The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[Rover]

How are your taxes? Is the moniker "Taxachusetts" a misnomer?

In fact it is. Taxachusetts is a 25 year old moniker used most extensively during the 1988 Presidential race, historically known as the last time a Republican cracked 300 electoral votes. As I often say to Opie, I will say to you. I might be time to spend some time in the 21st century.

it's running some serious deficits. And yes, I'm well aware of your state's balanced budget requirement, but projected != actual. Also, I don't trust anything anymore with regards to unemployment, especially seeing as how the definition of those "in the work force" has changed greatly since the crash of 2008. I bet it's higher than you'd think, despite the fact your spin on unemployment was a comparative one with respect to the national average.

I'm not surprised you don't want to provide the info, as there's a chance my points could very well be proved.

Flaggy what's the point of posting statistics if you're not going to believe them if they don't back up your viewpoint? So apparently not only are unemployment stats skewered, they're extra skewered in Mass to make the state look better than the national average even though the state isn't the one compiling its unemployment #'s. Oooookaaayyyy. What time do the black helicopters arrive, and what is the appropriate dress code for wherever they're taking us?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

In fact it is. Taxachusetts is a 25 year old moniker used most extensively during the 1988 Presidential race, historically known as the last time a Republican cracked 300 electoral votes. As I often say to Opie, I will say to you. I might be time to spend some time in the 21st century.



Flaggy what's the point of posting statistics if you're not going to believe them if they don't back up your viewpoint? So apparently not only are unemployment stats skewered, they're extra skewered in Mass to make the state look better than the national average even though the state isn't the one compiling its unemployment #'s. Oooookaaayyyy. What time do the black helicopters arrive, and what is the appropriate dress code for wherever they're taking us?

You're the one who said it's extra skewered. Huff-and-puffers exaggerating in a desperate attempt to make knuckledraggers and sociopaths look bad is like calling the sky blue. Could MA have been above the average with or without that plan? Sure, it's possible. That doesn't mean that the entire country has the ability to be like them.

As for your black helicopters, you'll see that when the signs for "This area is under martial law" are put up (these actually exist, they had to bring them to NYS from the south because a cop in the North Country sent them back across the border; yes, we outsource signs), and the appropriate dress code is blindfolds and pantyhose.

[Rover]

You're the one who said it's extra skewered. Huff-and-puffers exaggerating in a desperate attempt to make knuckledraggers and sociopaths look bad is like calling the sky blue. Could MA have been above the average with or without that plan? Sure, it's possible. That doesn't mean that the entire country has the ability to be like them.

As for your black helicopters, you'll see that when the signs for "This area is under martial law" are put up (these actually exist, they had to bring them to NYS from the south because a cop in the North Country sent them back across the border; yes, we outsource signs), and the appropriate dress code is blindfolds and pantyhose.

I don't own pantyhouse Flaggy so I'll have to borrow yours. Just please send me a new pair and not one that you've already been wearing.

PS - I said nothing about extra skewered but don't let that stop you. You're on a roll and I'm enjoying the show! Seems the word "skewered" or better yet "unskewered" might bring up bad memories for you knucks'.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I don't own pantyhouse Flaggy so I'll have to borrow yours. Just please send me a new pair and not one that you've already been wearing.

PS - I said nothing about extra skewered but don't let that stop you. You're on a roll and I'm enjoying the show! Seems the word "skewered" or better yet "unskewered" might bring up bad memories for you knucks'.

You said that I called the unemployment stats extra skewered in MA when my original post made no comparison whatsoever to the rest of the country, so nice try.

Unfortunately, most of my pantyhose have runs in them, so would you settle for a No Nonsense gift certificate?

[Rover]

Unfortunately, most of my pantyhose have runs in them

You should put this quote in your signature! It does help explain why you're so cranky though...

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I see that several publications have started the "fact vs fiction" stories about PPACA. We'll take a step back from the political overtones for awhile, and merely comment on the law itself, what it requires, and what it proscribes.




Assertion: we "needed" PPACA so that people with pre-existing conditions could acquire health insurance at standard rates.

FICTION. Before PPACA, there were at least four different ways in which people with pre-existing conditions could acquire health insurance at standard rates. In each case, it was the existence of "open enrollment windows" that made it possible.

PPACA actually makes the situation worse! It allows people to acquire apply for coverage at any time.

With open enrollment windows, rational pricing can be offered based on empirical data. Under the new system, it is impossible to offer rational pricing, at least at the outset, because there is no empirical data yet available.

[Rover]

I see that several publications have started the "fact vs fiction" stories about PPACA. We'll take a step back from the political overtones for awhile, and merely comment on the law itself, what it requires, and what it proscribes.




Assertion: we "needed" PPACA so that people with pre-existing conditions could acquire health insurance at standard rates.

FICTION. Before PPACA, there were at least four different ways in which people with pre-existing conditions could acquire health insurance at standard rates. In each case, it was the existence of "open enrollment windows" that made it possible.

PPACA actually makes the situation worse! It allows people to acquire apply for coverage at any time.

With open enrollment windows, rational pricing can be offered based on empirical data. Under the new system, it is impossible to offer rational pricing, at least at the outset, because there is no empirical data yet available.

Curious if you mean by "open enrollment" that you can get coverage via your employer. That's not the problem Obamacare is trying to solve in this case. What in your opinion should one do in a non-Obamacare world if you don't get coverage through your employment? Natural selection?

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Curious if you mean by "open enrollment" that you can get coverage via your employer. That's not the problem Obamacare is trying to solve in this case. What in your opinion should one do in a non-Obamacare world if you don't get coverage through your employment? Natural selection?

The latter is the great equalizer.

As to the former.. If you had a nationwide open enrollment period for the exchanges, it would force folks to determine if they want to risk (which is what insurance is -- you minimize the risk) going without or with health insurance..

FYI, the Feds open enrollment period runs from mid October to mid November for the following January 1. You can change your coverage if you have a "life event" (marriage, kid, divorce, etc.)

[Rover]

The latter is the great equalizer.

As to the former.. If you had a nationwide open enrollment period for the exchanges, it would force folks to determine if they want to risk (which is what insurance is -- you minimize the risk) going without or with health insurance..

FYI, the Feds open enrollment period runs from mid October to mid November for the following January 1. You can change your coverage if you have a "life event" (marriage, kid, divorce, etc.)

I can live with a tweak like this. However a "life event" would need to include losing coverage, as in you got laid off or injured and couldn't work.

[unofan]

I can live with a tweak like this. However a "life event" would need to include losing coverage, as in you got laid off or injured and couldn't work.

It still doesn't answer the inevitable question that follows: what do you do with the guy who risked not getting insurance but then suffers a major medical issue. Leave him to die on the streets?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I can live with a tweak like this. However a "life event" would need to include losing coverage, as in you got laid off or injured and couldn't work.

It does. Hence, the "etc.".

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

It still doesn't answer the inevitable question that follows: what do you do with the guy who risked not getting insurance but then suffers a major medical issue. Leave him to die on the streets?

He placed his chips on the table and rolled the dice. He lost. Why should we reward him for that decision? Granted, that's exactly what your boy in the White House did in 2009 to all the sub-prime losers, so it wouldn't shock me to see some asinine bailout that will run up the national debt another couple trillion bucks...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

It still doesn't answer the inevitable question that follows: what do you do with the guy who risked not getting insurance but then suffers a major medical issue. Leave him to die on the streets?

You let him die. The number one rule of American Health Care is don't get sick. Rule number two is if you are going to get sick make sure you're rich.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

You let him die. The number one rule of American Health Care is don't get sick. Rule number two is if you are going to get sick make sure you're rich.

He placed his chips on the table and rolled the dice. He lost. Why should we reward him for that decision? Granted, that's exactly what your boy in the White House did in 2009 to all the sub-prime losers, so it wouldn't shock me to see some asinine bailout that will run up the national debt another couple trillion bucks...

It still doesn't answer the inevitable question that follows: what do you do with the guy who risked not getting insurance but then suffers a major medical issue. Leave him to die on the streets?

Let me use another example - auto and homeowner's insurance..

You decide not to purchase collision or comprehensive auto insurance and buy a Corvette. You wreck the 'vette. Should you be allowed to purchase collision or comprehensive AFTER you've wrecked the car?

Now that the mortgage is paid off, you decide to save a few bucks and cancel the fire insurance on the house. House catches fire. Can you call your agent while the fire department is rushing down the street to get covered? (Well, you can, but the agent is going to charge your $100,000 for $100,000 in coverage).

If you can't do these things, why should you be able to purchase insurance when you discover you're sick? By not buying insurance you're taking a risk that you will be healthy for the next 12 months. If you're risk adverse, you buy insurance. Depending on how risky you feel, you purchase how much will be covered.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? It takes a Congress to screw it up.

[unofan]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Let me use another example - auto and homeowner's insurance..

You decide not to purchase collision or comprehensive auto insurance and buy a Corvette. You wreck the 'vette. Should you be allowed to purchase collision or comprehensive AFTER you've wrecked the car?

Now that the mortgage is paid off, you decide to save a few bucks and cancel the fire insurance on the house. House catches fire. Can you call your agent while the fire department is rushing down the street to get covered? (Well, you can, but the agent is going to charge your $100,000 for $100,000 in coverage).

If you can't do these things, why should you be able to purchase insurance when you discover you're sick? By not buying insurance you're taking a risk that you will be healthy for the next 12 months. If you're risk adverse, you buy insurance. Depending on how risky you feel, you purchase how much will be covered.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? It takes a Congress to screw it up.

So you're saying we leave people to die on the street. Got it.

Edit: Apparently Flaggy's admitting that's what he's for now, too, even though he took umbrage with that exact statement a year or two ago.