• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 404 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
same boat here. i am perfectly healthy, but my family history precludes me from insurance at any price in the US. so far, in japan, singapore, hong kong and france, i have never had a problem getting top-quality, inexpensive health care. only the US seems to think it is impossible.

also, two friends of mine, one a dentist and one a doctor, both do not have health insurance for the same family reason that i have. both are healthy and at this stage in their lives extremely unlikely to become affected by their genetics. fortunately, they are wealthy enough to cover almost anything out-of-pocket.

what is insurance? it is a risk pool. if insurance companies are allowed to eliminate all of the risk, then you are just handing a company money for nothing. nice work if you can get it.
There's no way to eliminate all risk. Health insurance policies historically have been underwritten. ACA removes that. Now, healthy people will subsidize unhealthy people and we, as a society, have agreed that this is a good idea even though costs for the healthy will increase.

There are other insurance policies underwritten as well. Life insurance as an example. The healthy pay less than the unhealthy (if made an offer at all). Women pay less than men. Auto insurance is underwritten as well. Safe drivers pay less than unsafe drivers and so on.

Underwriting has always been a part of insurance. And make no mistake, adverse selection will surely occur under ACA. Still, it's a price worth paying, IMO.
 
Scott SoCal said:
There's no way to eliminate all risk. Health insurance policies historically have been underwritten. ACA removes that. Now, healthy people will subsidize unhealthy people and we, as a society, have agreed that this is a good idea even though costs for the healthy will increase.

There are other insurance policies underwritten as well. Life insurance as an example. The healthy pay less than the unhealthy (if made an offer at all). Women pay less than men. Auto insurance is underwritten as well. Safe drivers pay less than unsafe drivers and so on.

Underwriting has always been a part of insurance. And make no mistake, adverse selection will surely occur under ACA. Still, it's a price worth paying, IMO.
Though you avoid the point gregod was actually making, which is so typical of you: namely, that every other place in the world he has lived he has gotten prime healthcare, except in the US where he can't even find an insurance company to cover him.

The treating of health as just another market commodity to be speculated on in the interests of profit, like any other thing we buy, negatively distinguishes the US healthcare system from the rest of the civilized world. I believe this was gregod's point, yet you rant on about underwriting and the unavoidability of risk. It has become almost comical by now how you, Scott, can take some obvious statement and turn it into an ideological debate that makes sense only in your head about something totally irrelevant to the point that was actually made.

If this were an Olympic sport, surely you'd take the gold medal. No competition. It's a price worth paying? The insurance business obviously thinks so. And it is one of those all powerfull lobbies in America that makes any serious public healthcare reform practically an impossibility under the current regime. So just another demonstration that the democracy has been bought, it's citizenry has been hoodwinked and that the country has become one colossal business enterprize in which everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There's no way to eliminate all risk. Health insurance policies historically have been underwritten. ACA removes that. Now, healthy people will subsidize unhealthy people and we, as a society, have agreed that this is a good idea even though costs for the healthy will increase.

There are other insurance policies underwritten as well. Life insurance as an example. The healthy pay less than the unhealthy (if made an offer at all). Women pay less than men. Auto insurance is underwritten as well. Safe drivers pay less than unsafe drivers and so on.

Underwriting has always been a part of insurance. And make no mistake, adverse selection will surely occur under ACA. Still, it's a price worth paying, IMO.
that is the whole purpose of insurance
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
rhubroma said:
Though you avoid the point gregod was actually making, which is so typical of you: namely, that every other place in the world he has lived he has gotten prime healthcare, except in the US where he can't even find an insurance company to cover him.

The treating of health as just another market commodity to be speculated on in the interests of profit, like any other thing we buy, negatively distinguishes the US healthcare system from the rest of the civilized world. I believe this was gregod's point, yet you rant on about underwriting and the unavoidability of risk. It has become almost comical by now how you, Scott, can take some obvious statement and turn it into an ideological debate that makes sense only in your head about something totally irrelevant to the point that was actually made.

If this were an Olympic sport, surely you'd take the gold medal. No competition. It's a price worth paying? The insurance business obviously thinks so.
check out this link i posted earlier. it echoes this point.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
rhubroma said:
Yes, well, it is a language that has also infected education.
i think i've heard people like michelle rhee speak in these terms. i know a lot of university presidents talk like this, too. i think it is how they justify the massive increases in their salaries, staffs and budgets in the last 20 or so years.

the only people who benefit from the corporatization of public services are the CEOs; certainly not the students, patients, prisoners, driver's license applicants...
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Though you avoid the point gregod was actually making, which is so typical of you: namely, that every other place in the world he has lived he has gotten prime healthcare, except in the US where he can't even find an insurance company to cover him.

The treating of health as just another market commodity to be speculated on in the interests of profit, like any other thing we buy, negatively distinguishes the US healthcare system from the rest of the civilized world. I believe this was gregod's point, yet you rant on about underwriting and the unavoidability of risk. It has become almost comical by now how you, Scott, can take some obvious statement and turn it into an ideological debate that makes sense only in your head about something totally irrelevant to the point that was actually made.

If this were an Olympic sport, surely you'd take the gold medal. No competition. It's a price worth paying? The insurance business obviously thinks so. And it is one of those all powerfull lobbies in America that makes any serious public healthcare reform practically an impossibility under the current regime. So just another demonstration that the democracy has been bought, it's citizenry has been hoodwinked and that the country has become one colossal business enterprize in which everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.
The treating of health as just another market commodity to be speculated on in the interests of profit, like any other thing we buy, negatively distinguishes the US healthcare system from the rest of the civilized world. I believe this was gregod's point, yet you rant on about underwriting and the unavoidability of risk. It has become almost comical by now how you, Scott, can take some obvious statement and turn it into an ideological debate that makes sense only in your head about something totally irrelevant to the point that was actually made.
Rant? Where did I rant? He made a comment that I commented on. Now I can't do that either?

He made a statement that underwritten policies are like handing money to insurance companies for nothing, which was only in his comments to illicit a response.

So I responded. Deal with it.

If this were an Olympic sport, surely you'd take the gold medal. No competition. It's a price worth paying? The insurance business obviously thinks so. And it is one of those all powerfull lobbies in America that makes any serious public healthcare reform practically an impossibility under the current regime. So just another demonstration that the democracy has been bought, it's citizenry has been hoodwinked and that the country has become one colossal business enterprize in which everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.
Now that I think about it, you are right. Insurance companies should be outlawed. All of them.

If you get sick, pay for it yourself. Car crash? Pay for it. Your home burns down... Yep, just rebuild it. Die early? Well, hopefully you planned well enough that your family won't be financially devastated.

Yeah, that's a much better system. The very best part? All that unseemly, ugly profit the insurance companies make will stay in the economy.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Once underwritten, sure.
but underwriting, like usury, can go too far when it prices healthy people out of the market while generating historically large profits and historically low service.

i don't remember the specifics of the ACA's limits on this practice (if any), but there should be reasonable limits that allow everyone to be able to purchase insurance (or avoid usurious interest rates).

side note and off topic: i believe the bible says that charging interest of any kind is usury and is punishable by death.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
but underwriting, like usury, can go too far when it prices healthy people out of the market while generating historically large profits and historically low service.

i don't remember the specifics of the ACA's limits on this practice (if any), but there should be reasonable limits that allow everyone to be able to purchase insurance (or avoid usurious interest rates).

side note and off topic: i believe the bible says that charging interest of any kind is usury and is punishable by death.
Insurance will only be unaffordable to the healthy when the amount of money paid in claims exceeds the amount of money received in premium. The most likely scenario to cause this is to insure people known to be unhealthy. Now, I agree that unhealthy people need to be able to receive quality care that's affordable and I have no problem subsidizing and we will have a system shortly that allows for this. There's a price for this and we are going to find out very soon whether it prices healthy people out of the insurance market.

I'm not sure what you consider historically large profits to be, but health insurers operate at about 3-5% of written premium. Consider that health insurers must designate a chunk of this for potential catastrophic occurrences and you wind up with a margin that doesn't meet most definitions of the word "large."

Additionally, if society believes that underwriting for health insurance isn't fair then couldn't the same argument be made for all other forms of underwritten insurance? Life, as an example. Is it really fair that life insurers can disqualify someone because they have had a recent cancer diagnosis?
 
Scott SoCal said:
Rant? Where did I rant? He made a comment that I commented on. Now I can't do that either?

He made a statement that underwritten policies are like handing money to insurance companies for nothing, which was only in his comments to illicit a response.

So I responded. Deal with it.



Now that I think about it, you are right. Insurance companies should be outlawed. All of them.

If you get sick, pay for it yourself. Car crash? Pay for it. Your home burns down... Yep, just rebuild it. Die early? Well, hopefully you planned well enough that your family won't be financially devastated.

Yeah, that's a much better system. The very best part? All that unseemly, ugly profit the insurance companies make will stay in the economy.
Our terrible misfortune has long since lost his sensational aspect, I thought, and the living proof of this is written on the screen in front of me.

At any rate insurance has a useful purpose in providing pecuniary compensation and subsidies for damages incurred to oneself or one's property by the fault of others, or through natural calamities of which the public has little, if any, role in making amends. The rest of civilization, however, doesn't place healthcare within these categories (as stuff can happen through nobody's fault) and views the public as being the necessary agent in making sure all citizens receive treatments irrespective of economic status. It consequently places a limited role of the market in something so fundamental to existence, as a matter of principle (since markets consider profit first before humanity) according to the logic of progressivism; and thus treats healthcare as a right, like that to a fair trial, and not something strictly to be bargained for as in the US. Besides you simply can’t have the only healthcare option being a private one, which by its very nature is exclusive and the results are plain to see.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There's no way to eliminate all risk. Health insurance policies historically have been underwritten. ACA removes that. Now, healthy people will subsidize unhealthy people and we, as a society, have agreed that this is a good idea even though costs for the healthy will increase.

There are other insurance policies underwritten as well. Life insurance as an example. The healthy pay less than the unhealthy (if made an offer at all). Women pay less than men. Auto insurance is underwritten as well. Safe drivers pay less than unsafe drivers and so on.

Underwriting has always been a part of insurance. And make no mistake, adverse selection will surely occur under ACA. Still, it's a price worth paying, IMO.
Group policies remove that. This isn't a new idea.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Insurance will only be unaffordable to the healthy when the amount of money paid in claims exceeds the amount of money received in premium. The most likely scenario to cause this is to insure people known to be unhealthy. Now, I agree that unhealthy people need to be able to receive quality care that's affordable and I have no problem subsidizing and we will have a system shortly that allows for this. There's a price for this and we are going to find out very soon whether it prices healthy people out of the insurance market.

I'm not sure what you consider historically large profits to be, but health insurers operate at about 3-5% of written premium. Consider that health insurers must designate a chunk of this for potential catastrophic occurrences and you wind up with a margin that doesn't meet most definitions of the word "large."

Additionally, if society believes that underwriting for health insurance isn't fair then couldn't the same argument be made for all other forms of underwritten insurance? Life, as an example. Is it really fair that life insurers can disqualify someone because they have had a recent cancer diagnosis?
Spurious argument. The difference between what it costs society for so many people to be uninsured, and the cost of burying someone isn't even close. These are two completely different issues.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Proving yet again that Issa is full of ****.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/18/breaking-full-house-committee-transcripts-shed-new-light-on-genesis-of-irs-targeting/

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have just released a full transcript of testimony from a key witness in the investigation of IRS targeting of conservatives — and it appears to confirm that the initial targeting did originate with a low-level employee in the Cincinnati office.

It also shows a key witness and IRS screening manager – a self described conservative Republican — denying any communication with the White House or senior IRS officials about the targeting.
Little wonder ol' Darryl only wanted to release select portions of the transcripts.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Insurance will only be unaffordable to the healthy when the amount of money paid in claims exceeds the amount of money received in premium. The most likely scenario to cause this is to insure people known to be unhealthy. Now, I agree that unhealthy people need to be able to receive quality care that's affordable and I have no problem subsidizing and we will have a system shortly that allows for this. There's a price for this and we are going to find out very soon whether it prices healthy people out of the insurance market.

I'm not sure what you consider historically large profits to be, but health insurers operate at about 3-5% of written premium. Consider that health insurers must designate a chunk of this for potential catastrophic occurrences and you wind up with a margin that doesn't meet most definitions of the word "large."

Additionally, if society believes that underwriting for health insurance isn't fair then couldn't the same argument be made for all other forms of underwritten insurance? Life, as an example. Is it really fair that life insurers can disqualify someone because they have had a recent cancer diagnosis?
I got an extra $250,000 in life insurance, no questions asked, during chemo. for lung cancer, no less :D is this a great country or what?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Spurious argument. The difference between what it costs society for so many people to be uninsured, and the cost of burying someone isn't even close. These are two completely different issues.
Different yes. Completely different, no.

In nearly a quarter of the cases, where a spouse dies and there are children in the home, the surviving spouse is in bankruptcy within 15 months and if you project out to 24 months it's closer to 40% (much more at stake than the cost of burial).

So there is a cost. AFDC, WIC picks up the slack. I'm not arguing it to be the same scope, but the principles are similar.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
patricknd said:
I got an extra $250,000 in life insurance, no questions asked, during chemo. for lung cancer, no less :D is this a great country or what?
You are the exception.

I hope you've recovered well.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Proving yet again that Issa is full of ****.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/18/breaking-full-house-committee-transcripts-shed-new-light-on-genesis-of-irs-targeting/

Little wonder ol' Darryl only wanted to release select portions of the transcripts.
No, just you.

Issa:

“I am deeply disappointed that ranking member Cummings has decided to broadly disseminate and post online a 205-page transcript that will serve as a road map for IRS officials to navigate investigative interviews with Congress,” Issa said in a statement
Yep. Telegraph the format and there's less chance of surprises.

Cummings admits that Washington played a role in the scandal but in a letter to Issa today, he said it’s time to put to rest “accusations of a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to target the president’s political enemies.”
Yet Cummings himself said, not even a week ago:

Rep. Elijah Cummings is backing away from his assertion that the investigation into the IRS scandal is “solved” and says he still wants to work with Republicans on the probe.

In a brief interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, Cummings said that he was trying to argue that — contrary to some GOP comments — the investigation has proven the Obama administration didn’t order the IRS to target conservative groups applying for a tax exemption

“The witch hunt needs to end,” said Cummings, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “What I meant was the witch hunt.”

Cummings said the investigation isn’t over and he’s open to interviewing additional Cincinnati-based IRS employees and holding more hearings on the scandal.

The controversy started on Sunday when he told CNN’s Candy Crowley “the case is solved and if it were up to me, I would wrap this case up and move on.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/elijah-cummings-clarifies-irs-case-not-solved-92689.html

Uh Huh. Yep, if I were Cummings I'd want to move on too.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Well, well, well.

"We were startled because we know that employers were concerned about the Affordable Care Act and the effects it would have on their business, but we didn't realize the extent they were concerned, or that the businesses were being proactive to make sure the effects of the ACA actually were minimized," said attorney Steven Friedman of Littler Mendelson. His firm, which specializes in employment law, commissioned the Gallup poll.


"If the small businesses' fears are reasonable, then it could mean that the small business sector grows slower than what economic conditions otherwise would indicate. And small businesses have been a growth engine in the economy," Friedman told CNBC.


Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782


Yet while private companies are getting all this unwelcome and hostile attention, local governments across the country have been quietly doing exactly the same thing — cutting part-time hours specifically so they can skirt ObamaCare's costly employer mandate, while complaining about the law in some of the harshest terms anyone has uttered in public

The result is that part-time government workers — many of them low-income — face pay cuts that can top $3,000 a year, and yet will still be left without employer-provided benefits.
http://news.investors.com/061913-660419-local-governments-cut-hours-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate.htm
 
Scott SoCal said:
Bill Ayers: Try Obama for War Crimes

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/18/bill_ayers_obama_should_be_put_on_trial_for_war_crimes.html

Wow. A domestic terrorist calling for Obama to be tried for war crimes.

What a warped POS.
A little bit anachronistic on your part. If anything he's trying to be consistent (although he hasn't been). Ayers never hurt anyone; there was a time before the current era of mediocrity and complacency when low level property damage on a controlled scale went by other names than just terrorism.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
And it will be implemented, reaction will normalize, and all those who are not hiring will, and we will move on. That's the way these things work. All the "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling" doesn't mean the sky is falling.
All this is true.

This, too, is true... Obamacare has hurt the economic recovery (and continues to do so).
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
A little bit anachronistic on your part. If anything he's trying to be consistent (although he hasn't been). Ayers never hurt anyone; there was a time before the current era of mediocrity and complacency when low level property damage on a controlled scale went by other names than just terrorism.
I just hate it when you force me to quote wiki:


After the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970, in which Weatherman member Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton were killed when a nail bomb being assembled in the house exploded, Ayers and several associates evaded pursuit by US law enforcement officials. Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson survived the blast. Ayers was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him.[4] Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days. Ayers writes:


Although the bomb that rocked the Pentagon was itsy-bitsy - weighing close to two pounds - it caused 'tens of thousands of dollars' of damage. The operation cost under $500, and no one was killed or even hurt.[18]

During this time Ayers and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn married, and the two remained fugitives together, changing identities, jobs and locations.
eh, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.:rolleyes:

Yeah, he may not of hurt anyone (by the grace of God) but blowing up empty buildings is generally frowned upon.

At any rate, I don't see where that sack of **** has the moral authority to suggest Obama should be tried for war crimes.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I just hate it when you force me to quote wiki:




eh, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.:rolleyes:

Yeah, he may not of hurt anyone (by the grace of God) but blowing up empty buildings is generally frowned upon.

At any rate, I don't see where that sack of **** has the moral authority to suggest Obama should be tried for war crimes.
I wouldn't call it freedom fighting. You'll recall there were issues other than freedom on the table back then?

As to quoting wiki I missed the part where Ayers hurt someone or that the scale got out of hand.

Only by the people who own the buildings. It has quite a long history in oppositional politics.

He doesn't have moral authority, he has a media platform. But the upshot of this seems to be that if at anytime someone has done something you find morally, socially and politically objectionable then they abdicate all rights to civic opinion?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts