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.
CptJake wrote: I heard an interview with their lawyer a week or so ago. He implied they may just close up shop rather than comply if forced. It would be interesting to see if they actually are willing to go that far.
That's what Jesus would have done, after all.
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
For anyone who's looking for real and substantial information about ACA enrolments, this site is amazing. If you want to know how ACA signups have actually been going, and not just hear what some pundit is trying to sell you, this is the place.
whembly wrote: They shouldn't be forced to pay for blood tranfusions.
Guess what. The don't already.
What? Are you saying that right now that there are companies owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that will request insurance for employees for everything except stuff that bothers their personal religious principles such as blood transfusion... and the insurer and the employee and everyone else will just go along with that? Are you saying that's a thing that's actually in existance in the real world?
And anyhow, the point with the blood transfusions is to illustrate this only became an issue with this particular piece of religious freedom... previously all manner of similar 'breaches' of religious freedom were suffered by religious people, and no-one gave a gak, including the religious people themselves. Because while it is very important religious freedom that an individual not be forced to personally undertake a medical procedure they personally don't agree with, it never occurred to anyone on Earth that it might be a great breach of their religious freedom that they would pay for insurance for their employees that gave those employees a choice to undertake a procedure as well.
Now, I'm not commenting on the constitutional merits of this, because I am not a constitutional lawyers and the conclusions of the SC frequently blow my mind (Citizens United...), but it is worth recognising this is not some new oppression on religious people, this is merely an issue because it is a politically heated bill, and this provision impacts people who are accustomed to the rules of society favouring them.
This ONLY became an issue when Democratsforced the creation and participation of an insurance economy that gave bureaucrats the POWAH to issue regulations such as the HHS contraception mandate, for no fething REASON, except as political demagoguery. Even a CDC study showed that access was never a problem.
As I've explained in dozens of threads now - when you make contraception free the rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion drops incredibly - in excess of a half when you include long lasting methods like IUD.
Instead of 'bureaucrats with powah' rhetoric... you just have to accept that there is actually real people with real knowledge trying to solve an actual problem. You may not agree with that position* but in order to have a real discussion of the issue you have to recognise exactly why the other side is attempting this.
*I don't particularly agree with the policy myself - while I'm very much in favour of expanding free contraception because of the social benefits, I think once you're talking about greater social benefits to society the onus of paying for that really isn't something you should enforce on companies - if government and society as a whole wants it they ought to pay for it.
“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.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Okay... not sure what you're asking. Sorry...
The question is the bit with the question mark after it. I'll bold it so you can't miss it a third time. You made a statement, he's asking you to clarify with facts, and to reinforce your statement.
I know you're an Aussie... dogma knows exactly what I'm talking about.... he's just being pedantic.
Look up the "Cornhusker Kickbacks", Carl Levin's attempt for exemptions for his state, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu xtra $300 million for medicaide.... these were all blatant payoff.... the Democrats weren't in "lockstep" with each other... hence the pressure & payoffs.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
Scientologists really hate mental health care. They believe its an evil conspiracy.
Should scientologists get to refuse to cover any mental health coverage for their employees?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Slavery died out quite a while ago. You're not forced to do anything for your private employer.
Company stores also died out a while ago. Your employer no longer gets to dictate where and how you spend your salary and benefits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 02:53:39
“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.
whembly wrote: They shouldn't be forced to pay for blood tranfusions.
Guess what. The don't already.
What? Are you saying that right now that there are companies owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that will request insurance for employees for everything except stuff that bothers their personal religious principles such as blood transfusion... and the insurer and the employee and everyone else will just go along with that? Are you saying that's a thing that's actually in existance in the real world?
I did some more research on this... the three plans I can access/review that some of the known Jehovah's Witness uses don't explicitedly NOT cover blood transfusions.
Understand that what's covered or not isn't always black & white. Furthermore, it's the caregiver/MDs making the determination whether or not the patient would accept a blood transfusion. One of the first fething question they'd ask you when you're admitted into the hospital is if you're a practicing Jehovah's Witness (and Mormon... not sure why mormonism is considered).
And anyhow, the point with the blood transfusions is to illustrate this only became an issue with this particular piece of religious freedom... previously all manner of similar 'breaches' of religious freedom were suffered by religious people, and no-one gave a gak, including the religious people themselves. Because while it is very important religious freedom that an individual not be forced to personally undertake a medical procedure they personally don't agree with, it never occurred to anyone on Earth that it might be a great breach of their religious freedom that they would pay for insurance for their employees that gave those employees a choice to undertake a procedure as well.
Nah... it's a weak strawman simply because there is no mandate for covering blood transfusion.
Now, I'm not commenting on the constitutional merits of this, because I am not a constitutional lawyers and the conclusions of the SC frequently blow my mind (Citizens United...), but it is worth recognising this is not some new oppression on religious people, this is merely an issue because it is a politically heated bill, and this provision impacts people who are accustomed to the rules of society favouring them.
It's a touchy subject... sure.
But, prior to the ACA, access to contraceptive wasn't an issue.
This is really an unneeded political issue, such that it add more angst towards the ACA (unecessarily if I may add). Wait... lemme expand on that.
Had the HHS not mandated this, many religious groups would take up the banner in support of the ACA (Catholics for one).
This ONLY became an issue when Democratsforced the creation and participation of an insurance economy that gave bureaucrats the POWAH to issue regulations such as the HHS contraception mandate, for no fething REASON, except as political demagoguery. Even a CDC study showed that access was never a problem.
As I've explained in dozens of threads now - when you make contraception free the rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion drops incredibly - in excess of a half when you include long lasting methods like IUD.
And I've countered that THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES! This was merely a political ploy... .don't you see this?
Instead of 'bureaucrats with powah' rhetoric... you just have to accept that there is actually real people with real knowledge trying to solve an actual problem.
What was the problem?
You may not agree with that position* but in order to have a real discussion of the issue you have to recognise exactly why the other side is attempting this.
And you have to recognize that sometimes these actions are political in nature... rather than an honest attempt to fix real world problems.
*I don't particularly agree with the policy myself - while I'm very much in favour of expanding free contraception because of the social benefits, I think once you're talking about greater social benefits to society the onus of paying for that really isn't something you should enforce on companies - if government and society as a whole wants it they ought to pay for it.
I agree with you there. Here's the kicker... places like Planned Parenthood ALREADY receives fundings for this.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I doubt it, it's just an example of the possibilities for abuse. And does that really matter at all, it's an example. I could have said any other religion, It could be about anything, for example scientologists. A scientologist could say it's against his/her religion to provide healthcare.
Scientologists really hate mental health care. They believe its an evil conspiracy.
Should scientologists get to refuse to cover any mental health coverage for their employees?
They don't like medicines either.
In fact, I'd be surprised if they even HAVE insurance plans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 03:06:34
Sure, congress has always been nasty. It's the big game, and it's won by the people who play the hardest game. But the nature of that nastiness changes over time, the way the game is played shifts greatly. Once it would have been the case that a bill might have passed or failed based on inside political allegiances and favours, or simple regional loyalties, whereas now those things are almost irrelevant compared to party loyalty.
It's an interesting thing, that conservatives keep pointing out that no Republicans crossed the floor for ACA, and using that as evidence that the bill must be partisan. Except Republicans don't cross the floor for any bill. Are they all partisan... or has Washington culture changed?
“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.
Sure, congress has always been nasty. It's the big game, and it's won by the people who play the hardest game. But the nature of that nastiness changes over time, the way the game is played shifts greatly. Once it would have been the case that a bill might have passed or failed based on inside political allegiances and favours, or simple regional loyalties, whereas now those things are almost irrelevant compared to party loyalty.
It's an interesting thing, that conservatives keep pointing out that no Republicans crossed the floor for ACA, and using that as evidence that the bill must be partisan. Except Republicans don't cross the floor for any bill. Are they all partisan... or has Washington culture changed?
Nah... bills are passed with both parties involved. That way, blame is shared on both sides, which usually means, no one gets blamed.
gak, the budget that was passed last year was Bi-Partisan.
*shrugs*
It's probably always been like this, except that now, in the information age of internet, social media, 24-hr news... it's more obvious.
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Okay... not sure what you're asking. Sorry...
The question is the bit with the question mark after it. I'll bold it so you can't miss it a third time. You made a statement, he's asking you to clarify with facts, and to reinforce your statement.
I know you're an Aussie... dogma knows exactly what I'm talking about.... he's just being pedantic.
Look up the "Cornhusker Kickbacks", Carl Levin's attempt for exemptions for his state, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu xtra $300 million for medicaide.... these were all blatant payoff.... the Democrats weren't in "lockstep" with each other... hence the pressure & payoffs.
That is how American politics has worked for years it seems, and isn't at all new when it comes to this scenario. Not that its a good thing, but it is the status quo to offer something in the district of someone's vote that you are courting.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
But, if you insist on continuing your tirade, which Democrats were "...bribed, brow-beaten to back the party."? You're clearly quite passionate, so you should know.
Okay... not sure what you're asking. Sorry...
The question is the bit with the question mark after it. I'll bold it so you can't miss it a third time. You made a statement, he's asking you to clarify with facts, and to reinforce your statement.
I know you're an Aussie... dogma knows exactly what I'm talking about.... he's just being pedantic.
Look up the "Cornhusker Kickbacks", Carl Levin's attempt for exemptions for his state, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu xtra $300 million for medicaide.... these were all blatant payoff.... the Democrats weren't in "lockstep" with each other... hence the pressure & payoffs.
That is how American politics has worked for years it seems, and isn't at all new when it comes to this scenario. Not that its a good thing, but it is the status quo to offer something in the district of someone's vote that you are courting.
They're usually not that obvious about it... Plus, you're talking about a feth ton of money there... not like naming an airport after yourself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 03:44:44
whembly wrote: Understand that what's covered or not isn't always black & white. Furthermore, it's the caregiver/MDs making the determination whether or not the patient would accept a blood transfusion. One of the first fething question they'd ask you when you're admitted into the hospital is if you're a practicing Jehovah's Witness (and Mormon... not sure why mormonism is considered).
Mormon's don't do blood transfusion either? Huh, I did not know that.
Please stop talking about individuals personally choosing what procedures they personally undertake. It is irrelevant. The question is whether an employer should pay for an employer's treatment for something the employer doesn't approve of.
And on that end, is there an actual instance, anywhere of someone even attempting to not cover blood transfusions for their staff? Or of anyone, anywhere, trying to avoid paying insurance for someone else because of religious convictions. I mean that is the real, big point here - that until this moment no-one seems to have spent any time at all worrying that they were paying in to a pool of funds that other people might use for actions they personally don't approve of for religious reasons.
Another example is conscientious objectors worried that they would be drafted and forced to fight... but they never looked to be excluded for the portion of their taxes that would fund the military.
And again, I'm not saying there isn't a constitutional point here - I'm just trying to get people to realise that this is a point of religious freedom that has never been worried about before... and maybe to think about why that might be the case.
But, prior to the ACA, access to contraceptive wasn't an issue.
Having to pay in to a pool of funds, and accept that some of that money might be used for things you personally don't approve of for religious reasons is as old as mud.
And I've countered that THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES! This was merely a political ploy... .don't you see this?
No - read what I am saying. It is not just access but cost that dictates the use of contraceptives. Even when contraception is not just available but even cheap you get people failing to use it and falling pregnant - leading to abortions and people having children too young.
But when that contraception becomes free you see massive take up rates, and significant reductions in abortions and young children. Now you might note that condoms are quite cheap compared to the cost of a child or even the cost of an abortion... but we're talking about young and poor people here - sensible financial thinking is not that common.
What was the problem?
Teen pregnancy and hundreds of thousands of abortions.
And you have to recognize that sometimes these actions are political in nature... rather than an honest attempt to fix real world problems.
But this isn't. There is a vast wealth of social policy looking at the impact of free contraception on the rate of abortion and teen pregnancy. You know when Obama said that instead of banning abortion they should look at ways of reducing the number of abortions... this is what he was talking about.
I agree with you there. Here's the kicker... places like Planned Parenthood ALREADY receives fundings for this.
Which has expanded the amount of free contraception, but not made it universal. This, in turn, still won't make it universal, but the desire to move closer towards universal coverage should be clear.
They don't like medicines either.
In fact, I'd be surprised if they even HAVE insurance plans.
The cult itself probably doesn't. But what if Will Smith starts up a set of franchise restaurants based around Men In Black? I mean, getting served a burger by a guy dressed in black suit talking like Tommy Lee Jones would be pretty awesome... but that's an idea that probably demands its own thread.
Anyhow, when Will Smith covers his employees health insurance, does he get to say that because he is a Scientologist then it is wrong for the government to make him cover his employee's mental health needs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... bills are passed with both parties involved. That way, blame is shared on both sides, which usually means, no one gets blamed.
gak, the budget that was passed last year was Bi-Partisan.
And the vote to increase the debt ceiling had Republicans cross the floor. Giving us hope that maybe the ultra-hard factional lines of the last few years are letting up a bit.
But that doesn't mean we haven't been in, or aren't still in, an era dominated by really extreme party line division.
It's probably always been like this, except that now, in the information age of internet, social media, 24-hr news... it's more obvious.
The internet and 24 hour news has had an impact - changed the culture as I said earlier.
I mean, consider when Snowe voted to let ACA out of committee, and grassroot Republicans freaked the feth out. A committee vote would not have been even reported on in years gone by, but here it front page, breaking news. The requirement to vote in line with what the hardline of the party demanded is new, and it's impact has been powerful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 04:09:37
“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.
dogma wrote: They can quit, and they'll be stuck abroad. Being trapped in a particular situation has a way of influencing one's decision making.
Stuck abroad? Due to the...blockade we have preventing people from leaving Iraq? Come on. It's a plane flight home. If that's your criteria for forced labor, I'm starting to understand why you say the things you say around here.
Look up the "Cornhusker Kickbacks", Carl Levin's attempt for exemptions for his state, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu xtra $300 million for medicaide.... these were all blatant payoff.... the Democrats weren't in "lockstep" with each other... hence the pressure & payoffs.
I think calling those exemptions "payoffs" is unfair given that state based financial and legislative concessions have been a significant part of US Federal politics since the founding of the Federal Government.
Stuck abroad? Due to the...blockade we have preventing people from leaving Iraq? Come on. It's a plane flight home. If that's your criteria for forced labor, I'm starting to understand why you say the things you say around here.
When did I call it forced labor?
Anyway, what happens if they don't have the money to cover the cost of that plane flight?
whembly wrote: Understand that what's covered or not isn't always black & white. Furthermore, it's the caregiver/MDs making the determination whether or not the patient would accept a blood transfusion. One of the first fething question they'd ask you when you're admitted into the hospital is if you're a practicing Jehovah's Witness (and Mormon... not sure why mormonism is considered).
Mormon's don't do blood transfusion either? Huh, I did not know that.
Sebster, I can tell you we do blood transfusions. For some reason it keeps popping up that Mormons don't, but it is an incorrect statement.
Relapse wrote: Sebster, I can tell you we do blood transfusions. For some reason it keeps popping up that Mormons don't, but it is an incorrect statement.
Ah, thankyou for the clarification. Lot of myths floating around about Mormons, yeah?
“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.
Relapse wrote: Sebster, I can tell you we do blood transfusions. For some reason it keeps popping up that Mormons don't, but it is an incorrect statement.
Ah, thankyou for the clarification. Lot of myths floating around about Mormons, yeah?
For some reason Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to get conflated with each other.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
dogma wrote: After all, an employer that is compensating his employees by way of an insufficient healthcare plan is essentially forcing them to work for something they don't like;
I'm sure we'll now all be treated to a one-line response that forced work and forced labor aren't the same thing.
Anyway, what happens if they don't have the money to cover the cost of that plane flight?
Then they weren't working for Academi in the first place.
But please do go on; I'm enjoying this tale of someone who unknowingly finds themselves employed with a company that doesn't provide good benefits and somehow winds up overseas without ever receiving a health care package from HR, stranding them in a hostile warzone, and thus believably illustrating why the employer mandate is vital. Frankly, it's the most realistic argument yet made in its favor.
whembly wrote: Understand that what's covered or not isn't always black & white. Furthermore, it's the caregiver/MDs making the determination whether or not the patient would accept a blood transfusion. One of the first fething question they'd ask you when you're admitted into the hospital is if you're a practicing Jehovah's Witness (and Mormon... not sure why mormonism is considered).
Mormon's don't do blood transfusion either? Huh, I did not know that.
Please stop talking about individuals personally choosing what procedures they personally undertake. It is irrelevant. The question is whether an employer should pay for an employer's treatment for something the employer doesn't approve of.
And on that end, is there an actual instance, anywhere of someone even attempting to not cover blood transfusions for their staff? Or of anyone, anywhere, trying to avoid paying insurance for someone else because of religious convictions. I mean that is the real, big point here - that until this moment no-one seems to have spent any time at all worrying that they were paying in to a pool of funds that other people might use for actions they personally don't approve of for religious reasons.
Another example is conscientious objectors worried that they would be drafted and forced to fight... but they never looked to be excluded for the portion of their taxes that would fund the military.
And again, I'm not saying there isn't a constitutional point here - I'm just trying to get people to realise that this is a point of religious freedom that has never been worried about before... and maybe to think about why that might be the case.
But, prior to the ACA, access to contraceptive wasn't an issue.
Having to pay in to a pool of funds, and accept that some of that money might be used for things you personally don't approve of for religious reasons is as old as mud.
And I've countered that THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES! This was merely a political ploy... .don't you see this?
No - read what I am saying. It is not just access but cost that dictates the use of contraceptives. Even when contraception is not just available but even cheap you get people failing to use it and falling pregnant - leading to abortions and people having children too young.
But when that contraception becomes free you see massive take up rates, and significant reductions in abortions and young children. Now you might note that condoms are quite cheap compared to the cost of a child or even the cost of an abortion... but we're talking about young and poor people here - sensible financial thinking is not that common.
What was the problem?
Teen pregnancy and hundreds of thousands of abortions.
And you have to recognize that sometimes these actions are political in nature... rather than an honest attempt to fix real world problems.
But this isn't. There is a vast wealth of social policy looking at the impact of free contraception on the rate of abortion and teen pregnancy. You know when Obama said that instead of banning abortion they should look at ways of reducing the number of abortions... this is what he was talking about.
I agree with you there. Here's the kicker... places like Planned Parenthood ALREADY receives fundings for this.
Which has expanded the amount of free contraception, but not made it universal. This, in turn, still won't make it universal, but the desire to move closer towards universal coverage should be clear.
They don't like medicines either.
In fact, I'd be surprised if they even HAVE insurance plans.
The cult itself probably doesn't. But what if Will Smith starts up a set of franchise restaurants based around Men In Black? I mean, getting served a burger by a guy dressed in black suit talking like Tommy Lee Jones would be pretty awesome... but that's an idea that probably demands its own thread.
Anyhow, when Will Smith covers his employees health insurance, does he get to say that because he is a Scientologist then it is wrong for the government to make him cover his employee's mental health needs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... bills are passed with both parties involved. That way, blame is shared on both sides, which usually means, no one gets blamed.
gak, the budget that was passed last year was Bi-Partisan.
And the vote to increase the debt ceiling had Republicans cross the floor. Giving us hope that maybe the ultra-hard factional lines of the last few years are letting up a bit.
But that doesn't mean we haven't been in, or aren't still in, an era dominated by really extreme party line division.
It's probably always been like this, except that now, in the information age of internet, social media, 24-hr news... it's more obvious.
The internet and 24 hour news has had an impact - changed the culture as I said earlier.
I mean, consider when Snowe voted to let ACA out of committee, and grassroot Republicans freaked the feth out. A committee vote would not have been even reported on in years gone by, but here it front page, breaking news. The requirement to vote in line with what the hardline of the party demanded is new, and it's impact has been powerful.
The Individual Mandate Goes Poof The latest delays show that the supposed centerpiece of ObamaCare won't cause the uninsured to buy coverage.
One by one, the myths of the Affordable Care Act have been revealed. When the curtain on open enrollment falls on March 31, the last remaining big myth of ObamaCare will be fully exposed: The individual mandate has failed.
After a last-ditch effort with President Obama himself encouraging "young invincibles" to sign up before the deadline, the administration is scrambling to boost enrollment. On Tuesday, the White House announced that people who applied for coverage on the federal health-insurance exchange will have until mid-April to finish the paperwork.
The mandate was supposed to be the administration's magical elixir for the assorted shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act. Disappointing early enrollment numbers? More people will sign up eventually to avoid mandate penalties. Potential premium spikes for government-approved coverage that must ignore cost differences in the age- and health-related risks of enrollees? Forcing young and healthy individuals to buy coverage will spread out the costs.
But the individual mandate was never strong enough to force millions of Americans to buy insurance they did not want or could not afford. Last week, the Obama administration estimated that five million Americans had signed up thus far for insurance on the exchanges, falling short of original projections by the administration and the Congressional Budget Office that there would be seven million first-year enrollees. Yet even the five million figure needs to be discounted by at least another 20% to account for people who fail to pay for their first month's premium, according to insurers' estimates of early enrollees.
The individual mandate had the least effect on those it was supposed to encourage to gain coverage—the uninsured. McKinsey & Co. surveys found that a little over one-quarter of people signing up for coverage last month were previously uninsured. Goldman Sachs GS +0.23% analysts estimate that about one million uninsured Americans will sign up for the ObamaCare exchanges before open enrollment ends. For perspective, that's about 2% of the 48 million uninsured.
A larger share of the exchange enrollees is likely coming from people whose previous coverage was canceled (due to other ObamaCare rules) or those who found a somewhat better deal for exchange coverage (due to much more generous low-income subsidies). More recent increases in insurance coverage are appearing in health plans outside of the exchanges.
The mandate penalties are too small and limited to be very persuasive. Many uninsured individuals are exempted from them. Either their incomes are lower than the federal income tax filing threshold (roughly $10,150 for a single individual), the minimum essential coverage that ObamaCare requires would be "unaffordable" under the law (costing them more than 8% of their household income), or they fall within a growing list of other exemptions from the mandate.
Even when the CBO was more optimistic about the individual mandate's effects (in April 2010), it expected about two-thirds of the 21 million nonelderly persons still uninsured in 2016 to be exempt from the mandate or its penalties.
Those not exempt face modest fines compared with the out-of-pocket cost of paying premiums for ObamaCare-required insurance. For example, the maximum penalties for a single adult remaining uninsured throughout all of 2014 would amount to the higher of $95 or 1% of household income above the federal income tax filing threshold. This is a fraction of the cost of health insurance for potential enrollees in government exchanges.
The threat behind the penalties is even less believable. The Affordable Care Act explicitly prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from using its most powerful enforcement tools like criminal penalties and levying property—such as wage garnishment.
If the IRS manages to discover someone without required coverage for all or part of a year, it can do little more than collect the penalty by taking it out of any other income tax refunds owed to an uninsured taxpayer. That risk can be limited or avoided by reducing the amounts withheld from one's regular paycheck for income taxes.
For the mandate to have teeth, the size of the penalty would need to be greatly increased, exemptions would need to decrease, and enforcement would need to be stronger. Good luck with convincing congressional Democrats facing midterm elections to commit political suicide.
Even then, a tougher mandate still might not work. The CBO concedes that there is "little empirical evidence concerning individual people's responsiveness to health insurance mandates." In other countries with much higher penalties, such as Switzerland or the Netherlands, health-insurance mandates have had little success in changing the behavior of the uninsured and largely reinforced existing levels of coverage. This was the finding in a November 2007 Health Affairs study by former Obama Health and Human Services official Sherry Glied and two co-authors. They also found mixed results from mandates for auto insurance.
The March 31 deadline to gain coverage in government exchanges will come and go with a whimper, not a bang. Enrollment numbers may rally a bit, but likely still will remain low. Any net gains in coverage will be due primarily to ObamaCare's generous exchange subsidies for lower-income Americans, plus automatic enrollment of income-eligible Medicaid beneficiaries.
The ineffectiveness of the individual mandate is trumped only by its unpopularity. Two-thirds of Americans support getting rid of the individual mandate completely, according to a recent ABC News poll. This month, the House of Representatives voted again to delay enforcement of the individual mandate for a year, with support from 27 Democratic defectors.
The Obama administration already has been forced to delay, drop or revise a host of other requirements in the law, such as the employer mandate, minimum benefits standards, and nondiscrimination rules. Until now, the White House has refused to delay or repeal the unpopular individual mandate because it was supposed to hide the full "on-budget" costs of ObamaCare. Its architects hoped that the mandate could force millions of Americans to pay for the law's expensive coverage and cross subsidies through higher premiums instead of higher taxes. But they always lacked sufficient political support to try to make the mandate powerful enough to accomplish this.
Expect the mandate to turn into even more of a "suggestion" before votes are cast in this November's congressional elections. With the mandate illusion off the table, the Affordable Care Act can no longer hide what it truly is: another unfunded liability for taxpayers.
"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
sebster wrote: For anyone who's looking for real and substantial information about ACA enrolments, this site is amazing. If you want to know how ACA signups have actually been going, and not just hear what some pundit is trying to sell you, this is the place.
Here's the problem... he's not getting different data than what the media is reporting. It's all the same, albeit, presented very nicely on this website.
Words matter here now... these data points state "enrollments".
What does that mean? Does the new numbers include people who’ve placed a plan in their virtual shopping cart on Healthcare.gov, but who haven’t pulled the trigger and actually purchased it? What about those we signed up on their state's Medicaid from Healthcare.gov? By policy last fall, those transactions "counted".
The number does not distinguish between individuals who have chosen a health care plan and have paid their first month’s premium, and those who have not — which has been estimated to be around 20 percent of those who have signed up.
The numbers also don’t include individuals who have enrolled in Medicaid, which was expanded in many states to individuals who earn up to 133 percent of the poverty level. They also don’t count those who have purchased insurance directly from a private insurance company but will be included in the overall risk pool.
Furthermore, it doesn't specify how many of these six million were uninsured before and how many are simply replacing coverage that ObamaCare forced their old insurer to cancel.
There's no demographic information of the enrollees. (not that I can see... )
So... throwing out the words "enrollment" and "signed up" is a bit disingenuous here... if I were Obama and these were PAID PLANS... I'd "drop mic" that these were 6 million+ paid plans and shut everyone up. But since they aren't saying "paid", and using words like "sign up", it invites suspicion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/27 21:02:26
Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on the Hobby Lobby arguments BY EUGENE VOLOKH
March 27 at 3:46 pm
I’m delighted to pass along this item from Prof. Michael McConnell at Stanford. In my view, Michael is probably tied for most influential and respected Religion Clauses scholar in the nation today, both on the Free Exercise Clause side and the Establishment Clause side. He obviously has a perspective of his own on the underlying issues — he was, for instance, a forceful critic of the Court’s Employment Division v. Smith decision (a decision that I myself support, though I also support the existence of jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction Religious Freedom Restoration Act statutes). But his writings are always very much worth reading.
What follows is from Prof. McConnell.
* * *
Cutting through the politicized hype about the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga case (“Corporations have no rights!” “War on Women!”) the Justices during oral argument focused on four serious legal questions, which deserve a serious answer:
(1) Could Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping health insurance and paying fines of $2,000 per employee?
(2) Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees?
(3) Would a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby give rise to a slippery slope of exemptions from vaccines, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and the like?
(4) Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test?
I think the answer to all four questions is “no.” I offer brief thoughts on each below.
1. Can Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden by dropping insurance?
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy asked several questions about whether Hobby Lobby could avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping insurance altogether and paying an annual “tax” of $2,000 per employee. Tr. 23-29. Some have suggested, based on admittedly “speculative” calculations, that this option would actually save Hobby Lobby money, because health insurance typically costs more than $2,000 per employee. This argument—which the government never raised below and which no lower court has addressed—is wrong both in principle and on the facts.
First, the Greens (owners of Hobby Lobby) have alleged that their religious beliefs include a belief in treating employees well, a belief they practice by, among other things, offering quality health care to their employees. (Their religious beliefs are also why they start employees at nearly double the minimum wage, reduce operating hours to promote family time, and provide other benefits.) The government has never contested the sincerity of those beliefs. And that should end the argument. The government is forcing the Greens to cover contraception or drop insurance altogether, both of which would burden their religious exercise.
Even apart from religious convictions, the right of an employer to provide health insurance coverage for its employees is a valuable right under the law. If employers were better off dropping insurance coverage and paying the “tax,” we would expect many large employers to do so. That has not happened—which confirms the common-sense conclusion that dropping insurance coverage is bad for employees and bad for business.
In any event, the speculation that Hobby Lobby could save money by dropping its employees’ health insurance plan, paying the tax, and making it up to them in increased salary disregards three important facts:
(1) employer-provided health insurance is tax-exempt to the employee, but the compensatory increase in salary would not be;
(2) the provision of insurance is tax-deductible to the employer, but payment of the tax is not; and
(3) employer-based group coverage is cheaper and usually better than individual plans on the exchanges. It is almost certainly cheaper for Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance than to pay for its employees to purchase equivalent coverage on the exchanges.
True, some of Hobby Lobby’s employees might be eligible for subsidies, which in theory might lower its costs. But those subsidies depend on information an employer does not have – family size and income – and employers cannot pay different amounts to workers based on these factors. To make all of its employees whole, Hobby Lobby would have to assume none will receive subsidies.
In short, if Hobby Lobby drops insurance, it would not simply pay a $2,000 “tax.” Requiring it to cease providing insurance would cause massive disruption to Hobby Lobby’s employees, major uncertainty for its business, and cost millions of dollars in taxes and salaries beyond what it was previously paying just for insurance. It is easy to see how imposing such a choice constitutes a substantial burden—which is likely why the government never raised the issue, and the courts of appeals never considered it.
2. Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees?
Turning to strict scrutiny, the government’s main argument is that it has a compelling interest in protecting the “statutory rights” of third parties—namely, the right of Hobby Lobby’s employees to get cost-free contraception through Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan. Evaluating the strength of the government’s interests is often one of the most difficult inquiries in constitutional law. But in this case, the government has almost insuperable difficulties in making the case.
a. First and foremost, the government’s compelling interest argument suffers from a rather glaring problem: Congress did not impose the contraceptive mandate, but left it to HHS to decide what “preventive services” must be covered. If Congress really viewed contraceptive coverage as a compelling interest it would not have left it to the vagaries of the administrative process, which are subject to political change from administration to administration.
The interest is further undermined by HHS’s statutory authority to grant religious exemptions to whomever it chooses—which HHS itself understands to include authority to grant such exemptions to for-profit businesses. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16504 (March 21, 2012) (“The Departments seek comment on which religious organizations should be eligible for the accommodation and whether, as some religious stakeholders have suggested, for-profit religious employers with such objections should be considered as well.”). Genuinely compelling interests—that is, those that cannot tolerate religious exemptions—do not come with open-ended regulatory authority to create exceptions.
b. The government argues that it necessarily has a compelling interest in protecting the “statutory rights” of the employees to contraceptive coverage. The employees, it argues, cannot be made to bear the burden of the employer’s religious exercise.
This argument is circular. It assumes the conclusion – that employees are legally entitled to this benefit – when that is the very question before the Court. The Affordable Care Act shifts the legal responsibility for paying for an employee’s contraceptive coverage from the employee to the employer. There is nothing wrong with that in principle; the government shifts economic burdens all the time. But when the burden is an imposition on conscience the government may not shift the burden without a compelling justification. If the mere fact that the statute creates a new “statutory right” for a third party were enough to make the government’s interest compelling, no one could ever raise a First Amendment or RFRA challenge to a law forcing them to do something for someone else.
As Justice Kennedy pointed out in oral argument, the government could require employers to pay for employees’ abortions (or could require for-profit doctors to perform them), and RFRA would be no help, because the government would always have a compelling interest in protecting the “statutory rights” of third parties. That cannot be the law.
Religious accommodations often impose burdens on third parties. In Sherbert, the employer’s unemployment tax rate was increased on account of covering an employee who could not work on Saturday; military draft exemptions for religious conscientious objectors – the most venerable of all religious accommodations – make it more likely that other people will be drafted; Title VII’s religious accommodation requirement requires employers and other employees to adjust their practices; conscience clauses force women seeking abortions to locate a different doctor or hospital. It would break with long-standing law and tradition to say that religious accommodations can never shift a burden to a third party.
c. The government’s argument cannot be squared with the Court’s recent, unanimous, decision in Hosanna-Tabor, allowing religious employers to impose substantial burdens on the “statutory rights” of employees. In that case, the Court held, without dissent, that religious organizations have a First Amendment right to fire ministerial employees for any reason at all—even reasons that would violate anti-discrimination laws. Obviously, firing an employee in violation of anti-discrimination laws is a more substantial deprivation of the employee’s “statutory rights” than declining to pay for the employee’s contraception.
The government struggles to distinguish Hosanna-Tabor on the ground that it arises in “the special context of autonomy for churches and religious institutions.” Gov’t Reply Br. 13. But that simply dodges the question: Why should the government have no interest when a religious group imposes a severe burden, but a compelling interest when a business imposes a light burden? Perhaps the government thinks this is because a for-profit business is categorically incapable of exercising religion. But for reasons that I and others have explained, that argument is untenable. And it certainly found little support at oral argument. So we are left with the conclusion that burdens on third parties do not automatically foreclose a claim of religious freedom. See also Tr. 43-44.
d. This conclusion is consistent with other areas of the law, where the Court consistently protects civil rights—even when they impose burdens on third parties. In the free exercise context, the Court has recognized a right to sacrifice animals, despite “a substantial health risk . . . [to] the general public” and “emotional injury to children who witness the sacrifice of animals.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. 529-30. It has recognized a right to use illicit drugs, despite the harm to third parties from diversion of the drugs for recreational use. O Centro, 546 U.S. at 426. And it has recognized a right to keep children out of public school, despite the harm to children who leave the Amish faith and are “ill-equipped for life.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 224.
Outside the free exercise context, the Court protects free speech, even when it causes financial and emotional harm to third parties. Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2010); N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). It protects freedom of the press, even when it could undermine national security and thus the safety of third parties. N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). It protects freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, even when it allows dangerous criminals to escape conviction for crimes committed against third parties. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). And it protects the right against self-incrimination, even when it does the same. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In short, the fact that a civil right may impose burdens on third parties is not, standing alone, sufficient reason to restrict that right. What we need is theory of which burdens give rise to a compelling governmental interest, and which do not. But the government offers no such theory.
e. One objective way to decide which governmental interests are compelling is to look at whether the government exempts a significant amount of conduct that undermines that interest. As the Court said in Lukumi, “[A] law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order . . . when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.” 508 U.S. at 547. Here, due to exemptions for grandfathered plans, exceptions for small businesses, accommodations for religious non-profits, the failure to reach church plans, and exemptions for religious employers, the contraception-coverage provision does not apply to tens of millions of employees.
f. Another way to evaluate the strength of the government’s interest is to look at how the government itself treats that interest. As Justice Alito pointed out (Tr. at 60), the HHS regulations require grandfathered health plans to comply immediately with “certain particularly significant protections”—such as covering dependents to age 26, covering preexisting conditions, and reducing waiting periods (75 Fed. Reg. 34538, 34540, 34542 Tbl. 1 (June 17, 2010))—but not with the contraception mandate. Thus, HHS itself characterized the contraception mandate as not “particularly significant.”
g. Finally, there is something Alice in Wonderland-ish about the government’s position. According to the government, there may be some employees who need contraception, who can’t use one of the 14 kinds of free contraception provided under Hobby Lobby’s plan, and who might be deterred from buying Plan B, ella, or IUDs with their own money. Yet the government also argues that, in order to avoid the burden on its religious exercise, Hobby Lobby should drop its insurance coverage, pay a fine, and force its employees to obtain coverage on a government exchange. In that case, all 13,000 employees would lose excellent health insurance and be forced to buy their own insurance on an exchange. That imposes is a far greater burden on Hobby Lobby’s employees. The government strains at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
3. Would a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby produce a parade of horribles?
In its reply brief, the government argued that a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby “would entitle commercial employers with religious objections to opt out of virtually any statute protecting their employees”—including anti-discrimination laws, minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes, or immunization-coverage requirements. Several Justices raised this issue at oral argument. But the government’s parade of horribles argument is quite weak.
First, as Hobby Lobby’s counsel pointed out, the government’s parade of horribles is identical to Justice Scalia’s parade of horribles in Smith. Justice Scalia argued that courts should not be in the business of balancing the importance of general laws against the significance of burdens on religious practice; Justice O’Connor disagreed, arguing that courts could strike sensible balances. In RFRA, Congress obviously sided with Justice O’Connor. So the parade of horribles is simply an argument against Congress’s decision to enact RFRA, not an argument against Hobby Lobby.
Second, we can be quite confident that taking Congress at its word will not produce the parade of horribles the government suggests. RFRA has been on the books for 20 years; Sherbert was the law for almost 30 years; and more than half of the states apply the same legal standard as a matter of state law—yet this parade of horribles has not even come close to appearing. If there were serious objections to complying with these laws, they would have been raised long ago by churches, religious non-profits, sole proprietorships, and partnerships—all of which the government concedes can bring RFRA claims. And if, as Justice Kagan suggested, a stringent interpretation of RFRA would bring religious objectors “out of the woodwork,” we would have seen that after the Court’s stringent, unanimous ruling in O Centro eight years ago. But we haven’t.
Third, if new cases do arise, RFRA requires the Court to analyze each case on its own merits. Some cases will be rejected on grounds of insincerity or lack of a substantial burden—such as the minimum-wage claim in Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, 471 U.S. 290 (1985). Of course, when a for-profit business claims a religious exemption that results in a windfall, courts view such claims with skepticism—just as they view claims to the use of marijuana or special treatment in prison with skepticism.
Other claims will be rejected under the compelling interest test. For instance, immunization-coverage requirements may be justified by the need for herd immunity, a public health benefit that only becomes possible when a large portion of the population is immunized. As Justice Alito noted, the government already provides free vaccines to children who lack insurance coverage for vaccines. Courts typically regard antidiscrimination laws, especially with respect to race, as one of the most compelling of governmental interests, superseding free exercise rights. E.g., Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
In short, the government’s parade of horribles is contrary to the basic premise of RFRA, far-fetched, and easily distinguishable. The Court should reject it—just as it did in O Centro and Hosanna-Tabor. See O Centro, 546 U.S. at 436 (“The Government’s argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.”); Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 710 (noting that the government “foresee[s] a parade of horribles that will follow our recognition of a ministerial exception,” but that “[t]here will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise”).
4. Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test?
None of these approaches to the case involves making new law. But if the Justices wish to rest the decision on a still narrower ground, it could hold that the government failed to prove that the mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving its claimed interests. Justice Breyer may have been laying the groundwork for this type of resolution by asking why employer coverage is the least restrictive way to provide that access. Tr. 63. A decision focusing on least restrictive means would be easiest for the Court to distinguish in later cases, thus leaving the most room for the government to win future RFRA cases when its claims might be more meritorious.
Even accepting (arguendo) the notion that insurance coverage for contraceptives is a compelling interest, it is hardly obvious that the least restrictive way to provide that coverage is by forcing employers to provide it. Indeed, the government’s argument that Hobby Lobby should just drop insurance altogether demonstrates that the government actually does not view it as essential that people receive insurance through their employers as opposed to from other sources. The important point for the government, it seems, is that employees who work at Hobby Lobby have access to this coverage from some source.
This could be structured in any number of ways. The government could extend the same accommodation to the small number of businesses with this conscientious objection that it already has to religious employers. It could subsidize the contraceptive coverage directly. Employers with conscientious objections could compensate for not providing contraceptive coverage by adding other valuable coverage to the employees’ plans, thus ensuring that the employer receives no financial benefit from the objection and that the employees bear no net burden. The government could allow employers to substitute cash for coverage on a tax-free and tax-deductible basis.
Ultimately, the government’s problem here is that it has essentially reduced its own compelling interest to a funding question: Who should pay for the contraceptive coverage the government has decided people should have? Almost by definition, where the government’s claimed interest is merely a question of who should fund something, there will always be less restrictive alternatives, because the government can always choose to fund its own priorities (which it of course does with a great many things that even the government would not claim to be compelling interests).
The political dynamics of this case have attracted extraordinary attention, but the Supreme Court is a court of law, not of politics. The excellent questions posed at oral argument are evidence that the Court intends to decide this case in accordance with standard principles of constitutional and statutory analysis. My guess is that in the cold light of legal principle, the challenge to the contraceptive mandate will carry the day.
whembly wrote: Seb, we've gone over this. Numerous of times.
Let's see what the SC rules on this case.
You haven't read what I posted, have you. Because the point I made is completely seperate to how the Supreme Court rules. I'll say it again, hopefully clearly enough this time - I have no clue how the Supreme Court will rule and to be honest, very little interest. If a minor and unnecessary piece of ACA is found to be unconstitutional, that's okay. If a trivial restriction on religious liberty is found to be constitutional, that's okay as well. The ruling of SC will change nothing of meaning.
My point, instead, is to get people to think about why this particular minor piece of religious liberty has become such an absolute, do or die, defend at all costs thing... when for generations people were paying in to pooled funds, accepting that some of that money would go towards ends that they personally didn't approve of through their religion. Is it just because its ACA, and anything and everything to do with ACA is a big issue that's bound to get dragged before the courts? Or is it because this time its affected a major faith, who have the numbers and resources to drive a SC appeal. Or is it not just the numbers that matter, but the fact that more mainstream religions are used to getting accommodation under the law, that the kind of minor restrictions that most people learn to just ignore, become great abuses of religious freedom when suffered by more mainstream faiths?
Yet even the five million figure needs to be discounted by at least another 20% to account for people who fail to pay for their first month's premium, according to insurers' estimates of early enrollees.[/color]
Holy gak, they can't even get the figure right. It's 6 million, and will now be 6.4 million by the final enrolment date.
Yet even the five million figure needs to be discounted by at least another 20% to account for people who fail to pay for their first month's premium, according to insurers' estimates of early enrollees.
Is total bs, as is every "OMG the sign ups don't count because they haven't paid yet nonsense." With the steadily increasing rate of sign ups, at any given point about 40% of sign ups are anywhere up to a month away from having their insurance start. Many haven't even had their insurance applications processed yet. So of course they haven't paid yet.
Imagine working for a car dealership, and you have a real good day, selling three cars, with three happy buyers all signing up there on the dotted line. YOu go in and tell you manager the news and he asks "Sure, but have any of them made their first payment yet?" You explain that they only signed up today, the car won't be delivered for a month and they'll make monthly payments then, and he replies "no, they're all just ghost buyers, they'll never make a payment I knew this whole car dealership thing was doomed and we should abandon it now"
You would think that man a lunatic. But this is what the Republicans are trying to sell.
The individual mandate had the least effect on those it was supposed to encourage to gain coverage—the uninsured. McKinsey & Co. surveys found that a little over one-quarter of people signing up for coverage last month were previously uninsured. Goldman Sachs GS +0.23% analysts estimate that about one million uninsured Americans will sign up for the ObamaCare exchanges before open enrollment ends. For perspective, that's about 2% of the 48 million uninsured.
Is statistical shenanigans. The 20% figure is straight up bs, state figures are reporting around 60%, while Kentucky reported 75% of enrollees were previously uninsured. And more importantly, you can't try and discount people who were already employed without also adding in people who've taken insurance off exchange.
It's also fething hilarious that before the election Republicans were thinking up everything they could to minimise the number of uninsured (oh that 48 million includes students and illegal immigrants) and now they're embracing the 48 million to try and claim that ACA has solved only a small portion of the uninsured problem.
And it's probably even more hilarious now that having finally given up on declaring the individual mandate an unconstitutional tax and an assault on essential liberty, they're now claiming its a toothless nothing doomed to fail.
All of which just goes back to what I tried to explain last time we had this debate, the complaints against ACA are full of absolute lies and utterly dishonest arguments. And you just keep swallowing them up.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/28 02:31:38
“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.
whembly wrote: Seb, we've gone over this. Numerous of times.
Let's see what the SC rules on this case.
You haven't read what I posted, have you. Because the point I made is completely seperate to how the Supreme Court rules. I'll say it again, hopefully clearly enough this time - I have no clue how the Supreme Court will rule and to be honest, very little interest. If a minor and unnecessary piece of ACA is found to be unconstitutional, that's okay. If a trivial restriction on religious liberty is found to be constitutional, that's okay as well. The ruling of SC will change nothing of meaning.
True dat.
My point, instead, is to get people to think about why this particular minor piece of religious liberty has become such an absolute, do or die, defend at all costs thing... when for generations people were paying in to pooled funds, accepting that some of that money would go towards ends that they personally didn't approve of through their religion.
Wut? The mandate never existed before dude... o.O
Is it just because its ACA, and anything and everything to do with ACA is a big issue that's bound to get dragged before the courts?
If it's a crappy law... yep.
Or is it because this time its affected a major faith, who have the numbers and resources to drive a SC appeal. Or is it not just the numbers that matter, but the fact that more mainstream religions are used to getting accommodation under the law, that the kind of minor restrictions that most people learn to just ignore, become great abuses of religious freedom when suffered by more mainstream faiths?
Nah...
I think if the government directly provided it, via taxes, it'd be okay. (well, someone will complain, but not this much).
The distinction is made when certain groups is forced to provide it... rather than sending the government tax money.
Yet even the five million figure needs to be discounted by at least another 20% to account for people who fail to pay for their first month's premium, according to insurers' estimates of early enrollees.[/color]
Holy gak, they can't even get the figure right. It's 6 million, and will now be 6.4 million by the final enrolment date.
Not yet.
Yet even the five million figure needs to be discounted by at least another 20% to account for people who fail to pay for their first month's premium, according to insurers' estimates of early enrollees.
Is total bs, as is every "OMG the sign ups don't count because they haven't paid yet nonsense." With the steadily increasing rate of sign ups, at any given point about 40% of sign ups are anywhere up to a month away from having their insurance start. Many haven't even had their insurance applications processed yet. So of course they haven't paid yet.
:not sure if serious:
o.O
The deadline is a deadline.
Imagine working for a car dealership, and you have a real good day, selling three cars, with three happy buyers all signing up there on the dotted line. YOu go in and tell you manager the news and he asks "Sure, but have any of them made their first payment yet?" You explain that they only signed up today, the car won't be delivered for a month and they'll make monthly payments then, and he replies "no, they're all just ghost buyers, they'll never make a payment I knew this whole car dealership thing was doomed and we should abandon it now"
Huh? Not quite the same thing.
You're not actually covered until first payment is made. How does this work in Oz?
You would think that man a lunatic. But this is what the Republicans are trying to sell.
Right. Republicans are total idiot. Nothing they say has any merits.
Have you gotten your talking points memo from the beloved Democrats yet? Did they give you a treat too?
The individual mandate had the least effect on those it was supposed to encourage to gain coverage—the uninsured. McKinsey & Co. surveys found that a little over one-quarter of people signing up for coverage last month were previously uninsured. Goldman Sachs GS +0.23% analysts estimate that about one million uninsured Americans will sign up for the ObamaCare exchanges before open enrollment ends. For perspective, that's about 2% of the 48 million uninsured.
Is statistical shenanigans. The 20% figure is straight up bs, state figures are reporting around 60%, while Kentucky reported 75% of enrollees were previously uninsured. And more importantly, you can't try and discount people who were already employed without also adding in people who've taken insurance off exchange.
It's also fething hilarious that before the election Republicans were thinking up everything they could to minimise the number of uninsured (oh that 48 million includes students and illegal immigrants) and now they're embracing the 48 million to try and claim that ACA has solved only a small portion of the uninsured problem.
And it's probably even more hilarious now that having finally given up on declaring the individual mandate an unconstitutional tax and an assault on essential liberty, they're now claiming its a toothless nothing doomed to fail.
All of which just goes back to what I tried to explain last time we had this debate, the complaints against ACA are full of absolute lies and utterly dishonest arguments. And you just keep swallowing them up.
What was that? Didn't hear ya Seb. You're just regurgitating there...
whembly wrote: Here's the problem... he's not getting different data than what the media is reporting. It's all the same, albeit, presented very nicely on this website.
I would have said the website layout is kinda ugly actually, sort of an early 2000s 'I've moved past geocities but still haven't learned anything about layout' kind of feel.
But the difference between most media, and this site is that this represents an actual effort at getting a proper, quantitative answer to how enrollments are tracking. That doesn't mean it will be 100% accurate, but it means that it sets a useful starting point.
It's a bit like how a person could have read 100 different political blogs from across the political spectrum during 2012, and still have nothing more than a guess as to how the presidential election was going to turn out. Or you could read 538 and learn for 10 minutes every day and get a real clear picture.
Words matter here now... these data points state "enrollments".
What does that mean? Does the new numbers include people who’ve placed a plan in their virtual shopping cart on Healthcare.gov, but who haven’t pulled the trigger and actually purchased it? What about those we signed up on their state's Medicaid from Healthcare.gov? By policy last fall, those transactions "counted".
Look in to the figures with more detail. Or just look at the graph, that explains it all quite clearly. The six million figure is enrollees who have paid, or whose application is still being processed. And that's an actual application, sent off and everything.
Then on top of that you add Medicaid expansion, 4.5 million, and and another 2.5 to 3m in people who's parent's insurance now covers them, and a bunch of other minor stuff, and you get 16 million newly insured.
The number does not distinguish between individuals who have chosen a health care plan and have paid their first month’s premium, and those who have not — which has been estimated to be around 20 percent of those who have signed up.
Which is a sensible question... if we assume there is some significant number of people who have signed up and not yet reached their first monthly payment and failed to make that payment. And there is exactly zero evidence in the figures of people who's signed up and had their first payment fall due that there is some unique, ACA only phenomenom of people who are signing up and never actually paying. Instead, we're just looking at people who've signed up and haven't reached their first payment date yet.
The numbers also don’t include individuals who have enrolled in Medicaid, which was expanded in many states to individuals who earn up to 133 percent of the poverty level.
Look at the figures, please. Or just look at the graph, you'll find that number in there.
They also don’t count those who have purchased insurance directly from a private insurance company but will be included in the overall risk pool.
Actually, the website talks about that a great deal, about how that number is unknown.
Furthermore, it doesn't specify how many of these six million were uninsured before and how many are simply replacing coverage that ObamaCare forced their old insurer to cancel.
Read the website. That issue is directly mentioned in the 'Attack Points' section.
There's no demographic information of the enrollees. (not that I can see... )
No there isn't. Though as I've already explained in this thread, that issue is blown way out of proportion by people who don't understand, or pretend to not understand, how ACA actually deals with different demographic groups. Thing is, ACA doesn't prevent higher rates for older people, it just limits how much more that amount has to be - point being if enrolments include just a small number of young invincibles, then insruances costs would increase just a few percent - nothing like the death spiral number dreamed of by people hoping for ACA to fail.
So... throwing out the words "enrollment" and "signed up" is a bit disingenuous here... if I were Obama and these were PAID PLANS... I'd "drop mic" that these were 6 million+ paid plans and shut everyone up.
So if it ends up with 6.4 million paid plans, as is currently expected...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Wut? The mandate never existed before dude... o.O
As I’ve explained so many times now… there are already all kinds of similar ‘breaches’ of religious liberty – Jehovah’s Witnesses pay for insurance that their employees might spend on blood transfusions, religious pacifists have to pay taxes that in part go to military spending etc… That’s what has already existed.
And hey, maybe those infringements shouldn’t have existed either. But it’s interesting that it’s an issue that’s only now become something that goes before the courts.
I think if the government directly provided it, via taxes, it'd be okay. (well, someone will complain, but not this much).
That could probably be said about the entire health system .
Says who? You? All the way from Oz?
Says someone who, unlike the WSJ pundit, isn’t trying to scam people. If nationality is more important than avoiding con men, then that’s your choice.
Not yet.
No seriously, enrolment tipped over 6 million today. I mean, I know I’m in another country so everything I say has to be discounted, but this is all over the news in your country.
The deadline is a deadline.
And the requirement that they would enrolled, paid and receiving insurance is made up bs, to get people
You're not actually covered until first payment is made. How does this work in Oz?
Same. But once someone has signed a contract, the drop out rates before the first payment is made are next to zero. So any effort to claim that the people signed up haven’t paid yet and therefore should be ignored is just silly.
I mean, if you want to get technical then you can say ‘the six million enrolled as of today have not yet begun their insurance, so that six million figure actually represents the number of people who will be paid up insurance recipients in about a month’s time. But of course, that’s not a story, it was barely interesting enough for me to bother typing it out. So the ‘hey 20% haven’t yet paid so we should pretend they won’t ever pay’ is tried instead.
Right. Republicans are total idiot. Nothing they say has any merits.
Not idiots. Liars. And I mean, of course they are, they’re a political party attempting to win at the game of politics. Of course they’re lying. The issue isn’t one of whether or not they’re lying, but why anyone would believe what their press machine reports.
Have you gotten your talking points memo from the beloved Democrats yet? Did they give you a treat too?
They’ve been slightly more believable than the Republicans, but still a complete waste of time. Don’t look at the noise machine of either party, and you stand a chance.
What was that? Didn't hear ya Seb. You're just regurgitating there...
That was unusually lazy from you, whembly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 03:18:07
“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.
Sorry bro, your dismissal of the Supreme Court cases got under my skin. It was lazy on my part.
We're just two opinionated political-junkie on the opposite end of the debate.
We tend to get into these circular arguments and rehash these same points every other week or so.
If you think the popularity of the Individual Mandate is bad... just wait till the employer mandate kicks in.
Further more, the disruption of this law is wrecking havoc with hospital groups and medical groups across the US. We're going thru some trying times here.... so, forgive me if I'm a little crabby.
whembly wrote: Sorry bro, your dismissal of the Supreme Court cases got under my skin. It was lazy on my part.
Not a problem.
We're just two opinionated political-junkie on the opposite end of the debate.
Definitely political junkies, but I'm not so sure we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. I mean, I'm left of you and you're left of me so when we debate I end up making the left wing points and you end up making the right wing points, but that doesn't mean you're hard right and I'm certainly not hard left.
If you think the popularity of the Individual Mandate is bad... just wait till the employer mandate kicks in.
Uurgh... I hate the employer mandate. Totally unnecessary. The system should be moving away from employers being the middle men.
Further more, the disruption of this law is wrecking havoc with hospital groups and medical groups across the US. We're going thru some trying times here.... so, forgive me if I'm a little crabby.
I can read that coming through your posts and it's never bothered me. My only frustration is that no-one ever answers the actual issue I'm raising - this debate has become so automated that people just put out the same old canned lines, based on what they assume the other person is probably saying.
“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.
whembly wrote: Sorry bro, your dismissal of the Supreme Court cases got under my skin. It was lazy on my part.
Not a problem.
Thanks.
We're just two opinionated political-junkie on the opposite end of the debate.
Definitely political junkies, but I'm not so sure we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. I mean, I'm left of you and you're left of me so when we debate I end up making the left wing points and you end up making the right wing points, but that doesn't mean you're hard right and I'm certainly not hard left.
True. I'd be willing to bet we're very much alike with other things. If I'm ever at the Oz... I'm hunting you down! (to buy you a beer)
If you think the popularity of the Individual Mandate is bad... just wait till the employer mandate kicks in.
Uurgh... I hate the employer mandate. Totally unnecessary. The system should be moving away from employers being the middle men.
Exactly. Many employers are deliberating this right now. I think my employer will keep offering employer-sponser'ed plans for publicity sake (I work in the healthcare industry!). But, we've been warned that promotions/pay raises may be impacted until all of this is sorted out in the next few years.
My brother works for one of the large engineering firms in the country, and they're likely to drop their plans and give everyone a modest bump in their pay. The workers are pissed about this...
Can't we just steal/join Oz's insurance thingy? (how does that work by the way? Any good source?)
Further more, the disruption of this law is wrecking havoc with hospital groups and medical groups across the US. We're going thru some trying times here.... so, forgive me if I'm a little crabby.
I can read that coming through your posts and it's never bothered me. My only frustration is that no-one ever answers the actual issue I'm raising - this debate has become so automated that people just put out the same old canned lines, based on what they assume the other person is probably saying.
Thanks... we had some especially bad news yesterday in the industry. It was an old albatross, but suffice to say that the ACA accelerated the problem.
The good news is that we (as in my company) may come out ahead of this (simply because of our size), but I know other smaller hospitals/Medical groups are fethed.
