One day you Americans will get the superior type of health care us Canadians use and enjoy. Today is not that day though.
The Yanks seem to have a resistance to anything they haven't either invented themselves or taken credit for. Except for electronics and cars.
Good point. But Americans in general seem to be infatuated with Sony products, for one. Actually the world is but the U.S. is no exception. True about Ford. And the anger against Detroit seems to be recent.
That is, until those who crafted it finally admit that it's extortionist garbage, at which point they'll force something even worse on us. Nothing fixes a hangnail like amputation, after all.
Not true. Karl Benz would be the true pioneer of the modern car-having produced and patented a functional gasoline car in 1886.
Unless you have something that's rare or otherwise difficult to diagnose, like Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, or something like that. Then you're pretty much fucked. Also, you'll have to wait your turn for the more intensive or specialized treatments, which sucks almost as much as paying every penny you have for them but not having to wait your turn.
I just found out today that the "affordable care act" is going to cost me $100 more a month and cost me a much higher copayment should I have to go to the ER. It costs more and I get less.
@enlisted person is that the ACA or just your company's reaction to it? I'm fairly curious, it seems like companies that are going through private insurers are raising costs and lowering services - not sure you can blame that directly at the ACA or the way the market is changing.
No it was shown to us today in the meeting the cost increases due to compliance with the ACA. When the law requires no co pays for certain things and medicines at "no cost", that money has to come from somewhere. That is simply a financial fact. The insurance has to pay for things the insured doesn't want or ask for and the price goes up. They told us this is just then first of several "steps" over the next few years due to the "affordable care act".
I'm confused by that justification; you should be as well? You're paying more but getting some things for free that you used to pay for? (I suppose unless you don't need them, but often you don't need all the things your insurance provides either... I do expect the larger insurers will juggle things around over the next few years - they aren't really worried about the people they ensure (as an entity, I'm sure many people who work for insurers do really care) - they need to feel out how things will affect their bottom line and the market will be in huge flux until then. I expect many of the "steps" you mention will be that; adjusting payouts in certain places, coverage in others, co-pays and deductibles until they are comfortable with their bottom line. You might want to compare your insurance's tax filings between last year and this year (2014) I bet they make more this year (using the ACA as an excuse to generate more funds). Anyway, I'd love to see more oversite on all of this - state regulations on an intra-state economy have been screwing things up for awhile.
Oh, what's this? "I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?"
Honestly, it sounds like EP had really cut rate low quality insurance, the type with high deductibles lots of fine print and low life time caps. The ACA deliberately tried to get rid of those plans because of the problem of people buying them, thinking that meant they were covered, only to find when they got sick that it just didn't cover much of anything. Inevitability those people would either have to declare bankruptcy over medical bills or file for medi-caid thus sticking taxpayers with the cost thus the desire to eliminate those "not really insurance" insurance plans so that people would actually be covered if they did pay for insurance. Think of it like the minimum coverage states require people to have on their cars. The other alternative is his employer is just cheap, is putting less money into the company plan (meaning EP would have to make up more as the company is now paying less) and thinks they can get away with it simply by blaming it on the ACA.
It doesn't work like that. My company is a big one and the plan covers all employees with the same plan. They pay a company to administer the plan.
Oh, but don't forget to blame the private sector for the fuckups -- if only it was completely run by the incompetent, wasteful, lying crooks in Washington, then it'd be perfect.
You realize that any person can register on that forum and post a thread about what ever nonsense they want, right? It's much like posting here.
I understand that, most of the people I know are in big companies that pay large insurers for coverage. Luckily my company allows us to choose between several options. I am commenting on the company that your company pays - these guys are adjusting their bottom line based on expectations and whatever they can get away with. Your company is paying them more (or at least differently) and those costs are coming out of your paycheck. If you're with me so far then go back and re-read what I said and hopefully it will make more sense...unless I'm just missing something you were trying to get across with your post.
Unlike the ones in business? People are greedy motherfuckers. Putting your faith in the "private sector" is at least as stupid as putting your faith in the government.
Really? Last time I checked the news, businesses can't kidnap or kill you if you don't give them your money. Government's monopoly on force means that it doesn't have to be efficient, or provide quality services. Which is why it doesn't.
I see a different picture than you; hence our disagreements. Just because business can't(?) kidnap or kill doesn't mean it can't cause harm. Considering that business can and have kidnapped and killed also sort of degrades your point. The government doesn't have a monopoly on force; that is also a fallacy.
In what way, exactly, is that a fallacy? Remember the whole George Zimmerman thing? Worldwide news? You have any idea how many cops have done the same shit and never even go to trial? If I tell you to give me half your paycheck and meet your refusal by kidnapping (arresting) then holding you for ransom (bail) or chaining you up in my basement (incarceration); and if you resist, I shoot you -- you think the government would approve of a private citizen doing any of that? Yet they do it as a matter of course. Don't pay your taxes, eventually they'll throw you in jail -- if you resist that, you get shot. They're the only ones who are legally permitted to do it. That, mon-sig-nore, is a monopoly on force -- and nothing other than.
@John Castle Force isn't solely causing personal injury. Manipulating markets is force; influencing elections is using force. More directly, sending in thugs to bust up workers is force. We'll can get into where our government implicitly allowed or simply turned a blind eye to the "legality" of force if you want; but I'll just assume you'll take it as some sort of socialist drivel and don't really feel like bothering right now (but maybe later?) That you decide to define force as "The legal right to incarcerate or kill" doesn't mean that you're correct in that definition; it simply does not fit real world application of the term. Hence why I continue to assert that philosophies like Libertarianism or its counterpart Communism are fools paradises.
No, jackass, force is force. Physically laying hands on someone is force. Launching projectiles at someone is force. You don't get to redefine shit just to defend your idol, 'kay? Force is force. The authority to physically restrain, injure and/or kill is what we're talking about with 'monopoly on force.' That's black-clad jackbooted thugs in riot gear kicking in doors, shooting unarmed people and getting a slap on the wrist; to no lesser degree is it government laying any requirement for payment which cannot be refused without the threat of the preceding. Force is physical. We're not talking influence; the worst that amounts to is fraud, not force. Government has a monopoly on force.
While I'm still here for a second yet; it seems odd to me that you appear to be willing to give Obamacare the benefit of, "well, mistakes are just bound to happen with anything, nothing really lives up to its ideal, perfect is the enemy of good," et cetera... yet you dismiss Libertarian ideas because they might not necessarily be absolutely perfect. Yeah, I'm not sensing a double-standard there at all...</sarcasm>
Weather or not it works remains to be seen. However historical data and data from other nations says that this will be a boondoggle. You got anything to point to that would say otherwise?
And here's why the Federal Obamacare site is crap. It's designed to withhold any pertinent information from users until after it's been determined whether or not a particular user qualifies for subsidies. This has resulted in a catastrophic data bottleneck that's crashing the site.
