There is a bit of a difference between getting a letter from your insurance company that says "Due to the ACA we will be upgrading your plan at no cost to you to comply" and what we are seeing... Letters saying "Due to the ACA, we are canceling your policy effective Jan 1. You are welcome to apply for a much more expensive plan though us or the exchange... If you can even login."
Conservative judges in Supreme Court lift ban on voter discrimination.
They did no such thing. They struck down Section 4 of the VRA, not Section 5, leaving it to congress to replace Section 4 to allow Section 5 to go back into effect.
What color is the sky in your world when you miss such clear facts from the start?
That might explain things in the US... but then what is going on in the UK where they have a quality single payer system and yet ambulances are spending obscene # of hours outside of hospitals waiting to deliver their sick patients: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22135109
I'm jealous... many a cow I've seen has a field for it's use... even sometimes a barn where they get to sleep & eat... curse my employer making me buy/rent my own place... not to mention not providing a bed!
In a simplistic sense yes... buy something for $50, get $50 back, net cost = $0... only who is paying for that free printer? And where do those costs get figured in?
Of course that all assumes the savings are accurate.
Given the complexities of the system involved (as well as the massive cost overruns thus far)... how long should we wait before we hope to see Obamacare break even at a minimum?... let alone pay for itself?
I'm sorry to see you have a bit of a reading comprehension issue, allow me to dumb things down a bit for you.
Of the many claims being made in favor of Obamacare a few years back... one was that the uninsured still get treatment, just through very expensive ER visits which get paid for by the rest of us who have insurance (which on it's own is incorrect, said visits are paid for by those who pay their bills, insurance or not).
Another was that there are oodles of people declaring bankruptcy because of medical costs.
These two arguments are semi-contradictory and ignore a whole world in between.
If someone needs immediate treatment (insurance or no), they will visit an ER... and will later get a bill... bankruptcy does not immediately follow.
First come the friendly letters from the hospital asking for payment, then come the sternly worded letters, then the threatening ones. All the while a phone call or two may be made. Finally some degree of debt collector will get involved. First willing to settle for maybe 90 cents on the dollar, then 60, then 10.
Clearly no one ever pays such a bill who lacks insurance, and bankruptcy is the immediate outcome, clearly.
No one ever says "Hey hospital, I believe in paying my bills... but am out of work and only have a limited income right now... can we work something out?"
Again no one, ever. Not even me (who has done such a thing), no one at all.
Of course the whole time we also ignore the inflated advertised/billed costs of medicine due to most people going through insurance ("Wow! I just had a $492 visit, and all I had to pay was $19.72. Good think my insurance picked up the rest" (hint, they didn't pay the rest)).
So no... I was right from the start, you just opted not to consider the full scope or meaning of what I said.
See above for a reply which mostly covers what you say... only one separate thing...
It only makes to me that they would want to quit carrying burdens that other employers should be shouldering.
Why is it the job of the other employer to be shouldering that burden? Or any employer for that matter?
More so, if the other employer is unwilling to shoulder said burden... UPS still gets stuck with the bill.
Call me crazy... but I guess I'm old enough to remember a time where employer sponsored health insurance was a benefit to help recruit & retain... and not simply a welfare program that we have the government force businesses to engage in.
Just like with Obamacare... everyone is covered, never mind the cost.
Usually... a single group plan to cover a couple of adults (and maybe a kid or three) costs less than separate plans for each member, what is being done here will almost certainly the overall cost to the household... because if it didn't, chances are the family in question would have been on the other persons insurance.
Again, I have no problem with what UPS doing, I am simply pointing out some of the many losers who are now taking a hit because of this poorly thought out law.
While I didn't directly quote it, you seem to have misunderstood the actual quote from the article (as someone below mentioned) (emphasis mine):
to stop covering employee's spouses who can get coverage from their own employer
*Can*, not do. Of the married couples I know where both work for different employers which offer health insurance... most do some end of the year calculations to see whose company offers the best bang for the buck for their family needs.
Lets also ignore the Q of which costs more to the family in Q... the insurance through the UPS employees plan or two different policies through two different employers.
UPS is now (understandably but not unexpectedly) prohibiting this long standing option.
I have nothing against what UPS is doing, it's perfectly rational... just like many of the employers who are cutting hours to below 30 or dropping insurance outright... opting to put the cost of insurance on others instead of themselves because of the environment that the ACA is fostering.
Notice how the other thread had more of a discussion going on and in the form we see here, of a cowardly AC who makes statements and refuses to support them?
I'm not claiming anything.
You are offering an outside claim to the discussion... so yes, by repeating it (even thought not cited) you are making a claim.
Again though, you fail to cite the study or what sort of scoring they did.
But I'd wager you don't really care about that, and are only looking to attack anyone who dares to not blindly tow the "DUR OBAMACARE BAD" party line.
Interesting to see where your mind immediately jumps... that would seem to say more about your views than mine.
Let's also include all the folks who go to the ER for "free" health care; which is ultimately passed on to insured patients.
Really? You mean hospitals don't use debt collectors anymore to try to collect on unpaid debts? Must be news to all of those we were hearing about being forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills during the passage of Obamacare!
If you start off so wrong from the beginning... can we really trust anything else you've said?
Notice how you failed to provide any specific linkage to your claim?
Furthermore, is this prediction based on static or dynamic scoring?
I'd wager the prior, the same system which will predict a doubling of tax revenue if you simply bump all tax rates up by 100%... deliberately ignoring any secondary or tertiary effects.
Sure, by yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater you are not directly killing people... but the obvious results of such an action are still on you, don't blame herd mentality (in the case of fire) or rational thought (in response to the ACA) for unfortunate but entirely predictable outcomes.
Which is the same reason we are seeing rather expensive plans on the exchanges (and elsewhere)... assuming you can sign up and browse.
Yes it is, same goes for being put on 'paid leave' if you are a cop, teacher or other official who is under investigation.
dont know when you're going to get paid
So... because those people are unwilling to put aside a small buffer to allow themselves some wiggle room in case of a minor disruption in their pay... we should be horrified for them? God help them if they get a check every two weeks and their car breaks down... preventing them from going to the bank to deposit it! How will they pay their bills? For that matter... how will they fix their car?!?!
and still have to meet all your financial responsibilities in the mean time.
Except for debts to the mob... failure to pay on time once rarely results in catastrophic results. More often than not something can be worked out. Heck, I've credit cards who won't bump my interest or report me as tardy to the reporting agencies unless I've missed 3 subsequent payments (a benefit I've never taken advantage of).
Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.
I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot...
That's a whole lot more than "not one dime"... granted plenty of us also haven't been able to keep our health insurance plan & doctor as promised... so what do I know?
Also, code isn't speech, even in the US. It's a device.
Unless your name is Phil Zimmermann & you publish the full & complete source code in the form of a bound book to work around export restrictions on cryptography... then dare US regulators to ban the book.
I'm confused... on the one hand you say that it's a difficult problem:
the answer is actually quite complicated. It's not a trivial thing to do
But then immediately assume because they've made piles of money... they could easily have done it?
Blizzard has raked in enormous sums of cash on this game, more than enough to have done it right and many times over
While I've never played WoW... no have no opinion of Blizzard... breaking out the lawyers would seem to be a later stage thing to do, and only after taking steps to block such activity at a technical level.
Are you saying they haven't? Or for that matter, that you know exactly what work would be required to be done and how much it would cost?
Isn't what you are claiming kind of like gmail suing spammers rather than implement better spam detection & blocking systems... is there no chance of them doing both?
Except that Sony has a vested interesting in you continuing to spend money on PS games & services.
Once the manufacturer/dealer warranty on your car runs out... the incentive of the manufacturer/dealer moves from keeping you on the road to selling you something new and better as they no longer have an exclusive hold on parts & services.
Bingo! Worse leading to the kind of fragmentation we see in the Android world where the phones may be running Android under the hood, but buying from X means you have access to an even better app store, while Y gives you a more polished front end which removes almost all traces of Android from text, logos and UI look & feel.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's coming right for us!"
Just like murder & arson are constructs of government... codifications in law of what was/is a long standing convention.
There is a bit of a difference between getting a letter from your insurance company that says "Due to the ACA we will be upgrading your plan at no cost to you to comply" and what we are seeing... Letters saying "Due to the ACA, we are canceling your policy effective Jan 1. You are welcome to apply for a much more expensive plan though us or the exchange... If you can even login."
So wrong from the start:
They did no such thing. They struck down Section 4 of the VRA, not Section 5, leaving it to congress to replace Section 4 to allow Section 5 to go back into effect.
What color is the sky in your world when you miss such clear facts from the start?
Bigger question is "When will the outrage begin on /. over healthcare.gov is violating a (FOSS) software license?": http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-violates-licensing-agreement-copyrighted-software_763666.html
That might explain things in the US... but then what is going on in the UK where they have a quality single payer system and yet ambulances are spending obscene # of hours outside of hospitals waiting to deliver their sick patients: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22135109
I'm jealous... many a cow I've seen has a field for it's use... even sometimes a barn where they get to sleep & eat... curse my employer making me buy/rent my own place... not to mention not providing a bed!
In a simplistic sense yes... buy something for $50, get $50 back, net cost = $0... only who is paying for that free printer? And where do those costs get figured in?
Of course that all assumes the savings are accurate.
Given the complexities of the system involved (as well as the massive cost overruns thus far)... how long should we wait before we hope to see Obamacare break even at a minimum? ... let alone pay for itself?
I'm sorry to see you have a bit of a reading comprehension issue, allow me to dumb things down a bit for you.
Of the many claims being made in favor of Obamacare a few years back... one was that the uninsured still get treatment, just through very expensive ER visits which get paid for by the rest of us who have insurance (which on it's own is incorrect, said visits are paid for by those who pay their bills, insurance or not).
Another was that there are oodles of people declaring bankruptcy because of medical costs.
These two arguments are semi-contradictory and ignore a whole world in between.
If someone needs immediate treatment (insurance or no), they will visit an ER... and will later get a bill... bankruptcy does not immediately follow.
First come the friendly letters from the hospital asking for payment, then come the sternly worded letters, then the threatening ones. All the while a phone call or two may be made. Finally some degree of debt collector will get involved. First willing to settle for maybe 90 cents on the dollar, then 60, then 10.
Clearly no one ever pays such a bill who lacks insurance, and bankruptcy is the immediate outcome, clearly.
No one ever says "Hey hospital, I believe in paying my bills... but am out of work and only have a limited income right now... can we work something out?"
Again no one, ever. Not even me (who has done such a thing), no one at all.
Of course the whole time we also ignore the inflated advertised/billed costs of medicine due to most people going through insurance ("Wow! I just had a $492 visit, and all I had to pay was $19.72. Good think my insurance picked up the rest" (hint, they didn't pay the rest)).
So no... I was right from the start, you just opted not to consider the full scope or meaning of what I said.
See above for a reply which mostly covers what you say... only one separate thing...
Why is it the job of the other employer to be shouldering that burden? Or any employer for that matter?
More so, if the other employer is unwilling to shoulder said burden... UPS still gets stuck with the bill.
Call me crazy... but I guess I'm old enough to remember a time where employer sponsored health insurance was a benefit to help recruit & retain... and not simply a welfare program that we have the government force businesses to engage in.
Just like with Obamacare... everyone is covered, never mind the cost.
Usually... a single group plan to cover a couple of adults (and maybe a kid or three) costs less than separate plans for each member, what is being done here will almost certainly the overall cost to the household... because if it didn't, chances are the family in question would have been on the other persons insurance.
Again, I have no problem with what UPS doing, I am simply pointing out some of the many losers who are now taking a hit because of this poorly thought out law.
While I didn't directly quote it, you seem to have misunderstood the actual quote from the article (as someone below mentioned) (emphasis mine):
*Can*, not do. Of the married couples I know where both work for different employers which offer health insurance... most do some end of the year calculations to see whose company offers the best bang for the buck for their family needs.
Lets also ignore the Q of which costs more to the family in Q... the insurance through the UPS employees plan or two different policies through two different employers.
UPS is now (understandably but not unexpectedly) prohibiting this long standing option.
I have nothing against what UPS is doing, it's perfectly rational... just like many of the employers who are cutting hours to below 30 or dropping insurance outright... opting to put the cost of insurance on others instead of themselves because of the environment that the ACA is fostering.
Notice how the other thread had more of a discussion going on and in the form we see here, of a cowardly AC who makes statements and refuses to support them?
You are offering an outside claim to the discussion... so yes, by repeating it (even thought not cited) you are making a claim.
Again though, you fail to cite the study or what sort of scoring they did.
Interesting to see where your mind immediately jumps... that would seem to say more about your views than mine.
Really? You mean hospitals don't use debt collectors anymore to try to collect on unpaid debts? Must be news to all of those we were hearing about being forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills during the passage of Obamacare!
If you start off so wrong from the beginning... can we really trust anything else you've said?
Notice how you failed to provide any specific linkage to your claim?
Furthermore, is this prediction based on static or dynamic scoring?
I'd wager the prior, the same system which will predict a doubling of tax revenue if you simply bump all tax rates up by 100%... deliberately ignoring any secondary or tertiary effects.
Um, no... the ACA created an environment which the insurance companies and doctors responded to... ditto goes for UPS dropping spouses from coverage due to the ACA: http://www.businessinsider.com/ups-dropping-spouses-health-coverage-2013-8 (to name just one of many such outcomes).
Sure, by yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater you are not directly killing people... but the obvious results of such an action are still on you, don't blame herd mentality (in the case of fire) or rational thought (in response to the ACA) for unfortunate but entirely predictable outcomes.
Which is the same reason we are seeing rather expensive plans on the exchanges (and elsewhere)... assuming you can sign up and browse.
Yes it is, same goes for being put on 'paid leave' if you are a cop, teacher or other official who is under investigation.
So... because those people are unwilling to put aside a small buffer to allow themselves some wiggle room in case of a minor disruption in their pay... we should be horrified for them? God help them if they get a check every two weeks and their car breaks down... preventing them from going to the bank to deposit it! How will they pay their bills? For that matter... how will they fix their car?!?!
Except for debts to the mob... failure to pay on time once rarely results in catastrophic results. More often than not something can be worked out. Heck, I've credit cards who won't bump my interest or report me as tardy to the reporting agencies unless I've missed 3 subsequent payments (a benefit I've never taken advantage of).
Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.
I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot...
That's a whole lot more than "not one dime"... granted plenty of us also haven't been able to keep our health insurance plan & doctor as promised... so what do I know?
Unless your name is Phil Zimmermann & you publish the full & complete source code in the form of a bound book to work around export restrictions on cryptography... then dare US regulators to ban the book.
In which case Blizzard goes to court asking the judge to hold the defendants in contempt for violating his/her order.
Defendant: "But the code was stolen, there was nothing we could have done!"
Judge: "Did you file a police report?'
Defendant: "No, we..."
Judge: "What steps did you take to prevent this kind of theft?"
Defendant: "Um..."
Judge: *gavel bang* "I find you in contempt of this court..."
I'm confused... on the one hand you say that it's a difficult problem:
But then immediately assume because they've made piles of money... they could easily have done it?
While I've never played WoW... no have no opinion of Blizzard... breaking out the lawyers would seem to be a later stage thing to do, and only after taking steps to block such activity at a technical level.
Are you saying they haven't? Or for that matter, that you know exactly what work would be required to be done and how much it would cost?
Isn't what you are claiming kind of like gmail suing spammers rather than implement better spam detection & blocking systems... is there no chance of them doing both?
Clearly something needs to be invented for electric car owners who also years ago purchased DVD re-winders.
Except that Sony has a vested interesting in you continuing to spend money on PS games & services.
Once the manufacturer/dealer warranty on your car runs out... the incentive of the manufacturer/dealer moves from keeping you on the road to selling you something new and better as they no longer have an exclusive hold on parts & services.
Bingo! Worse leading to the kind of fragmentation we see in the Android world where the phones may be running Android under the hood, but buying from X means you have access to an even better app store, while Y gives you a more polished front end which removes almost all traces of Android from text, logos and UI look & feel.