Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
In that same regard, it holds parents to a higher level of accountibility because they have a vested interest in their kids not getting kicked out of said school that they're paying for.
And what happens to the kids that aren't admitted to a private school?
We return them to their natural habitat...
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
In that same regard, it holds parents to a higher level of accountibility because they have a vested interest in their kids not getting kicked out of said school that they're paying for.
And what happens to the kids that aren't admitted to a private school?
You're missing the point.
If it was all privatized, there would be schools that cater to multiple demographics of students, including at risk students and students with special needs, not just high achieving kids. That would be a great thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, further privitization would be a great point in which to resestablish the importance of trade schools as a viable alternative route to the workforce instead of being seen as dumping grounds for burnouts and bad kids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/01 15:11:27
If it was all privatized, there would be schools that cater to multiple demographics of students, including at risk students and students with special needs, not just high achieving kids. That would be a great thing.
And everyone would know their place, and we would all live in harmony.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: It was a strategic call directed at the Clinton's bluff of nationalizing healthcare, NOT A fething PROPOSAL.
whembly wrote: Just as asinine to peg all republicans to support the PPACA, because there's some elements of their plan from that old Heritage proposal.
If it was all privatized, there would be schools that cater to multiple demographics of students, including at risk students and students with special needs, not just high achieving kids. That would be a great thing.
And everyone would know their place, and we would all live in harmony.
Further privitization would include a scale change and a broadening of the types of charter schools that exist, as well as the possibilty to not rely completey on public funding. The reason there have been charter schools in the past that have denied special needs students? They don't have the resources fit to serve them properly. Expand the privitization, and it opens up the possibility for increased charter school specialization and gives parents that have students with disabilites or special needs the option to educate them in said specialized environment.
Is there a lot of work to do to get there? Sure. But there's no naivety about it.
Well... how's it looking for him now? How's it looking for the rest of the Democratic field? I've never thought it would reach to this point, but it's fast becoming an albatross for the Democratic party. Tell me how that's not true. I'll wait...
I don't disagree. I've always argued that the ACA reforms are necessary and an improvement, I've never said it.
A necessary attempt... sure. An improvement? Haven't seen it.
I've read a few political opinion pieces argue that when ACA hit the ground it'd spell electoral doom for Republicans, but I never believed it myself, because healthcare simply doesn't win votes.
Yeah... possible in 2009. But, you saw what happened in 2010.
Even the highest standard, free healthcare, is a sucky experience no-one wants to go through, because going to a doctor, finding out what's wrong with you, taking medication and treatment etc... it all just plain sucks. And what's more, medical systems are incredibly complex, so much so that people barely understand what treatment they can access now, let alone what they might have been denied under the old system.
Yeah, that's reasonable.
This is why, as I said above, no-one wants to own healthcare.
It's why the Democrats wanted to make it bi-partisan, so they didn't wear the negative impact alone.
It was "my way, or the high way".
It's why the Republicans refused that and made the Democrats go it alone (which they only finally did when it became clear that they'd gone so far down this path that it would hurt even more to back off).
Right.
And that, as I said above, is why it's so laughable to hear claims that Democrats shut Republicans out of healthcare reform.
I disagree. There were ample opportunities for both sides to be engaged... but, the Ried/Pelosi tag-team wanted their way, and only their way.
Enough of this attempt to Monday Morning Quarter Backing by the both of us... you and I will go in circles till kingdom come.
Here's the REAL issue... We were LIED, MISINFORMED and MANIPULATED about this whole bill. THAT is what will hurt the Democrats (unless the Republican goes derp-mode... which, is likely ). After January, when the election "season" begins, the public... including the "low-information voters", is going to hear/feel the clusterfark of this law.
After watching the following videos, tell me if you don't think the PPACA will become an albatross for the Democratic Party.
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In it..."
Obama: Says His Healthcare Plan Will Save Families $2,500...
Joe Biden: Promises Goal Of Obamacare Is To "Bend The Cost Curve"
Obama: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
But, can you really?
Obamacare: "Might NOT Be Able to Keep Your Doctor"
apparently a lot of hookers like obamacare. I can see having less declared income, and thus qualifying for subsidies, as a great attractor for black/grey market workers to enroll.
Siouxsie, 28, has shopped for plans countless times since 2008, coming up empty each time. She and her partner recently reviewed their healthcare options and found that a joint plan would have cost between $400 and $500 a month -- an unaffordably large chunk of their incomes.
"We just couldn't swing [insurance] in the Bay Area -- we're lower middle class, recent college graduates, in Startup Land trying to make our way," she said.
But come January 1, when the new law goes into effect, she and her partner will be looking at a monthly bill of between $175 and $200. They're deciding between two plans on the California exchange and will receive a tax credit of about $275 a month (without the credit it would have cost nearly $500).
is the general consensus now that the plans are about the same price between private + obamacare, but cheaper if you qualify for subsidies w OB care, but more expensive for you if cant even afford subsidized health care. And some arguments about quality/acceptance of the new OB insurance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/01 16:08:49
While not everything about the law is ideal or even good; if it gets more of the high-risk population like sex workers medical care; that goes in the "good for the population at large" column in my book.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
While not everything about the law is ideal or even good; if it gets more of the high-risk population like sex workers medical care; that goes in the "good for the population at large" column in my book.
humanely, yes I agree with you, everyone should have healthcare regardless of class.
and keeping in mind, hookers are not the only high risk group that is disproportionately clamoring to be 1st in line for OB care
think about what high a large influx of high risk, high likely hood to use insurance people, will do to a new exchange, that is already having issues getting "young and healthies" in, who need to vastly outnumber the "for whatever reason uses insurance" people, or they system breaks.
thats why I keep saying you cannot half arse it with health insurance, the best way has to be a one payer system like canada, then we get the best price, everythings easier to run, and since everyone is paying into the system, everyone gets care, and the system can actually be sustainable.
OB care will save some people some money, but its going to cost others more or just collapse entirely if there are too many people going in who need immediate payouts or are likely too.
OB care is also going to cost people who cannot afford even the subsidized premiums money, for the no insurance tax... which is just insane "humanely", but makes sense since they will be so desperate to force people into it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/01 17:00:06
...
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
“The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality. Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it. But common sense is eventually going to prevail in this town and common sense is going to have to prevail on this piece of legislation as well,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.
“The administration’s own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House’s own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,” the Iowa Republican said.
On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.
...
There were some attempt by Republicans to address this. But, you know... Democrats didn't want to... because... Republicans are evil.
Congressional Republicans and some Democrats are pushing to give individuals more time to sign up for Obamacare after major technical problems have stymied enrollment. But insurers say the consequences of such a move would be heavy.
That's because insurers set their rates for 2014 assuming that all Americans would be subject to the individual mandate, which requires them to get health insurance or face penalties.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers must provide coverage to everyone -- even the sickest people -- which would greatly increase insurers' risk and cost. To offset this, lawmakers included the mandate to prompt younger, healthier people who don't use a lot of medical care to sign up.
But if the mandate were delayed by a year, many of those lower-cost folks may not sign up. About 2 million fewer people would would obtain coverage in the individual market, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"All rates filed and approved with regulators are based on the mandate being in effect and the enrollment period ending March 31," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group. "If that were to change, the rates would have to change."
If the individual mandate didn't exist, premiums would be about 15% to 20% higher, according to the CBO.
Considering the years-long battle to pass the Affordable Care Act and the lengths to which Democrats went to protect it, the launch of President Obama's healthcare law was something of a disaster, marred mostly by the program's broken website. But now we know just how awful the enrollment numbers were from those first few days.
According to documents obtained by CBS News from the House Oversight Committee, just six people enrolled in the program using its website during the first 24 hours, despite the Obama administration's claims of 4.7 million unique visitors to the site over the same time period. And the second day wasn't much better: just 248 people were able to enroll nationwide.
As CBS News notes, the healthcare program needs an average of 39,000 enrollees per day to meet its goal of 7 million users by March 1.
The documents, consisting of notes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the arm of the Health and Human Services Department that has been overseeing the website, were released one day after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House committee, and seem to contradict part of her testimony. “We do not have any reliable data around enrollment, which is why we haven't given it to date,"she said during the committee, though one of the notes from the document reads, “Statistics coming in...QSSI has a daily dashboard created every night.”
A Health and Human Services spokesman suggested to CBS News that the numbers weren't released because the might not include the different ways to enroll, and also noted that enrollment in a similar plan in Massachusetts started off slowly and then increased as the deadline neared.
“These appear to be notes, they do not include official enrollment statistics," spokeswoman Joanne Peters said in a statement. "We will release enrollment statistics on a monthly basis after coordinating information from different sources such as paper, on-line, and call centers, verifying with insurers, and collecting data from states."
In part because of Healthcare.gov's problems, President Obama's polling numbers are at an all-time low, with just 42 percent approving of his job performance while 51 percent disapprove. (Though, if it makes you feel any better, the GOP is also polling at a record low, with a 53 percent negativity rating and just a 22 percent approval rating).
Perhaps because of those numbers, Democrats, especially those up for reelection in 2014, have begun to speak out about the program. “People are anxious," Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois told the New York Times. “It's not working well,” Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland added.
“I don’t think there’s confidence by anyone in the room,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat up for re-election next year, told the Times. “This is more a show-me moment. We were all confident that the system was going to be up and operating on Oct 1. And now we’re not confident until it’s real.”
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
whembly wrote: As much as I'd like to pile on... that doesn't make any sense. Surely more folks signed up? o.O
I can see it.
I don't think it counts the people that enrolled through state-websites, so it wasn't 6 people enrolled in the open-exchange. It is really 6 people enrolled using the federal website and not state sites or telephone enrollment.
We also need to take into account the horrible problems people had getting onto the damn thing on day #1, and that some people would probably get the information and then compare plans before making a decision right that instance.
It's a crappy number, but there could be reasons that contributed to it.
Seaward wrote: Edit: Nevermind, don't need to have this discussion in an ACA thread.
Anyway, it sucks now, but the real apocalypse for Obamacare's coming next year when all the people going, "Man, that sure sucks for those poor saps in the individual market, but I sure am glad I won't be losing my current employer-provided coverage due to the ACA!" get a rude awakening.
It's probably one of the big reasons the Democrats are trying to say the ACA was conceived by Republicans even though not a single one voted for Obama's health care bill.
A survey of over 400 doctors in New York shows what the medical profession there thinks of it:
I somehow have the feeling that Obamacare is going to be around just long enough to mess up everyone's insurance before public outcry gets it yanked. By then of course it will be too late to undo the damage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/01 23:57:02
Charter schools are not private schools but, like private schools, they exist only in the context of a public school system to which problematic (not necessarily special needs) children can be pushed. The only way to deal with that problem in such a system is to create a charter school which deals exclusively with bad students and, given the likely income of their parents, such a school would need to draw great deal of funds from the state; creating a de facto public (and failing) school.
Then of course there is the problem of pigeon-holing kids.
Is there a lot of work to do to get there? Sure. But there's no naivety about it.
You're basically talking about turning the American school system into the American university system, and that would be alright...if a high school diploma (or GED) were not required for damn near any job in the US.
whembly wrote: As much as I'd like to pile on... that doesn't make any sense. Surely more folks signed up? o.O
They were most likely unable to, due to traffic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/02 04:59:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The first month of the new health law’s rollout reveals an unexpected pattern in several states: a crush of people applying for an expansion of Medicaid and a trickle of sign-ups for private insurance.
This early imbalance — in some places, nine out of 10 enrollees are in Medicaid — has taken some experts by surprise. The Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid to cover millions of the poorest Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford coverage, envisions a more even split with an expanded, robust private market.
“When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?”…
The yawning gap between public and private enrollment is handing Republicans yet another line of criticism against President Obama’s health overhaul — that the law is primarily becoming an expansion of a costly entitlement program.
whembly wrote: As much as I'd like to pile on... that doesn't make any sense. Surely more folks signed up? o.O
I can see it.
I don't think it counts the people that enrolled through state-websites, so it wasn't 6 people enrolled in the open-exchange. It is really 6 people enrolled using the federal website and not state sites or telephone enrollment.
We also need to take into account the horrible problems people had getting onto the damn thing on day #1, and that some people would probably get the information and then compare plans before making a decision right that instance.
It's a crappy number, but there could be reasons that contributed to it.
whembly wrote: As much as I'd like to pile on... that doesn't make any sense. Surely more folks signed up? o.O
They were most likely unable to, due to traffic.
Guys... I work in that sort of industry.
I find it really hard to believe that it was infrastructure related with that amount of $$$ spent on this project. An "eCommerce" is like the basic, of basic website designs. Almost too hard to feth up.
I think it's much more likely that the back-end repository was the culprit... that is, the data wasn't ready. Which, from an IT perspective, is a shame because it's one of the easiest things to fix.
Another thing to consider is that the people that were able to log in don't have to actually buy health insurance any time soon. There is no need to actually sign up for anything right now, so people might have just gotten the info without actually signing up for anything yet.
Sorry. I wasn't aware the president was referring to you and only to you. I thought he was also talking to these other people who liked their plans and are not getting to keep them.
As long as I don't tell a lie to you, it's not a lie. Good to know.
Sorry. I wasn't aware the president was referring to you and only to you. I thought he was also talking to these other people who liked their plans and are not getting to keep them.
As long as I don't tell a lie to you, it's not a lie. Good to know.
I was under the impression you embraced the "me and only myself" mindset when it comes to dealing with anything government related.
d-usa wrote: I was under the impression you embraced the "me and only myself" mindset when it comes to dealing with anything government related.
It's a cute attempt at a dodge, but being fundamentally unable to admit that Obama lied his ass off about the ACA is something that ought to worry you about yourself.
). After January, when the election "season" begins, the public... including the "low-information voters", is going to hear/feel the clusterfark of this law.
