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.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
When did I call it forced labor?

When you said,

 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.

Using the phrase "forcing them to work" references the fact that employers have leverage over their employees which extend beyond the freedom of a given employee to leave his position. This is distinct from "forced labor" which refernces slavery, a concept which you brought into the conversation.

There, 1.5 lines explaining what I meant. Not that you have a particular leg to stand on here, given your own proclivity for 1 line responses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

The distinction is made when certain groups is forced to provide it... rather than sending the government tax money.

I don't see a major distinction between paying taxes to the state, who then provides insurance to people which you morally object to, and being forced to pay money to an insurance company so that they will provide an insurance plan that you morally object to.

Indeed, I have a hard time believing that a public option which provided birth control coverage, and was entirely funded by individual contributions, would not also face major opposition from the political right. Indeed, there's already a fair bit of opposition to the fact that Medicaid covers certain forms of it.

 dogma wrote:
Using the phrase "forcing them to work" references the fact that employers have leverage over their employees which extend beyond the freedom of a given employee to leave his position. This is distinct from "forced labor" which refernces slavery, a concept which you brought into the conversation.

You're not forced to work for private employers in this country, dogma. You can quit when you like. And if an employer is offering or not offering benefits you do or do not like, you can factor that into your decision before you take a job with them. If they change the benefits in a way you do or do not like, you have the option to leave the position.

There, 1.5 lines explaining what I meant. Not that you have a particular leg to stand on here, given your own proclivity for 1 line responses.

I can get away with one line responses because I never do anything as ludicrous as claim the employer mandate is necessary because Academi has security contractors in Iraq or that private employers can force unwilling employees to work for them.

 Seaward wrote:

You're not forced to work for private employers in this country, dogma. You can quit when you like.

In "right to work" states. You know, those states in which employers have the most power over employees.

 Seaward wrote:

I can get away with one line responses because I never do anything as ludicrous as claim the employer mandate is necessary because Academi has security contractors in Iraq or that private employers can force unwilling employees to work for them.

Sloppy rhetoric.

My point about Academi related only to a general employer mandate, not The Employer Mandate.

My point about private employers related to the fact that private employers can take advantage of employees that cannot find employment elsewhere; for whatever reason.

 dogma wrote:
In "right to work" states. You know, those states in which employers have the most power over employees.

Could you name some of the states in which you cannot quit a private sector job for me?

Sloppy rhetoric.

My point about Academi related only to a general employer mandate, not The Employer Mandate.

And that'd probably be relevant in some other thread where we weren't discussing the employer mandate.

My point about private employers related to the fact that private employers can take advantage of employees that cannot find employment elsewhere; for whatever reason.

So your argument now is that Academi guys in Iraq couldn't possibly find employment elsewhere? That's fascinating.

Why not concede it was a ludicrous argument to make and move on?

 Seaward wrote:

Could you name some of the states in which you cannot quit a private sector job for me?

There are none, but employers possess a great deal of power over employees in all states; especially "right to work" states.

 Seaward wrote:

And that'd probably be relevant in some other thread where we weren't discussing the employer mandate.

The Employer Mandate is, by definition, an employer mandate. And the US has long subjected domestic PMCs to employer mandates by way of where any given employee of theirs may serve; regardless of religion or creed.

 Seaward wrote:

So your argument now is that Academi guys in Iraq couldn't possibly find employment elsewhere? That's fascinating.

No, not at all. My point about Academi is separate from my point about private employers who employ people domestically, hence the page break.

 dogma wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

The distinction is made when certain groups is forced to provide it... rather than sending the government tax money.

I don't see a major distinction between paying taxes to the state, who then provides insurance to people which you morally object to, and being forced to pay money to an insurance company so that they will provide an insurance plan that you morally object to.

That's the crux of the argument... no?

I see it differently. We see it working in places like AU, Canada and UK.

Indeed, I have a hard time believing that a public option which provided birth control coverage, and was entirely funded by individual contributions, would not also face major opposition from the political right. Indeed, there's already a fair bit of opposition to the fact that Medicaid covers certain forms of it.

Oh... don't get me wrong, there will definitely be some opposition to this.. .but, I'd submit that they'd be in the minority.

 whembly wrote:

That's the crux of the argument... no?

I see it differently. We see it working in places like AU, Canada and UK.

Let me rephrase: if businesses were forced to pay taxes which went towards a public healthcare system that covered birth control we would see the exact same sort of opposition to the system that we see with Obamacare.

 whembly wrote:

Oh... don't get me wrong, there will definitely be some opposition to this.. .but, I'd submit that they'd be in the minority.

Maybe, but such a system would quickly become a Republican and conservative touchstone issue. After all, it brings together fiscal conservatism and religious conservatism. And I can guarantee that someone would mount a challenge under the 1st Amendment, leaving us in much the same situation.

Any word on the bill with "Copper plan" for young adults being submitted by Dem's pass or not? Harry Reid letting a vote on it?

In other news, enrollments tick over 7 million, and the right wing claims the numbers are cooked because they must be because they don't want to hear that there are 7 million enrollments... From here I think we all ought to know what's going to happen - talk of enrollments will just stop being something the right wing complains about. Instead they'll just carry on with other complaints and pretend that was why they always knew ACA was going to fail.

But long term, how does all this play out? ACA is in place, it isn't going to collapse, and killing the legislation becomes politically impossible. So what do Republicans do? Attempt to replace it with some other reform, while having basically no ground right of ACA to take medical care towards? Make a serious effort to repeal the legislation, throwing millions back on on to the roles of the uninsured and reaping whatever political consequences? Make a lot of noise about some minor parts of ACA and attempt micro-reform to escape this with some dignity (knowing full well how ugly any kind of medical reform is)? Just make some pretends efforts at sinking ACA, slowly making less and less noise each year, until they feel it is safe to stop pretending it's an issue?

 whembly wrote:
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)

Before you make that offer you better look up the price of a pint in Perth...

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...

And that's the other thing... in better economic times you'd see something close to equality in the money that was paid in place of health insurance. But in this market...

Can't we just steal/join Oz's insurance thingy? (how does that work by the way? Any good source?)

It works pretty well. I mean, it's healthcare, it never works 'well'. The most effectively run hospital is still a giant bureaucracy. The most efficient healthcare system is still a giant money pit.

That said, the system we have now gets good results for not too much money. Everyone has healthcare through a program called Medicare, and so straight off the bat you never have to worry about being denied coverage for anything serious. They still have to contribute for lots of stuff (only the first $50 odd out of a visit to a doctor will be covered by government, above that the individual has to pay, and very few doctors charge just that government amount). On top of that people above a certain income are able (and encouraged via the tax system) to buy private insurance, which means coverage for more elective stuff, shorter waiting times, and stuff like that. It works a little differently to your own system, because two of the major private insurers are not-for-profit, and anyone who feels jerked around can always go back to the public system, so the onus is always on the private insurer to do whatever it can to deliver for the insured.

It's a good overall system. I mean, there's plenty of silliness at the margins that should be getting fixed, but no government is willing to get in an fix that stuff. Instead, right now our government is looking to sell the private insurer it owns (yes, its a private insurer owned by the government ), which will likely lead to the other not-for-profit selling, potentially removing one plank of the system that's driven our private insurers to offer an effective service. But we'll see.

It's working and working well...

Cleveland Clinic CEO: Three-Quarters Of Americans Who Signed Up For Obamacare Now Have Higher Premiums

CLEVELAND (CBS Cleveland/AP) — The CEO of the Cleveland Clinic says that a majority of Americans who signed up for Obamacare have seen their premiums rise.

“About three-quarters of them find that their premiums are higher than they had been previously with other insurance,” Toby Cosgrove told Fox News.

Cosgrove explained that the Affordable Care Act is having a “major effect” upon health care providers.

“We know for example that we’re going to get paid less for what we do,” Cosgrove stated. “Hospitals are going to be paid less for what they do. We also know that insurers are paying less for what we do.”

Cosgrove said providers need to “become more efficient” in how they deliver health care.

The White House says more than 6 million have signed up for health coverage, meaning the administration met its scaled back goal a few days early.

Those without health insurance face a fine of $95 or 1 percent of their income.

HealthCare.gov was down for several hours Monday as the deadline for open enrollment loomed.

The Obama administration announced last week that some consumers will be granted additional time to sign up for health insurance if they were unable to enroll in time.

7 million enrolled but of those how many paid into it? If 3 million paid into it and the remaining 4 just enrolled into the program without making payment then there's a huge issue.
So far the questions wanting to be answered is not forth coming from the Admin
1. How many were uninsured before enrollment? That question was removed from sign up.
2. How many young people who see's it as a Ponzi scheme who are key into making this work paid into it?
3. How many hospital, since this is now coming to lite, are not on the payee ObamaCare plan?

Just top three question off the top of my head.

Maryland is already planning to scrape its ObamaCare website and planning to go with Conn version. being they only had 9% to Conn 26% so the site a state issue...

Gak sandwich to soup sandwich being the problems are really coming to light. Thank Gawd I do not have to enroll in this goat rope.

I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

Finally someone sees the big picture.

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

Dont forget, 48millon who still dont have insurance get to pay a fine now for not having insurance.

Last I heard the vast majority of OB care sign ups were the "old and sick" catagory, with "young and healthies" opting out for the most part.

The system still has 0 way to sustain itself... and as someone who fully supports social health care, I am deeply saddened that such a flawed, doomed to fail, approach was taken by the dems+obama. Especially when working, proven, examples of socialized insurance exist to emulate.

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

Dont forget, 48millon who still dont have insurance get to pay a fine now for not having insurance.

Last I heard the vast majority of OB care sign ups were the "old and sick" catagory, with "young and healthies" opting out for the most part.

The system still has 0 way to sustain itself... and as someone who fully supports social health care, I am deeply saddened that such a flawed, doomed to fail, approach was taken by the dems+obama. Especially when working, proven, examples of socialized insurance exist to emulate.

We'll just annex Canada* for their Healthcare Model, babes, and syrup.

*We already have Ice Hockey!

Currently its unable to sustain itself.

There's another issue that's cropping up on subsidies Those that enroll cannot use Fed subsidies being a state run program...or do I have that backwards...

Looking back....Cruz it seems is in the right to delay this goat rodeo...

Whembly.we do not have Hockey....nor the Canadians...its Russian player's driven...Ovechkin example..

 easysauce wrote:
Especially when working, proven, examples of socialized insurance exist to emulate.

But that's evil socialism; we can't have that in the free, democratic USA!

I would argue with you Dogma about the um..."socialism" but I kind of helped shipped a lot of "FoB in a container"'s to DHS and FEMA.....basically a portable base to sustain 800 people over quite awhile..FEMA Gulags..

 Jihadin wrote:
7 million enrolled but of those how many paid into it? If 3 million paid into it and the remaining 4 just enrolled into the program without making payment then there's a huge issue.

As already explained, the people who had not yet paid were people who's claims were still being processed, or who's first day of coverage hadn't yet begun. Which is exactly what you'd expect of any system where you enroll up to thirty days before your coverage starts.

What matters is the number people who don't make their payment once it falls due. Which is very close to zero. Of course, that reality doesn't get reported, and you guys don't go about asking those questions. fething wonder why.

1. How many were uninsured before enrollment? That question was removed from sign up.

You can find question to this on the website I've provided twice already.
http://acasignups.net/blogs/charles-gaba

2. How many young people who see's it as a Ponzi scheme who are key into making this work paid into it?

As already explained, if young people signed up in the absolute lowest possible, worst case scenario rates, then premiums would shift up just a couple of percent, making it a total nonsense to describe this in any kind of Ponzi scheme that might not work because of this arrangment. You see, while it isn't explained in the woeful reporting that we've seen on ACA, the law merely limits the higher premium for older enrollees, it doesn't remove it entirely. I can go and dig up that link if you want, but only if you promise to actually read it this time.

Anyhow, this is more fething whack-a-mole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought there were supposedly 49mm legal citizens without health care. If 6mm lost insurance and 7mm gained it, all this for...1mm?

No. Seven million signed up directly through exchanges. On top of that you have another 9.5 million who are covered due to Medicaid expansion, extended family coverage etc... And everyone of those cases is people who were not previously covered.

Of the the 3.7 million cancelled polices (not 6 million, that's a made up number), then a still unknown number signed up through other means. It would be reasonable to assume that most signed up to another plan off-exchange, as that is what they had done in the first place.

I mean, please, just follow the link and actually learn how this works.
http://acasignups.net/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's working and working well...

Cleveland Clinic CEO: Three-Quarters Of Americans Who Signed Up For Obamacare Now Have Higher Premiums

CLEVELAND (CBS Cleveland/AP) — The CEO of the Cleveland Clinic says that a majority of Americans who signed up for Obamacare have seen their premiums rise.

“About three-quarters of them find that their premiums are higher than they had been previously with other insurance,” Toby Cosgrove told Fox News.

What? How is this news? You have a previous program in which rates were assessed on individual cases, narrowing the pool to people with minor or no conditions, while people with major conditions simply couldn't afford their premiums and so didn't sign up. And then you go to a model of group rates, drawing in people with pre-existing conditions and others who are expensive to treat... and now everyone looks shocked when the overall rate of coverage goes up.

What the feth?

So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

So Sebster...those 7 million people logged on, picked a plan, and paid for enrollment into ACA...WTH...I think ..

The latest administration figures show that 4.2 million people have selected health plans in the new insurance markets. Insurance industry officials at four of the big national health plans tell POLITICO that about 15 to 20 percent people who have signed up have not yet paid their first monthly premium — the final step to get coverage.

Jives with what Rubio said earlier on Fox....if they even paid. If the fine is lower then overall payment..which route a young adult in the US is going to choose to do.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-premiums-104602.html#ixzz2xh3rdBHF

Don't look to far into this. Even some Dem's are concern.

http://medcitynews.com/2014/03/democrats-uniting-push-2-big-changes-obamacare/

Six month down the road I say both sides of the party going to agree to a revamp of ACA.


Whembly..update your Benghazi thread

 Ouze wrote:
So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

While I'm laughing at this...

I would first ask if Hobby Lobby is directly involved in the investment portion of their 401k, or if they've hired an outside company to manage the investments of those plans. You'll find that most large company does that....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:


Whembly..update your Benghazi thread

Wut?

I'm too busy with this thread and that Climate Change thread.

 Ouze wrote:
So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

If that's legit, then it is funny as funny.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

While I'm laughing at this...

I would first ask if Hobby Lobby is directly involved in the investment portion of their 401k, or if they've hired an outside company to manage the investments of those plans. You'll find that most large company does that....

from the article:

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

No only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.


Apparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care

.

Whembly..email from the Benghazi Station House Chief saying it was not an escalation of protest due to the movie or something or other...basically saying they were being attacked force on force I believe. O'Reilly and whatever Senator that chairs whatever board in charge of whatever could not go into details about due to security levels involve. Basically the former CIA Director went left instead of right on the email


The Hobby Lobby bit. The family that owns Hobby Lobby also runs it or do they have a "Board" that runs it? Who was in charge of the 401K portion or whatever department of Hobby Lobby? Why is this coming out now instead of when Hobby Lobby took the fight to SCOTUS.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

While I'm laughing at this...

I would first ask if Hobby Lobby is directly involved in the investment portion of their 401k, or if they've hired an outside company to manage the investments of those plans. You'll find that most large company does that....

from the article:

You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans—but I am afraid you would be wrong.

No only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.

To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.


Apparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care

.

Yeah... he's reaching there a bit.

All ERISA requires is the company (ie, Hobby Lobby) provides information on the framework of the plans, admin costs, fees, and those quarterly/year end summary reports. There are NO requirements that the company is intimately aware how the money is invested.

Now... I will say that Hobby Lobby should've checked this PRIOR their crusade because they're looking pretty stupid at the moment. But, it gotta be an honest mistake...

Really? It has to be an honest mistake. It couldn't possibly be anything else? Good critical thinking there.

 Ouze wrote:
So, about Hobby Lobby's deep-seated religious beliefs against those drugs....

If I ever meet Molly Redden I will buy that woman a drink.

 motyak wrote:
Really? It has to be an honest mistake. It couldn't possibly be anything else? Good critical thinking there.

Yeah man... the fething owners of Hobby Lobby are fething dumb asses for opposing certain contraceptives, and yet at the same time, they're laughing all the way to the fething bank by knowingly investing in those same companies.

That's more logical to you? Seriously?

o.O

 whembly wrote:

Yeah man... the fething owners of Hobby Lobby are fething dumb asses for opposing certain contraceptives, and yet at the same time, they're laughing all the way to the fething bank by knowingly investing in those same companies.

I can't say I have a lot of respect for the intelligence of a person that is willing to challenge ACA under the First Amendment if that person doesn't actually know where his money is going.