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.
President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this. ”
Obama’s comments come 10 days after NBC News’ Lisa Myers reported that the administration has known since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their insurance under the law. Obama has made repeated assurances that “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan” with Obamacare.
Notice that he's giving an exclusive interview to his pal NBC.
Frazzled wrote: The funny thing is, I wonder what the polling would have been if it had just been a clean bill ala the Canadian system (I guess copy their bill and do spell check for "re" instead of "er" and "our" instead of "or.")
What kind of Texan are you Frazzled? Don't you know socialism is evil? You seem to be a big fan of Canada why not just move to Alberta? It's like Texas but with snow and more "U"s. We'd be happy to have you.
Naw... Texas would just annex Canada.
Except... maybe Quebec. o.O
Whembly has the way of it. Pro-tip, if the Toronto Center is ever holding a girl scouts of Texas convention, go ahead and start running... THOSE AREN"T GIRL SCOUTS! THOSE ARE WEINER DOGS IN DRESSES! RUN!!!!!!
That defeats the whole purpose. Texas annexing Canada doesn't result in you getting Canadian healthcare and banking system just means Canada gets more cacti.....and weiner dogs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/07 23:37:37
Frazzled wrote: The funny thing is, I wonder what the polling would have been if it had just been a clean bill ala the Canadian system (I guess copy their bill and do spell check for "re" instead of "er" and "our" instead of "or.")
What kind of Texan are you Frazzled? Don't you know socialism is evil? You seem to be a big fan of Canada why not just move to Alberta? It's like Texas but with snow and more "U"s. We'd be happy to have you.
Naw... Texas would just annex Canada.
Except... maybe Quebec. o.O
Whembly has the way of it. Pro-tip, if the Toronto Center is ever holding a girl scouts of Texas convention, go ahead and start running...
THOSE AREN"T GIRL SCOUTS! THOSE ARE WEINER DOGS IN DRESSES! RUN!!!!!!
lol... so much win in the above posts!
and canadas health care isnt really socialism-socialism, its more like a union, or collective buying power,
or it can just be throught of as buying in bulk and getting abetter deal.
either way, the point is, it works, and while it isnt perfect, nor would it be a seamless transition it is still the best option for the states.
No, you don't have the goverment buy milk for everyone and then dole it out. It's socialism-socialism.
whembly wrote: And that, imo, is one of the biggest reason why the PPACA isn't doing so well PR-wise.
It reminds me of that C. S. Lewis quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
You'll want the full quote for that to get some much needed context;
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."
Understand this letter was written in response to a Marxist who had critiqued some of Lewis' science fiction. What sparked Lewis was not the individual's marxism, interestingly enough, but the extreme conviction to which he held those ideas, which he equated to theocracy. It isn't an attack on the idea of government doing good (which would make no sense given Lewis' general political convictions) but against the person who puts his faith in a utopia ahead of the facts on the ground or basic human decency.
Well... if you want to get all wonky here.
The administration looked at the historical data to estimate how many employer-sponsored and individual plans would likely lose their grandfather status once the PPACA was fully implemented.
Notice I said nothing about plans getting cancelled, because that really doesn't matter when there's a plan that's about as good around available. The number of plans getting cancelled reads as a great headline and may well get lots of people scared in the short term, but they then go and find equivalent plans on the exchange for about the same cost, they won't care in the long run.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 03:49:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Notice I said nothing about plans getting cancelled, because that really doesn't matter when there's a plan that's about as good around available. The number of plans getting cancelled reads as a great headline and may well get lots of people scared in the short term, but they then go and find equivalent plans on the exchange for about the same cost, they won't care in the long run.
Forbes wrote:
Do you remember, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” All we have heard about as Obamacare has gone into effect is millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
Well, he made that comment a year before the bill was passed, so it really isn't relevant. If I wrote that article I would have lead with this quotation from April 1, 2010: "If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 06:55:39
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Well, he made that comment a year before the bill was passed, so it really isn't relevant. If I wrote that article I would have lead with this quotation from April 1, 2010: "If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
You'd lead with that because it illustrates the complete truthfulness of the situation? You've said repeatedly that no lies whatsoever were told.
Notice I said nothing about plans getting cancelled, because that really doesn't matter when there's a plan that's about as good around available. The number of plans getting cancelled reads as a great headline and may well get lots of people scared in the short term, but they then go and find equivalent plans on the exchange for about the same cost, they won't care in the long run.
Well sure. Except for those people that had bare minimum coverage that covered the worst possible outcome only. But you know, the govt has basically told them that wasn't good enough. Despite being good enough for that individual previous.
You'd lead with that because it illustrates the complete truthfulness of the situation? You've said repeatedly that no lies whatsoever were told.
No, I said no lies were told in the context of the statement provided which was: "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.". I may not always be as specific as I aspire to be, but I prefer specificity to generality.
This is one of the reasons I am an analyst and not a journalist.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
You'd lead with that because it illustrates the complete truthfulness of the situation? You've said repeatedly that no lies whatsoever were told.
No, I said no lies were told in the context of the statement provided which was: "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.". I may not always be as specific as I aspire to be, but I prefer specificity to generality.
This is one of the reasons I am an analyst and not a journalist.
If that were true, why are there many people who liked their policy yet cannot keep their policy?
Forbes wrote:
Goodman proposes a universal refundable health insurance tax credit for everyone of $2,500 per person, $8,000 per family, for purchase of private health insurance of their choice. That would extend the current tax preference for employer provided health insurance to everyone, in place of the current tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance. (The current tax preference for employer health insurance does not pay for all of the insurance for everyone, and this tax credit is not intended to do so either).
I cannot imagine that ever passing because the characterization of "free-market solution" would not stick.
Forbes wrote:
Do you remember, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” All we have heard about as Obamacare has gone into effect is millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
Well, he made that comment a year before the bill was passed, so it really isn't relevant. If I wrote that article I would have lead with this quotation from April 1, 2010: "If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
He said the same damned statement multiple times since it's passage.
cincydooley wrote: Well sure. Except for those people that had bare minimum coverage that covered the worst possible outcome only. But you know, the govt has basically told them that wasn't good enough. Despite being good enough for that individual previous.
Yeah, that's true. People with incredibly basic insurance will have to take out much better plans.
Given the subsidies available to low income people and the reality of how basic those plans were, I have a hard time seeing that issue as a bug.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
cincydooley wrote: Well sure. Except for those people that had bare minimum coverage that covered the worst possible outcome only. But you know, the govt has basically told them that wasn't good enough. Despite being good enough for that individual previous.
Yeah, that's true. People with incredibly basic insurance will have to take out much better plans.
Given the subsidies available to low income people and the reality of how basic those plans were, I have a hard time seeing that issue as a bug.
It wasn't just low income people taking these plans. There were people choosing these plans as Indivuals because they elected to. They were, as I said, effectively fail safe plans should Someting terrible happen.
I mean, I know we hate anecdotal evidence here, but I have a very fit, self employed friend that had a very basic individual plan that ran him around $70 a month. He's not even close to low income, and a result his. Monthly is jumping around 400%. He's going to be paying his tax/fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 15:52:55
Forbes wrote:
Do you remember, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” All we have heard about as Obamacare has gone into effect is millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
Well, he made that comment a year before the bill was passed, so it really isn't relevant. If I wrote that article I would have lead with this quotation from April 1, 2010: "If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
He said the same damned statement multiple times since it's passage.
As recently as mid September. Thats fraud at that point. He knew or should have known the truth.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Forbes wrote:
Do you remember, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” All we have heard about as Obamacare has gone into effect is millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
Well, he made that comment a year before the bill was passed, so it really isn't relevant. If I wrote that article I would have lead with this quotation from April 1, 2010: "If Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
He said the same damned statement multiple times since it's passage.
As recently as mid September. Thats fraud at that point. He knew or should have known the truth.
You're referring to this (important part is 12:50):
...through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you — especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering.
So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything...
That was this year on September 26th!
So, he lied, mislead, whatever about this... unfortunately, there's nothing we can really do about this. You know that had a Republican did something similar, the media would've been extremely vicious about it.
cincydooley wrote: It wasn't just low income people taking these plans. There were people choosing these plans as Indivuals because they elected to. They were, as I said, effectively fail safe plans should Someting terrible happen.
Yeah, I know, I was hoping you'd do the work yourself on that bit. Because middle class and wealthy people who buy higher plans and so pay more in to the system... well that's another thing that's not a bug.
I mean, I know we hate anecdotal evidence here
Shouldn't we hate it everywhere?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Yeah, I know, I was hoping you'd do the work yourself on that bit. Because middle class and wealthy people who buy higher plans and so pay more in to the system... well that's another thing that's not a bug.
Very true, unfortunately. Wealth redistribution's always something on the president's mind.
Out of the 330 million people in America (right? or is it less than that?), there are approximately 62 million women (in that CDC pdf above) between the childbearing ages of 15-44, which spitballing here to roughly be 19% of the population. So, in general 81% of the population can't get pregnant... or is my math off?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 20:14:08
Out of the 330 million people in America (right? or is it less than that?), there are approximately 62 million women (in that CDC pdf above) between the childbearing ages of 15-44, which spitballing here to roughly be 19% of the population. So, in general 81% of the population can't get pregnant... or is my math off?
Alright, let's dissect your silly claim then.
A) Like I mentioned in my previous post, it doesn't matter that men can't get pregnant because women that are part of their policy still can. So including men in the "can't get pregnant" percentage is stupid and serve no purpose other than to purposefully skew the numbers. Let's take my wife and myself as an example. I get the insurance and my wife is included on that policy. Now on paper you can claim that only 50% of the people on my policy are able to get pregnant. But the reality is that this policy, purchased by a man without a uterus, still covers a person that is in the childbearing age. If you want to go and do some legwork and a couple studies to determine how many households or policies would end up without a single person of childbearing age being covered, then be my guest. It's going to be a lot higher than 19%.
B) Nowhere in that paper does the CDC claim that the childbearing age is 15-44. The study states:
The data are drawn from interviews with large nationally representative samples of men and women in the reproductive ages 15–44 years of age.
. The sample used in a study =/= the actual limits of childbearing. The average onset of menstruation for girls in the US is 12.5 years of age. So that adds 2.5 years to the limit on the bottom end. The average age on menopause in the US is 51 years of age. So that adds 7 years to the population that is considered to be childbearing age on the top end. So your "women that can get pregnant" range just went from 29 years to 38.5 years. Now finding a breakdown of those exact ages is not that easy, but I used the CIA World Factbook data to come up with this (I had to to maths for two of the population brackets, 0-14 & 25-54, which is not ideal but the only way I could get a rough estimate of females from age 12.5-14 and 25-51):
Which brings the total of "women in average childbearing age to 81,483,496 (estimate for 2013) so using the 2013 population estimate from the same source (CIA) that would mean that the total percentage of "people able to get pregnant" is now at 26%. Of course this ignores women who are able to conceive after menopause due to fertility treatments.
C) The "only x% of the population can get pregnant" statistic that you claim also relies on a fixed period of time. But time (and age) is not fixed, it's bumpy-wumpy. And looking at the population over just a year will increase your percentage as females enter the childbearing age (and older people leave the childbearing age). So let's look at the average duration of a policy: The majority of the population get their insurance through their job, and the average length of employment is 5 years. So when this person starts work (and gets their policy) 26% of the population is able to have children. And when this person ends work (and stops their policy) 26% of the population is able to have children. But it's not the same 26% on both ends. During those 5 years (if the were to end today) there were 19,732,172 females that were born in 1995 and 2000 that entered childbearing age during the duration of the policy. So for the 5 years the policy was in effect, 32% of the population was able to get pregnant.
D) And we can also just not waste all this time looking at actual statistics if we just avoid pretending the study says something that it doesn't (that 81% of the population can't get pregnant) and focus on the actual conclusion of the study: By age 40, 85% of women have had a birth.
So with 11 years of reproductive age left, 85% of women have had a birth. I'm sure that there is some interesting mental gymnastics that will help you explain how 42.5% of the population have had a child, if only 19% of the population is able to get pregnant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, post your sources if you are going to make silly claims like that.
I figured that it was just one of those fancy things that you run across while searching the web for credible information. I even pointed out the funny capitalization that looked like it was copy &pasted from a different place and asked you where it was sourced from, but no reply on that front.
So a simple Google search of your post leads to this.
Which includes both your original post, as well as this:
Out of the 330 million people in America, there are 62 million women between the childbearing ages of 15-44, which equates to roughly 19% of the population
Out of the 330 million people in America (right? or is it less than that?), there are approximately 62 million women (in that CDC pdf above) between the childbearing ages of 15-44, which spitballing here to roughly be 19% of the population.
I took the liberty of highlighting the parts that appear to be lifted word for word from a source. A source which I asked for, and which you declined to provide.
Rand Paul, is that you?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/08 21:17:27
A) Like I mentioned in my previous post, it doesn't matter that men can't get pregnant because women that are part of their policy still can. So including men in the "can't get pregnant" percentage is stupid and serve no purpose other than to purposefully skew the numbers. Let's take my wife and myself as an example. I get the insurance and my wife is included on that policy. Now on paper you can claim that only 50% of the people on my policy are able to get pregnant. But the reality is that this policy, purchased by a man without a uterus, still covers a person that is in the childbearing age. If you want to go and do some legwork and a couple studies to determine how many households or policies would end up without a single person of childbearing age being covered, then be my guest. It's going to be a lot higher than 19%.
I don't see how it could be much higher. o.O
So, you're telling me, that single men and older couples should PAY for maternity care by mandate? Remember what the OFA tweeted, 62% didn't cover it... most likely because the didn't NEED it.
And people wonder why there's such a sticker shock, eh?
B) Nowhere in that paper does the CDC claim that the childbearing age is 15-44. The study states:
The data are drawn from interviews with large nationally representative samples of men and women in the reproductive ages 15–44 years of age.
. The sample used in a study =/= the actual limits of childbearing. The average onset of menstruation for girls in the US is 12.5 years of age. So that adds 2.5 years to the limit on the bottom end. The average age on menopause in the US is 51 years of age. So that adds 7 years to the population that is considered to be childbearing age on the top end. So your "women that can get pregnant" range just went from 29 years to 38.5 years. Now finding a breakdown of those exact ages is not that easy, but I used the CIA World Factbook data to come up with this (I had to to maths for two of the population brackets, 0-14 & 25-54, which is not ideal but the only way I could get a rough estimate of females from age 12.5-14 and 25-51):
Which brings the total of "women in average childbearing age to 81,483,496 (estimate for 2013) so using the 2013 population estimate from the same source (CIA) that would mean that the total percentage of "people able to get pregnant" is now at 26%. Of course this ignores women who are able to conceive after menopause due to fertility treatments.
Niiiice breakdown dude... o.O
Okay... again. Lets use some new numbers. OFA claimed that 62% of the plans didn't cover maternity care... let's be generous and bump the number up to 30% are "people able to get pregnant" to account for post-menopausal pregnancy, etc...
Would it be wrong to say that 70% of the population would be paying for 30% of population's maternity care? Of the 70%, how many of those are either single male or older male/female who don't want maternity care?
See my drift?
C) The "only x% of the population can get pregnant" statistic that you claim also relies on a fixed period of time. But time (and age) is not fixed, it's bumpy-wumpy. And looking at the population over just a year will increase your percentage as females enter the childbearing age (and older people leave the childbearing age). So let's look at the average duration of a policy: The majority of the population get their insurance through their job, and the average length of employment is 5 years. So when this person starts work (and gets their policy) 26% of the population is able to have children. And when this person ends work (and stops their policy) 26% of the population is able to have children. But it's not the same 26% on both ends. During those 5 years (if the were to end today) there were 19,732,172 females that were born in 1995 and 2000 that entered childbearing age during the duration of the policy. So for the 5 years the policy was in effect, 32% of the population was able to get pregnant.
You forget one thing... insurances are BUILT in mainly 12 months periods (I've seen a few that are 18 months, but those are rare). This is done on purpose so that it give the consumers opportunity to adjust their coverage and the insurance to adjust their risk-pools (and the rates).
D) And we can also just not waste all this time looking at actual statistics if we just avoid pretending the study says something that it doesn't (that 81% of the population can't get pregnant) and focus on the actual conclusion of the study: By age 40, 85% of women have had a birth.
No. Because you're arguing that we all should be paying all those years for maternity care where women were NOT pregnant.
So with 11 years of reproductive age left, 85% of women have had a birth. I'm sure that there is some interesting mental gymnastics that will help you explain how 42.5% of the population have had a child, if only 19% of the population is able to get pregnant.
So, you're telling me, that single men and older couples should PAY for maternity care by mandate? Remember what the OFA tweeted, 62% didn't cover it... most likely because the didn't NEED it.
That is how insurance works. Everybody pays into the pool, everybody gets paid out. It's a socialist paradise.
8% of the population will get Prostate Cancer. Why should the 50% of the population that can't even get prostate cancer pay for plans that include coverage for that particular cancer.
So if everybody paying for maternity care is so wrong, you must really be pissed at all those people paying for cancer care.
Would it be wrong to say that 70% of the population would be paying for 30% of population's maternity care?
Two problems with that statement:
Yes, it would be wrong to say that 70% of the population would be paying for 30% of the populations maternity care. Actually, 100% of the population would be paying for the maternity care of 100% of the population. Some people will use that care, some people won't. Your math seems to imply that the people actually using maternity benefits don't pay into the system for some reason.
Of course it would also pretend that 30% of the population got pregnant all by themselves without anybody in the remaining 70% helping them out. Maternity care affects females AND couples. I personally am part of the 70% that according to you can't get pregnant, but I am also part of the 30% that according to you are the sole beneficiaries of maternity care.
So your math is wrong from the very beginning and your argument starts out with a illogical assumption about maternity care and who benefits from it.
Of the 70%, how many of those are either single male or older male/female who don't want maternity care?
Of the 70%, how many of those are male/female who don't want maternity care, but end up getting pregnant anyway? Of those 70% how many are single males that have a daughter that is covered on their policy who doesn't want to get pregnant but ends up getting knocked up?
Seriously, your question is as stupid as somebody asking "of those people that are cancer free today, how many don't want cancer care?" or "of those people that are healthy today, how many don't want open heart surgery benefits?". Insurance is about risk. Getting pregnant is a risk of being alive, a risk that statistically is more likely to happen than cancer. Just because you don't plan on getting pregnant doesn't mean that you won't get pregnant.
gak man you keep appending your post with additional questions... it's hard to keep up.
Got it from twitter.
You twice presented it as your own discovery.
First by posting it without a link. Now I know that happens sometimes, I know it has happened to me. So I can understand that while you are roaming the Internetz, jumping from freedom watcher to liberty watcher, you get that rush from all the endorphins that kick in when you are that deep in the NoBama-Zone. And in that NoBama-Zone rush you might forget to post a link.
That's why I asked you to explain how you either came up with that number, or where you found it.
You decided to present the number as your own discovery:
Out of the 330 million people in America (right? or is it less than that?), there are approximately 62 million women (in that CDC pdf above) between the childbearing ages of 15-44, which spitballing here to roughly be 19% of the population. So, in general 81% of the population can't get pregnant... or is my math off?
You claimed it was your math, not the math done by a source you copied.
Know how to post twitter response instead of images?
The same way you post to anything else, by using the url tags and pasting the address to the twitter post in it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 22:21:08
So, you're telling me, that single men and older couples should PAY for maternity care by mandate? Remember what the OFA tweeted, 62% didn't cover it... most likely because the didn't NEED it.
That is how insurance works. Everybody pays into the pool, everybody gets paid out. It's a socialist paradise.
socialist paradise in a business services risk pools....eh.
8% of the population will get Prostate Cancer. Why should the 50% of the population that can't even get prostate cancer pay for plans that include coverage for that particular cancer.
So if everybody paying for maternity care is so wrong, you must really be pissed at all those people paying for cancer care.
You do have a point.
But, traditionally mandated maternity care was NOT the norm except for few states (NY, MA, ??). So, mandating that, which is expensive as you would now WILL drive up the overall cost.
Would it be wrong to say that 70% of the population would be paying for 30% of population's maternity care?
Two problems with that statement:
Yes, it would be wrong to say that 70% of the population would be paying for 30% of the populations maternity care. Actually, 100% of the population would be paying for the maternity care of 100% of the population. Some people will use that care, some people won't. Your math seems to imply that the people actually using maternity benefits don't pay into the system for some reason.
This is what I'm implying...
Of course it would also pretend that 30% of the population got pregnant all by themselves without anybody in the remaining 70% helping them out. Maternity care affects females AND couples. I personally am part of the 70% that according to you can't get pregnant, but I am also part of the 30% that according to you are the sole beneficiaries of maternity care.
I'm arguing that it's a major change. That's all.
So your math is wrong from the very beginning and your argument starts out with a illogical assumption about maternity care and who benefits from it.
Meh... it's the mom who directly benefits. It's a MAJOR change that plays into the increases to the insurance markets for those who didn't need it.
Sure, you can make the social case that EVERYONE benefits, because, hey... we don't want new moms to be saddled with major cost from the get go, eth?
Of the 70%, how many of those are either single male or older male/female who don't want maternity care?
Of the 70%, how many of those are male/female who don't want maternity care, but end up getting pregnant anyway? Of those 70% how many are single males that have a daughter that is covered on their policy who doesn't want to get pregnant but ends up getting knocked up?
Seriously, your question is as stupid as somebody asking "of those people that are cancer free today, how many don't want cancer care?" or "of those people that are healthy today, how many don't want open heart surgery benefits?". Insurance is about risk. Getting pregnant is a risk of being alive, a risk that statistically is more likely to happen than cancer. Just because you don't plan on getting pregnant doesn't mean that you won't get pregnant.
Sigh... I feel like you're trying so hard to turn me into a punching bag... A) Many folks had insurances that didn't have Maternity care, for whatever reason. The Insurance providers where responding to market demands and charge accordingly. B) During the crafting and post-PPACA Presidental/Democrat talking points, you know... "if you like your plan, you can keep it". The only way you can interpret that is that you wouldn't "lose" your current plan. C) Many are finding their plans are canceled and their next "best" plan, which includes Maternity care, isn't the same as "if you like your plan, you can keep it". D) I'm just stating that it's one of the driving force of the sticker shock. This is new thinking dude... essentially, most folks were blindsided by these changes.
gak man you keep appending your post with additional questions... it's hard to keep up.
Got it from twitter.
You twice presented it as your own discovery.
O.o didn't mean to.
First by posting it without a link. Now I know that happens sometimes, I know it has happened to me. So I can understand that while you are roaming the Internetz, jumping from freedom watcher to liberty watcher, you get that rush from all the endorphins that kick in when you are that deep in the NoBama-Zone. And in that NoBama-Zone rush you might forget to post a link.
Heh... can I steal that as a tag line later?
Know how to post twitter response instead of images?
The same way you post to anything else, by using the url tags and pasting the address to the twitter post in it.
Uh... there's the problem. I post on my work PC. Twitter is blocked (as all social media) but, not places with bewbs... yay for heatlhcare employment!
So, can't do that... I usually read twitter on my phone.
Guess most will pay the tax, eh? No wonder the HHS wrote the grandfathering rules so narrowly... they really need as many folks as possible into the exchange in order for it to be successful.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/11/09 00:39:06
I usually read twitter on my phone.
