Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by walrus View Post
    I'm not advocating for anything, I believe ACA is a joke, set up by lobbyists to make money for their masters.
    Is there anything you won't complain about?

    "Hey! You call this slop? Real slop has got chunks of things in it! This is more like gruel! And this Ch√Ęteau le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are? Animals?"

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post

    I think it's hilarious your advocating for employers to provide health insurance and then blaming Obamacare when they don't. They've always had a choice and it's always been cost prohibitive. I've worked for smaller companies my whole career and the number one thing the owners have complained about is Health Care expenses. This crap has been going on then for over 22 years.
    I'm not advocating for anything, I believe ACA is a joke, set up by lobbyists to make money for their masters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    Here's a more accurate representation of what McDonald's is offering it's restaurant workers for health care.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olUsgn-Ubh0
    But they do offer some helpful budgeting advice

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    well, they did in pre-PPACA days, you know. McDonalds offered a "mini-med" plan to its employees, for example, a plan that covered 30,000 people in their restaurants. Many other companies did as well (hence the hundreds of waivers in 2011). The geniuses who wrote PPACA didn't even know mini-med plans existed, and inadvertantly made them all illegal through their ignorance. Tens of thousands of people lost / are losing coverage that way.



    read more: http://heartland.org/policy-document...macare-waivers


    In 2014, tens of thousands more people are losing existing coverage because of PPACA mandates. So people used to have perfectly viable coverage and PPACA requires that coverage to be cancelled because some other genius who looked up a few articles on the internet thinks he knows better than trained professionals with advanced degrees?
    Here's a more accurate representation of what McDonald's is offering it's restaurant workers for health care.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olUsgn-Ubh0

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    It's one thing to just say everyone should be insured so that we don't have to listen to the heartbreaking sob story of some old lady who died from a preventable disease due to the lack of health insurance/care. But it is an economic fact that the more insurance that exists, the more demand/use of the insured services will occur (think automatic windshield replacement for cracked windshields). That increased demand can only increase costs.
    Problem is healthcare is an industry where early diagnosis of problems brings down costs. So for example, somebody kicks up a rock on the highway and it puts a crack in your windshield. Whether you get it replaced then, or wait three months as the crack gets bigger, the cost isn't going to change. You're still replacing a windshield. However, if you have cancer, catching it earlier has the potential to save a lot of problems as opposed to waiting longer to get treated.

    Having insurance increases the likelihood that you go to the doctor regularly.

    Where I agree though is on procedures. As I've mentioned before, I went to the dentist this year for the regular cleaning and the guy took 5 X-rays of my mouth. I've got a big mouth, but its not that big. After finding out that insurance wouldn't cover all that, he charged me for two. THIS is the kind of cost control we need to get a handle on, and something the PPA does encourage.

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Clarkson still sucks at trolling, too.
    Sometimes you need to inject (attempted) humor when the temperature in the room gets too hot.

    And I don't think we're a 12th place team, just as I don't think you're a 1st place team.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Wrong Flaggy. You may say "oh, just give me insurance that covers if I get hit by a bus". Problem is, if you don't get hit by a bus but are seriously injured in another way, say you've been getting weird with kitchen utensils again, and don't have insurance coverage unless you get hit by a bus, guess who pays for that? The rest of us. That's why these plans aren't allowed to continue. The concept of "shared risk" seems to be lost on you, much like the concept of "the guy leading in every independent poll on election eve will most likely win the election" was last November.

    PS - Does your website include the subsidies or did you conveniently leave that part out?
    Here is the thing about insurance that I think people forget. And that's the impact that the existence of insurance has on whether the product/service is purchased. I just raise this from my own experience.

    About 10 years ago we had a hail storm that moved through the town where I lived. I remember that all the insurance companies sent teams of people to town to inspect property, primarily the roofs of homes, and automobiles.

    My roof was inspected, and it was determined that there really wasn't enough damage to justify a claim. In other words, the insurance company wasn't going to write me a check, and I in turn wasn't going to pay a roofing company to come out and put new shingles on my roof. Now, if the insurance company had paid, I would have certainly put the new roof on. But it didn't, and the old roof remained.

    I don't have dental insurance. I pay for everything out of my own pocket. That fact has impacted what procedures I have had performed.

    It's one thing to just say everyone should be insured so that we don't have to listen to the heartbreaking sob story of some old lady who died from a preventable disease due to the lack of health insurance/care. But it is an economic fact that the more insurance that exists, the more demand/use of the insured services will occur (think automatic windshield replacement for cracked windshields). That increased demand can only increase costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    And how is 20 million close to 500 million, especially when ti comes to code design? Heck, even if you counted the commenting lines, I bet you still couldn't get there.
    No, no - I was agreeing with you, that Facebook wasn't anywhere close to 500M. Just pointing out that the numbers were already documented in the article, so speculative statements ("I'm sure a site like Faceboook..." from your original post) weren't necessary since we already had the actual data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Republicans speak out

    "This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches" -- Joe Barton (R-TX)
    "Any time there is something new, there is going to be glitches" -- Tim Murphy (R-PA)
    "People are trying to play politics with...health by encouraging people not to enroll" -- Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

    Glad they understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    In case we all forgot here is the Republican Health Care plan proposed to Congress.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Grover, once again you're busted. Those employees that chose this coverage, and mind you they could have gone somewhere else still, were of the low risk variety, and that's all they wanted protection against, so that's all they paid for. Also, the cost of your exchange plans are a heck of a lot more than they were paying previously. Here, I'll even give you numbers.


    Wrong Flaggy. You may say "oh, just give me insurance that covers if I get hit by a bus". Problem is, if you don't get hit by a bus but are seriously injured in another way, say you've been getting weird with kitchen utensils again, and don't have insurance coverage unless you get hit by a bus, guess who pays for that? The rest of us. That's why these plans aren't allowed to continue. The concept of "shared risk" seems to be lost on you, much like the concept of "the guy leading in every independent poll on election eve will most likely win the election" was last November.

    PS - Does your website include the subsidies or did you conveniently leave that part out?

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Fishbreath, once again you're busted. People are "losing" crappy health plans that don't meet minimum coverage requirements. For example if you had insurance that only covered you if you lost a body part, the ACA will inform your carrier that charging for such minimal coverage is not legal so stop offering the plan. Most likely these people will obtain more coverage for the same price or less out on the exchanges.
    Grover, once again you're busted. Those employees that chose this coverage, and mind you they could have gone somewhere else still, were of the low risk variety, and that's all they wanted protection against, so that's all they paid for. Also, the cost of your exchange plans are a heck of a lot more than they were paying previously. Here, I'll even give you numbers.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by joecct View Post
    And we went to the moon and landed using a computer with less computational power of a cell phone. That's it! Obamacare is a conspiracy to keep us from returning to the moon!
    Clarkson still sucks at trolling, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    Did you read your link? It says Facebook is 20 million. Heck, the sum of all the lines of code on the Joint Strike Fighter is only 24 million (link) - that includes all navigation, control, encrypted/secure communications, video up/down links, weapons management, radar and other sensors processing, everything. And that's enough to manage all 3 variants (there are significant differences).

    Anyone want to take a bet that the contractor(s) didn't get paid by the SLOC?
    And how is 20 million close to 500 million, especially when ti comes to code design? Heck, even if you counted the commenting lines, I bet you still couldn't get there.

    As for how they were paid, the contract bid is usually based upon an estimated SLOC, but I'd bet you anything it was a cost-plus contract, the government requested all of these cockamamie requirements (I remember working on a mobile radar, we had some out in the field, one came apart because of turbulence from an emergency landing when all other landings had no issue, and the government came back demanding that the product stay together during said extreme event a requirement), and it went to 500 million SLOC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    In 2014, tens of thousands more people are losing existing coverage because of PPACA mandates. So people used to have perfectly viable coverage and PPACA requires that coverage to be cancelled because some other genius who looked up a few articles on the internet thinks he knows better than trained professionals with advanced degrees?
    Fishbreath, once again you're busted. People are "losing" crappy health plans that don't meet minimum coverage requirements. For example if you had insurance that only covered you if you lost a body part, the ACA will inform your carrier that charging for such minimal coverage is not legal so stop offering the plan. Most likely these people will obtain more coverage for the same price or less out on the exchanges.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X