



One key thing to notice on this graph is that the much longer 2014 sign-up period's timescale has been compressed.

What the graph shows is the 2015 numbers are going to far surpass those of 2014 and done so in a much more efficient manner. You may have notice hardly a peep on the subject - the critics don't want to bring attention to the ACA's increasing success and the supporters just want this to fade back into the background of everyday life until it is as much a given as SS and Medicare.

Also here is the graph for the estimated 12 million ACA-enabled Medicaid sign-ups -





Now, if we can just make sure a significant number of those 24 million or so get out to vote! That could be pretty easy if the SCOTUS takes health care away from them and their children.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

But if Millies are really this onboard with spending more to get more comprehensive health insurance (even if they don't use it to its fullest extent) then I may have to eat some crow. The aprt I'm quoting here is particularly impeccable.

I can maybe provide some insight here since I've been shopping for insurance for six years now.

Remember those godawful catastrophic plans that don't kick in a penny until you're several grand in the hole? I used to have one of those with BCBS - when it cost $70 a month.

That same BCBS plan, today, comes with a "bronze" label and costs about $300 per month per person, and it leaves a family of two with a maximum ind/family liability of $7,500/$12,500 on top of the $7,000 paid out in premiums. It's got a better provider and specialist network than the "better" silver plans - it just won't cover a penny until you've seen them each a dozen times. Seems like most people my age would be better off with the seven grand and a bankruptcy lawyer on speed dial.

Of course, the silver and gold plans that cost $250-350 per month per person still leave you with a similar potential liability, there's just a bigger chance that some costs will be covered before you're entirely bedridden and unemployed in the ER. So that starts to look like a better alternative to the bronze tier plans, especially since some of the silver plans actually have lower premiums.

But the story remains the same: we keep kicking money to the insurance companies and Medicare - thousands every year! - but we can't afford to get sick.

Anyway, it's a pretty stupid system. It's a "compromise" that only makes self-described Democrats of the moderate variety happy. It costs votes from independents, it rallies the right-wing to the polls, and it dampens enthusiasm among the actual progressives and liberals on the left.

You might think the insurance companies were happy with the success of their lobbying efforts, but like any spoiled child they are not content with what they have, they are only concerned with what else they could have in addition to that. The GOP has proven more than willing to take up that demand for even more profits.

In all, this is probably the greatest political miscalculation of my lifetime. Democrats should have been expecting a triumphant demographic destiny, but they traded it for some insurance company campaign contributions that never really materialized.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

This is really good news for the ACA, and it's very interesting to look through the S&H lens of Millies being risk-averse in this case. I've never been a huge fan of the individual mandate due to the extra burden it was going to place on young people who don't make a lot of money. I would have like to seen higher taxes on the rich to indemnify against any possible death spirals. But if Millies are really this onboard with spending more to get more comprehensive health insurance (even if they don't use it to its fullest extent) then I may have to eat some crow. The aprt I'm quoting here is particularly impeccable.

SCOTUS could still throw a bad wrench in this, though...

http://time.com/money/3614626/millen...gh-deductible/

Why Millennials Hate Their Least Expensive Health Care Option

Kara Brandeisky @karabrandeisky
Dec. 8, 2014

What's missing here is given the likely low incomes of most Millies in their 20s, under the ACA their monthly premiums are probable less than the cost of a dinner and a movie; for many, they are paying nothing. Why not bump up to a Silver or even a Gold plan with less co-pays and deductible if the differential in premium is the cost of a 6-pack? Unlike many of their elders, Millies have generally not been made dumb by idiotic ideology.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's missing here is given the likely low incomes of most Millies in their 20s, under the ACA their monthly premiums are probable less than the cost of a dinner and a movie; for many, they are paying nothing. Why not bump up to a Silver or even a Gold plan with less co-pays and deductible if the differential in premium is the cost of a 6-pack? Unlike many of their elders, Millies have generally not been made dumb by idiotic ideology.

Or, if you have to shell out the equivalent of a new car payment each month, you might as well spend the extra $50 for a model with a seatbelt.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I can maybe provide some insight here since I've been shopping for insurance for six years now.

Remember those godawful catastrophic plans that don't kick in a penny until you're several grand in the hole? I used to have one of those with BCBS - when it cost $70 a month.

That same BCBS plan, today, comes with a "bronze" label and costs about $300 per month per person, and it leaves a family of two with a maximum ind/family liability of $7,500/$12,500 on top of the $7,000 paid out in premiums. It's got a better provider and specialist network than the "better" silver plans - it just won't cover a penny until you've seen them each a dozen times. Seems like most people my age would be better off with the seven grand and a bankruptcy lawyer on speed dial.

Of course, the silver and gold plans that cost $250-350 per month per person still leave you with a similar potential liability, there's just a bigger chance that some costs will be covered before you're entirely bedridden and unemployed in the ER. So that starts to look like a better alternative to the bronze tier plans, especially since some of the silver plans actually have lower premiums.

But the story remains the same: we keep kicking money to the insurance companies and Medicare - thousands every year! - but we can't afford to get sick.

Anyway, it's a pretty stupid system. It's a "compromise" that only makes self-described Democrats of the moderate variety happy. It costs votes from independents, it rallies the right-wing to the polls, and it dampens enthusiasm among the actual progressives and liberals on the left.

You might think the insurance companies were happy with the success of their lobbying efforts, but like any spoiled child they are not content with what they have, they are only concerned with what else they could have in addition to that. The GOP has proven more than willing to take up that demand for even more profits.

In all, this is probably the greatest political miscalculation of my lifetime. Democrats should have been expecting a triumphant demographic destiny, but they traded it for some insurance company campaign contributions that never really materialized.

I have noticed that the same people who yell about how awesome the ACA is are also the same people who think not giving Hillary a coronation is tantamount to treason.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I can maybe provide some insight here since I've been shopping for insurance for six years now.

Remember those godawful catastrophic plans that don't kick in a penny until you're several grand in the hole? I used to have one of those with BCBS - when it cost $70 a month.

That same BCBS plan, today, comes with a "bronze" label and costs about $300 per month per person, and it leaves a family of two with a maximum ind/family liability of $7,500/$12,500 on top of the $7,000 paid out in premiums. It's got a better provider and specialist network than the "better" silver plans - it just won't cover a penny until you've seen them each a dozen times. Seems like most people my age would be better off with the seven grand and a bankruptcy lawyer on speed dial.

Of course, the silver and gold plans that cost $250-350 per month per person still leave you with a similar potential liability, there's just a bigger chance that some costs will be covered before you're entirely bedridden and unemployed in the ER. So that starts to look like a better alternative to the bronze tier plans, especially since some of the silver plans actually have lower premiums.

But the story remains the same: we keep kicking money to the insurance companies and Medicare - thousands every year! - but we can't afford to get sick.

Anyway, it's a pretty stupid system. It's a "compromise" that only makes self-described Democrats of the moderate variety happy. It costs votes from independents, it rallies the right-wing to the polls, and it dampens enthusiasm among the actual progressives and liberals on the left.

You might think the insurance companies were happy with the success of their lobbying efforts, but like any spoiled child they are not content with what they have, they are only concerned with what else they could have in addition to that. The GOP has proven more than willing to take up that demand for even more profits.

In all, this is probably the greatest political miscalculation of my lifetime. Democrats should have been expecting a triumphant demographic destiny, but they traded it for some insurance company campaign contributions that never really materialized.

There is no rational comparison between a pre-ACA catastrophic plan and a Bronze Plan. That's not to say a catastrophic plan might not be ideal for some people (young unmarried males without any health concerns). However, anyone suggesting that there is a comparison should be discounted pretty quickly as being credible on anything to do with health insurance.

At 60% Bronze Plan coverage, reaching the OPP max would mean you've had $32,000 in medical cost. That likely means you got something serious going on (pregnancy-related, car accident, heart disease, cancer) and likely your costs are not going to stop on the dime when it reaches your OPP, and from there everything is covered 100%. At the more popular Silver Plan level, you would be suffering from $42,000 in health care costs to use that same OPP max. Can you imagine what you and your family would be going through financially without insurance - exactly at the point that emotionally would be less able to handle the stress?

I find people who offer non-ideologically-driven critiques of the ACA have two basic confusions. First, they lump all the harsh realities of having potential major health problem into a bucket called "health insurance" - sorry, but there is no magic or at least no cheap painless cures or complete assurances (did you know that we all eventually die - yea, I know, just shocking). Second, they somehow imagine that something better than the ACA is remotely, politically possible for the foreseeable future - that is about as possible as escaping death - yea, I know, also so very shocking. Can we move on now?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Or, if you have to shell out the equivalent of a new car payment each month, you might as well spend the extra $50 for a model with a seatbelt.

The point was that most Millies are paying little or nothing for good insurance coverage - far from what they would have to shell out on car payments with or without seat belts. Having a spat of reading comprehension problems?

Originally Posted by Odin

I have noticed that the same people who yell about how awesome the ACA is are also the same people who think not giving Hillary a coronation is tantamount to treason.

And I have notice that people who stay home and not vote for this kind of reason spend the next 4-8 years whining about the guy who did get elected.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And I have notice that people who stay home and not vote for this kind of reason spend the next 4-8 years whining about the guy who did get elected.

And insulting people who are sick of voting for the lesser evil is not going to get them to vote.

Originally Posted by Odin

And insulting people who are sick of voting for the lesser evil is not going to get them to vote.

And insulting people who remain wise enough to vote for the lesser evil is not going to stop them from thinking those who choose not to vote are sheeple too easily manipulated by the elites.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is no rational comparison between a pre-ACA catastrophic plan and a Bronze Plan. That's not to say a catastrophic plan might not be ideal for some people (young males without any health concerns). However, anyone suggesting that there is a comparison should be discounted pretty quickly as being credible on anything to do with health insurance.

Oh, it certainly isn't the same. The new one includes mandatory birth control, pediatric dental, and pediatric vision benefits. They're both provided by BCBS, and otherwise WellPoint wrote the bill to force their competitors to a similar standard to what they were already offering.

At 60% Bronze Plan coverage, reaching the OPP max would mean you've had $32,000 in medical cost. That likely means you got something serious going on (pregnancy-related, car accident, heart disease, cancer) and likely your costs are not going to stop on the dime when it reaches your OPP, and from there everything is covered 100%. At the more popular Silver Plan level, you would be suffering from $42,000 in health care costs to use that same OPP max. Can you imagine what you and your family would be going through financially without insurance - exactly at the point that emotionally would be less able to handle the stress?

60% is an average for the provider's plans in that class, based on a variety of theoretical situations. The individual plans are structured in various ways and there are certainly Bronze-level plans that pay out zero until you hit that OOP-max of up to $12,500 per family. These are the "cut rate" plans offered by providers with horrible reputations and shady medical networks, and they're like $200 a month for someone my age.

I find people who offer non-ideologically-driven critiques of the ACA have two basic confusions. First, they lump all the harsh realities of having potential major health problem into a bucket called "health insurance" - sorry, but there is no magic or at least no cheap painless cures or complete assurances (did you know that we all eventually die - yea, I know, just shocking). Second, they somehow imagine that something better than the ACA is remotely, politically possible for the foreseeable future - that is about as possible as escaping death - yea, I know, also so very shocking. Can we move on now?

Ok, ok, forget about all the money we're wasting. You haven't even addressed the ultimate political calculation: how many votes and seats this albatross costs the Democrats. Next time you hear a sitting Republican say some crazy thing, remember that he's still more popular than the Democrat who went to bat for Wellpoint and Citigroup.

Originally Posted by Odin

And insulting people who are sick of voting for the lesser evil is not going to get them to vote.

"Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time."

-Harry Truman

I think the quote in your signature line is extremely relevant to this conundrum, as well.

I can and will go out and continue to vote for the lesser of the evils, but it's really hard to get any kinds of grass-roots campaign efforts off the ground when you have to work off a foundation of unpopular and corrupt legislation.

When faced between lesser evil and greater evil, greater evil actually stands a chance. In some ways, it even becomes attractive.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And insulting people who remain wise enough to vote for the lesser evil is not going to stop them from thinking those who choose not to vote are sheeple too easily manipulated by the elites.

I won't vote for Hillary. I find her nearly as bad as the average GOPper, but worse in one way. Having her in office is a GOP fig-leaf they can use to do as much damage as they wish. BHO tried to be reasonable. After the first off-year election, he should have taken off the gloves, and made the issues high-contrast. Instead, he waffled, and got the blame anyway.

So what's the benefit of voting for the lesser evil, if it serves the interests of greater evil?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I think the quote in your signature line is extremely relevant to this conundrum, as well.

I can and will go out and continue to vote for the lesser of the evils, but it's really hard to get any kinds of grass-roots campaign efforts off the ground when you have to work off a foundation of unpopular and corrupt legislation.

When faced between lesser evil and greater evil, greater evil actually stands a chance. In some ways, it even becomes attractive.

This last election had the GOP running on insanity, and the Dems running on empty. Since you must offer something to win, the GOP swept the boards.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This last election had the GOP running on insanity, and the Dems running on empty. Since you must offer something to win, the GOP swept the boards.

It's true M&L, they ran lousy campaigns, but the people are responsible for knowing that they need to vote, and to vote Democratic, because of the issues about which much info has been abundantly distributed. The people are responsible for their ignorance. We get the government we deserve and create. Americans have proven themselves ignorant and irresponsible, to put it politely.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's true M&L, they ran lousy campaigns, but the people are responsible for knowing that they need to vote, and to vote Democratic, because of the issues about which much info has been abundantly distributed. The people are responsible for their ignorance. We get the government we deserve and create. Americans have proven themselves ignorant and irresponsible, to put it politely.

Here, you're completely wrong. If I come to you for support, I have the burden of showing why I deserve to be supported. The Dems seem to think and certainly portray, that they deserve support simply for not being Republicans. That's the height of arrogance.

They have no time to learn, if 2016 is the goal, or maybe 2 or 3 years to get ready for 2020. A good ass-kicking in 2014 may have done some good. If they seem to be stuck in their inglorious past by 2016, then another ass-kicking is due ... and should be administered by friends and foes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here, you're completely wrong. If I come to you for support, I have the burden of showing why I deserve to be supported. The Dems seem to think, what they certainly portray, that they deserve support simply for not being Republicans. That's the height of arrogance.

They have no time to learn, if 2016 is the goal, or maybe 2 or 3 years to get ready for 2020. A good ass-kicking in 2014 may have done some good. If they seem to be stuck in their inglorious past by 2016, then another ass-kicking is due ... and should be administered by friends and foes.

Maybe they were so arrogant, and campaigned so badly, because they assumed the people were intelligent enough to do the right thing after being informed ad nauseum for decades about just what that is. I can hardly blame them for so thinking. It is clear that the American people are stupid. They have proved that over and over again. So there's enough blame to go around. The people for being stupid, and the liberal Democrats for not realizing just what superhuman efforts are needed to educate and inspire them to do the right thing. Yes, it is a Herculean task indeed, and the liberal politicians failed to accomplish it, or to give them much confidence through their actions that they can accomplish much once in office.

It's so easy to convince the stupid Americans to vote to lower their taxes so they can have more money in their pockets right now, or to just stay home and just don't bother about such abstract things like voting. It is harder to convince complacent, stupid, parochial Americans to vote with the future and other folks in mind, even if in fact that would be better for themselves too. Indeed, that task is made even harder when Republican politicians are good and the Democratic ones are bad. And it is harder too when, through money and gerrymandering, the Republicans have already rigged the system in their favor, and harder yet when Democrats and sensible independents don't EVEN have the intelligence to see that repeal of gerrymandering state by state is needed-- and fast!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Of course Eric is our champion bird collector, so time will tell how many crows Eric will eat in the future.

Actually I eat very little crow. My observations generally prove correct, and my predictions even more so. I may not be as virtuous as some more-patient people, but I do have some good points, and my prophetic abilities stand out from the crowd.

Voting strategically is the best way to go. That means voting for the lesser of two evils when necessary, and voting for good candidates wherever possible. As long as the electoral college exists, that depends on where you live. I think it's wise to recognize that the American people are dumb. That doesn't mean politicians should campaign by calling the voters dumb. But it's wise to recognize what the wise and true ways are up against, and how much education and organization it takes even to convince a small minority of swing voters to go the right way. Especially when the dummies have all the cards: big money, gerrymandering, charismatic yahoos, and more.

If a progressive does not run and get nominated, voting for Hillary may be necessary, especially for those who care about health care reform. She will do the right things on that issue. She may even do some good things on other issues. She has a progressive side. But it's not only up to the normally dumb voters to put her in, but for bright, concerned activists to keep the pressure on her and on those in congress (assuming we ever get a good congress again). Politicians blow with the winds. Unless a progressive wind is blowing, there is ZERO hope that some smart and wise politicians will ever do the right things.

Democrats and liberals need to be smart enough to realize that just voting for a savior isn't going to work. To think that it will, is to be as dumb as those who vote Republican.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I won't vote for Hillary. I find her nearly as bad as the average GOPper, but worse in one way. Having her in office is a GOP fig-leaf they can use to do as much damage as they wish. BHO tried to be reasonable. After the first off-year election, he should have taken off the gloves, and made the issues high-contrast. Instead, he waffled, and got the blame anyway.

So what's the benefit of voting for the lesser evil, if it serves the interests of greater evil?

It depends where you live. If you live in a swing state, then progressive voters need to consider appointments to the Supreme Court, and the power of the executive to act and to block the worst damages the GOP can do.

I recommend against assuming that more damage will benefit the liberals or Democrats. More likely, our sinking, banana republic will be increasingly seen as the new normal, just as it has increasingly been ever since Reagan was put in. The right-wing ideology will be even-more entrenched than it is now, and the pundits will convince the people and their politicians of whatever party to support this status quo. Progressive winds will never be strong enough again to blow over this monolith. No, it's important to vote out Republicans whenever and wherever possible. They put up all the blocks, and the blockheads.

That is the ONLY path forward to progress. Unless and until they are out of the way, we have ZERO chance of moving up and forward from the current moderate, complicit, incompetent Democrats to real progressive leadership and citizenship. JOB ONE is GETTING RID OF REPUBLICANS. We have a long road ahead of us to accomplish this vital and absolutely necessary national goal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe they were so arrogant, and campaigned so badly, because they assumed the people were intelligent enough to do the right thing after being informed ad nauseum for decades about just what that is.

As the wit noted, ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I can hardly blame them for so thinking. It is clear that the American people are stupid. They have proved that over and over again. So there's enough blame to go around. The people for being stupid, and the liberal Democrats for not realizing just what superhuman efforts are needed to educate and inspire them to do the right thing. Yes, it is a Herculean task indeed, and the liberal politicians failed to accomplish it, or to give them much confidence through their actions that they can accomplish much once in office.

People are not stupid. They are pissed. Do you expect them to support you, if you specifically attack the source of their livelihood without offering a viable, preferably better alternative? All these rural folks make their livings doing things the EPA is trying to limit or ban outright: coal mining, ranching and dairy farming, fertilizer-based farming, fracking, the list is long. What do you expect? They will not lie down and die to save the planet - even if they think it's a risk, which most don't.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

It's so easy to convince the stupid Americans to vote to lower their taxes so they can have more money in their pockets right now, or to just stay home and just don't bother about such abstract things like voting. It is harder to convince complacent, stupid, parochial Americans to vote with the future and other folks in mind, even if in fact that would be better for themselves too. Indeed, that task is made even harder when Republican politicians are good and the Democratic ones are bad. And it is harder too when, through money and gerrymandering, the Republicans have already rigged the system in their favor, and harder yet when Democrats and sensible independents don't EVEN have the intelligence to see that repeal of gerrymandering state by state is needed-- and fast!

When you offer nothing, and try to take away something ... anything, you lose. For example, if AGW is an issue that can't be ignored, then it's up to the "takers" to find a way to make the ones having to sacrifice for the common good, fully whole. For the coal miners, well-paid jobs doing reclamation work are a good and viable option. Now, find similar options for other similarly affected rural blue-collar workers in all those other dying industries, and fight to get them funded.

Fight for them, and they'll vote for you.