The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[unofan]

Look, I think we can all agree that social security is a ponzi scheme. After all, didn't Madoff base his investment strategy upon the same thing Social Security does?

No, it's not. Just because it transfers money from today's workers to retirees does not make it a ponzi scheme.

 

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Health insurers in most states (perhaps all) have to submit their annual insurance premium rates to state insurance regulatory boards. Prices will not change "willy-nilly". As part of that review, they have to be able to justify or explain their rate changes to that board in order to get the new rates approved. Since insurance is now a required product, do you think that state overview will slacken or tighten going forward?

I understand it happens, but why? Ford Motor does not have to have regulatory review of its prices from each state. Would the public be better served it the insurance companies could offer insurance across state lines?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

No, it's not. Just because it transfers money from today's workers to retirees does not make it a ponzi scheme.

Then why does it make it as such for Madoff?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I understand it happens, but why? Ford Motor does not have to have regulatory review of its prices from each state. Would the public be better served it the insurance companies could offer insurance across state lines?

Was that part of repealing the Glass-Steagall act a mistake?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I understand it happens, but why? Ford Motor does not have to have regulatory review of its prices from each state. Would the public be better served it the insurance companies could offer insurance across state lines?

I don't argue for it, because I think the market would self regulate in that if prices get too high, competitors move in and prices correct.

The reason that these regulators do exist, though, is that people in government think insurance is too complex for people to understand and therefore require a governing body to regulate prices and practices. Or it was just an excuse to create yet another government jobs program.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I don't argue for it, because I think the market would self regulate in that if prices get too high, competitors move in and prices correct.

The reason that these regulators do exist, though, is that people in government think insurance is too complex for people to understand and therefore require a governing body to regulate prices and practices. Or it was just an excuse to create yet another government jobs program.

I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that insurance crossing state lines was also supposedly a factor in the Great Depression.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that insurance crossing state lines was also supposedly a factor in the Great Depression.

That's crap - not your assessment, rather the notion that the ability to conduct interstate commerce in the insurance market was a cause. All it does is to completely remove the ability for insurance companies to take advantage of economies of scale. There's no reason a company in Delaware can't provide a product that comports with the rules of NY and another for MN.

 

[unofan]

Then why does it make it as such for Madoff?

Seriously? You can't think of any differences between a gov't program funded by taxes and an "investment" scheme? None at all?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Seriously? You can't think of any differences between a gov't program funded by taxes and an "investment" scheme? None at all?

Nope. Not one bit. Although I'm sure you're going to start promoting your favored brand at this point...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

That's crap - not your assessment, rather the notion that the ability to conduct interstate commerce in the insurance market was a cause. All it does is to completely remove the ability for insurance companies to take advantage of economies of scale. There's no reason a company in Delaware can't provide a product that comports with the rules of NY and another for MN.

Then why was Glass-Steagall created as part of the New Deal to prohibit banks from crossing state lines?

 

[unofan]

Nope. Not one bit. Although I'm sure you're going to start promoting your favored brand at this point...

Go look up the definition of ponzi scheme, then lay out with clarity why you think social security is one.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Go look up the definition of ponzi scheme, then lay out with clarity why you think social security is one.

"Money from new investors is used to pay off existing investors (with the promoter taking a cut off the top)."



I can see the analogy though I'm not sure I agree with it. It is more of an unfunded pension scheme, in which current cash flow is used to pay off prior years' accrued liabilities. That is totally illegal in the private sector and rampant in the public sector.



If I could pick two constitutional amendments to add, one of them would be that the legislature cannot exempt itself (the government) from laws it imposes on everyone else.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

"Money from new investors is used to pay off existing investors (with the promoter taking a cut off the top)."



I can see the analogy though I'm not sure I agree with it. It is more of an unfunded pension scheme, in which current cash flow is used to pay off prior years' accrued liabilities. That is totally illegal in the private sector and rampant in the public sector.



If I could pick two constitutional amendments to add, one of them would be that the legislature cannot exempt itself (the government) from laws it imposes on everyone else.

Out of curiosity, what's the other?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Fast-food restaurants have reduced their estimates of how much Obama"care" will cost them, primarily because they expect that many of their employees will decline the employer-offered health insurance:

They say many employees will decline company-offered insurance, either because they can get insurance through Medicaid or a family member, or because they prefer to pay the penalty for not having health insurance. The penalty next year will be as low as $95 next year, much less than most employees will be asked to pay through company-sponsored insurance plans.

The comments suggest that some people may fall through the cracks in the law and remain uninsured, at least for a time.

AFC Enterprises Inc., AFCE -0.22%operator of the Popeye's chain, is among the employers that has few takers for its current plan. Ralph Bower, Popeye's president-U.S., said in an interview that fewer than 5% of employees have signed up for a plan that carries high deductibles and costs $2.50 a week. So he doesn't expect many more employees to enroll next year, when employees likely will have to pay about $25 a week for a plan offering more coverage.

"It's just not affordable for employees," Mr. Bower said.

Instead of buying insurance, Mr. Bower expects many employees will choose to pay the $95-a-year fine for being uninsured. "Do you want to pay $100 a month for health care, or are you going to pay a $95 fine that comes out of your income-tax return at the end of the year?" he said.

So the <strike>penalty</strike> tax on the choice not to buy insurance is only $95 next year? Yikes.

Where is the money supposed to come from to finance the subsidies for insurance that costs 10 times that much!

 

[Rover]

Fast-food restaurants have reduced their estimates of how much Obama"care" will cost them, primarily because they expect that many of their employees will decline the employer-offered health insurance:

Not sure if this is too "mathy" for our conservative friends, but from your own article: $2.50 a week x 52 weeks is $130 bucks, and you have insurance. Fine is $95 bucks...and you have no insurance. So.....you're saving a whopping $35 bucks by not having insurance? Sounds like Popeye's is either hiring really stupid people, or they need to hold a quick info session with their employees.

 

[Rover]

Where is the money supposed to come from to finance the subsidies for insurance that costs 10 times that much!

Ask your pal Paul Ryan. Remember how he include Obamacare savings in his budget.

Ah, conservatives. Sometimes you make it too easy...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Not sure if this is too "mathy" for our conservative friends, but from your own article: $2.50 a week x 52 weeks is $130 bucks, and you have insurance. Fine is $95 bucks...and you have no insurance. So.....you're saving a whopping $35 bucks by not having insurance? Sounds like Popeye's is either hiring really stupid people, or they need to hold a quick info session with their employees.

Considering emergency rooms will still accept walk-ins, and I would venture a guess that many of these people are already doing that as it is, the only thing that has changed is an extra tax on the workers.

Plus, the plan has high deductibles, so even though you're paying for insurance, you're still paying out of pocket for most of the coverage you'd receive anyway. I know you like to attack people on their math skills, but why don't you try the math on that?

 

[Rover]

Considering emergency rooms will still accept walk-ins, and I would venture a guess that many of these people are already doing that as it is, the only thing that has changed is an extra tax on the workers.

Plus, the plan has high deductibles, so even though you're paying for insurance, you're still paying out of pocket for most of the coverage you'd receive anyway.

Yes you would, but if something catastrophic happened there'd be some coverage. For 35 bucks a year, that doesn't seem like a bad deal. I'd also venture to guess, while not being familiar with the plan Popeye's offers its workers, is that some routine checkups are covered, hence lessening the need to visit the ER if problems can be caught beforehand. I'm wondering if these same people get their car tuned up and oil changed regularly, because its the same concept.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Yes you would, but if something catastrophic happened there'd be some coverage. For 35 bucks a year, that doesn't seem like a bad deal. I'd also venture to guess, while not being familiar with the plan Popeye's offers its workers, is that some routine checkups are covered, hence lessening the need to visit the ER if problems can be caught beforehand. I'm wondering if these same people get their car tuned up and oil changed regularly, because its the same concept.

It was probably some of the other loony left I know that made the argument (i.e. not you), but one thing I find funny is that certain people think that these people can't afford to get an identification card in order to vote, but somehow they can afford to pay for a health plan or even a tax for it. Double standard, anyone?

 

[unofan]

It was probably some of the other loony left I know that made the argument (i.e. not you), but one thing I find funny is that certain people think that these people can't afford to get an identification card in order to vote, but somehow they can afford to pay for a health plan or even a tax for it. Double standard, anyone?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional. It's not that they can't afford them, but that you cannot force someone to pay to vote. If you require Id, there had better be a free option available.

The rest of the arguement is simply that as a solution, it's worse than the problem it's meant to solve. You discourage more legitimate voters than you prevent from committing fraud.