Well, if you are saying shit insurance is fine because you had shit insurance in the past, im not sure why this law us needed. Please explain some of this.
The ACA has specific language in it that requires congress to get insurance via that same mechanism people who are not covered have to. You can argue what you thing is right or wrong all day long but that does not get around the fact that the law as passed and still sits on the books only allow subsidies for congress if their income qualifies for one like the rest of the subjects.
Also the large employer provision has currently been waved by the administration. It doesn't make a difference because congress was specifically exempted from it because of the mandate to play ball like the citizens are. About the only thing you got right is that this is not an ACA subsidy. It does however, defeat the entire purpose of pushing congress into the exchanges so they have to play by the same laws the rest of the subjects have to play by. Again, by executive decree, the administration has removed the largest incentive for the government to mske thr exchanges work by removing them from the effects of living under the same rules as everyone else.
No, they have been pretty clear in that they want the law as written followed. If they qualify for a subsidy within the framework of the law, there isn't a problem with it. The subsidy the wanted removed was the one worked out by congress and the administration that is outside the law.
As for the effect of working for an employer that doesn't provide coverage, yes that was exactly the point. The ACA was supposed to require everyone to get insurance who didn't already have coverage and the amendment was by desighn supposed to make congress be in that same catagory. Thd idea was that if congress had to live by the same rules, they would make sure it didn't stay sll screwed up.
It was only an already rising cost because seniors were just signing up for it and it was at that time, only rising for the government. Medical costs skyrocketed in the late 80's and all through the 90's.
I do agree with the single payer system being the flaw but the comment was about the costs and why. Not what would have avoided it.
One of the republicans added an amendment to the ACA before it got out of commity. It said that congress and staffers and i think the top level administration had to forho thr luxury federal insurance and buy from the exchange like millions of citizens would have to. It was a live by your own rules type thing.
Anyways, along the lines, the congressional staffers realized it was hoing to cost them big bucks and obama devised a way to subsidize about 70% if their costs through reallocating existing money. This defeated the entire purpoe of forcing congress to live by the same rules it set for the people and pissed a lot of conservatives off.
The arguments range from it is esentially a pay cut which the counter argumrnt id that it is the same for pay cut for working americans who now have to get insurance to it was a stupid requirement and should be ignored.
If you listen to the tea party republicans, they claim the law as being implemented is not the law as passed, the administration has decreed certain people and companies are exempt from it or provisions in it. There are lots of companies dumping coverage of spouses, some are dropping pension coverage for retirees because the aca iffers some sort of coverage. Most people's insurance premiums are increasing 50% or more. The cheap coverage seems to have deductables ashigh as $8,000 for dingled and more for family coverage.
It was created and developed in 68 to address the cost of medicare and signed into law in 73 by nixon. HMOs may have existed before, but not federally recognized like today nor for the purpose to limit government costs. My point is valid.
What do you mean they couldn't change the law legally? The elected government can change any law, even the constitution. What they did wad completely legal and by design. What they aldo did was failed in changing the law but sbsolutely nothing about it was illegal.
Ted cruise never filibustered anything on this. That was only a mass media explaination of what was happening during his speech. The fact of the matter is that Reid gave him 18 hours on the floor to make his case and the time limit was prearranged.
Check the senate record if you don't believe me. Chech the end of his dpeech where reid asked him if he would yeild 15 minutes to mccain if he gave him another hour and Cruze said no, the deal was made and he would follow it.
You mean that the president wasn't out thee telling the drmocrats not to vote on any of the bills the house passed? He wasn't leading the senate in this?
It has nothing to fo with sleeping durring civic class and everything to do with paying attention to who said what during this. A lot of blame for this goes to most all of the government. Or do you believe that no negotiations means those who refused to negotiate where somehow never involved?
I eish i wasn't replying on my phone as it eould be easier to post links and that grammar would be better. But the reason healthcare costs so much is because the government got involved in the first place. Not the market. There hasn't been a market since 1965-68.
In 65 when meficare was created, the government found out how ecpensive careing for seniors actually was. In 68, the government created the HMO in an attempt to control costs. Medicare was supposed to be ran like one but the idea was to pawn people not being treated for a chronic condition onto insurance companies. This didn't work to well so they made some changes again to create sort of a hybref system. Still being too expensive, thr government then divided the country into 5 economic zones and averaged the costs of treatments and only paid that amount. This means the rural doc who has little overhead recieved more the he would normally change and the urban doc who pays 5 times the rent snd deals with 30% more taxes gets less. So the urban doc has to charge more to raise the averages and get what he needs.
By this time, insurance companies where getting gouged so the government changed the way the average was calculated from the average of costs to average before discounts. They then devidef to discount themselves and only pay a percentage of the costs. So insurance companies get their discount, the government takes their discount, and the uninsured pay full price until it is obvious they won't pay the bill, then discounts are given under the guise of charity which aids the non-profit status of medical facilities, but more impotantly, will not lower the average cost formula.
So with all this manipulation going on, the incentive is to actually increase costs . Wash and repeat a few times- including the government changing the amount of imbursements for treatment and you have a healthcare system that is the most expensive in the world.
Again, sorry about the grammar. I'm on a cheap phone and it is dificult to post clean.
I guess puusy way out is an artifact of a previous time when calling someone s puss was actually a challange to do better or more. Today, iy probably does not carry as strong of a point as it used to.
My comment was intended to challenge someone thinking of suicide to work a little harder at finding another way to deal with those problems.
Now as for your premise about self preservation. I understand your point but think it might be even more complicated than you already pointed out. I have been sky diving, i used to repell regularly. I have road bulls (almost qualified for the PBR series). I regularly ride motorcycles without a helmet and rode a dirt bike when i was younger. I don't say this to brag that i'm uber elite, but to illistrate that some people go against that grain of self preservation and effectivly stand on thr edge of a building. I don't think it takes as much effort as you think.
Why are you ignoring what i said then substituting what you want to make this about, then srgue sgaisnt that rather then anything i have said?
You csn try and scold me when you find out ehat was acyuslly said. In the mean time, stop blindly spouting shitt about something completely different from what i said and trying to claim it somehow discredits me. Normally, i would slam you lack of reading comprehension about now but it is obvious you didn't even read what was posted or linked to and are operating on kneejerk protect the line to save the administration bs. Save your polititard trolls for someone else
The free speech is somewhat limited here due to the fact that most of the bullying hoes on in school where the government compels the child to attend under penalty of law.
Think of it this way. Imagine the government forcing you to go to a town meeting and allows preachers to claim you are going to hell becausr you are an atheist.
Isn't killing yourself the same as ignoring the situation? How is killing yourself going to mske anytjing better?
I mean seriously, you kill yourself and your bully moves on to harrass another person. You have not helped anyone and possibly dragged someone else in. If you are going to let someone else have enough power over yourself that you would end your life, take the bully to the grave with you. Or better yet, deal with it in a way that causes nobody to die.
Listen, tons of teens run away every year just to force an issue. They aren't out on the streets, they are hiding at a friends house or something. As i said, they need to get caught. For most of us, this is obvious from what i wrote.
But lets play your game a bit. Is it better for a suicidal teen to be dead or exposed to the streets for a while? Because that is what was said, instead of killing themselves, they could run away.
It could be worse. If a man in the middle intercepts the communications, they have it indefinately. One of the first things they teach in forensics is that younever work from the original so a copy will likely always be around once they have a copy of it.
What you describe to me sounds like poor parenting but the fact of the matter is thr kid could run away. They will be caught and they will be talking to people who will give more then lip service and if it happens several times, chances are the kid will be moved to a different home and likely school. The problem could be solved without ever killing yourself. Chances are, you would get mental health along the way too.
Now, i did get some bullying for a short period of time in school. My then pastor asked another kid to help. All it took was being able to hang out with him a couple times and it all stopped. So you are probably corect that i don't know what it is like. He didn'T even intervein on my behalf that i know of. There are ways of dealing with this other then suicide period. And that is without getting into thr entire fighting back scenarios.
So you actually think it is more tough to escape your problems by suicide then to confront them as the very thing that would make you contemplate it. I think you are wrong but will not object to your lead by example.
When a speeding driver weaves around traffic in a congested area to avoid an accident that would have been because of their inability to stop, we don't ignore their wreckless behavior because they got lucky.
Lets not idolize suicide or the person who kills themself and make it more attractive to others having hard timed in life. Sure, you could say the world is better off without them, but that would be a bit uncouth. There are always options other thrn your oen death.
Yes, the cop who was called to stop her from harming herself shot and killed her because she had a knife. A lot of people were pissed over that. Some of the cops were even outraged as they had dealt with her before and knew she wasn't a threat to anyone but herself. She had mental issues and had done the attemped suicide thing a couple times before.
You are likely correct. People i know of that has actually commited suicide hid their plans until they did it. I don't know a bunch of people who did it, but of the 4 or 5 over the last 45 years who have, we never really saw it comming. The one suicide that the person constantly claimed they would, was actually shot and killed buy a cop who responded to her threat of suicide. Of course no one thought she was serious about killing herself but the cop that saw the knife she was threatening to slit her wrists with.
Or the parents could have corected the girls and punished them- or in the least, made it clear that bullying others wasn't acceptable. As the sheriff said, the parents had been contacted by their kids behavior and didn't seem to do anything to curb it.
In some states, if the parents have knowlege thier kids are doing illegal acts and fail to stop them, they can be held liable criminally for those acts. I'm not sure if bullying can truley be criminal (free speech) but failing to take reasonable steps to cure criminal bahavior might be.
Now for a side rant. Suicide is a pussy way out. No one should commit suicide over the actions of another but if they feel compelled to give that other person that much power, they should take them out in the process. It would likely make the world a better place as a result of their cowardice.
I'm trying to find some information on it, but i think something along those lines happened in the OJ Simpson trial. I think the defene was able to challenge some evidence because the cops jumped the fence and later talked to kato about it. They didn't get it tossed, but they had the oppertunity to argue over it. But that was a state prosecution-not federal and the rules may be different.
You saying it is debunked or calling it right wing doesn't make it not true. I linked to emails where the administration and one of the irs head disclosing private tax data. The dates are before the lawsuit which is over the IRS giving private information to a political group apposed to their position. The private data given to the political group included donar information.
Why don't you pay attention instead of playing a fool for for a lost cause. The administration got access to private information and the IRS gave that information to political groups unlawfully and that information was used unlaefully. Fo a damned google search on it if you want sources other thrn i provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you are saying shit insurance is fine because you had shit insurance in the past, im not sure why this law us needed. Please explain some of this.
The ACA has specific language in it that requires congress to get insurance via that same mechanism people who are not covered have to. You can argue what you thing is right or wrong all day long but that does not get around the fact that the law as passed and still sits on the books only allow subsidies for congress if their income qualifies for one like the rest of the subjects.
Also the large employer provision has currently been waved by the administration. It doesn't make a difference because congress was specifically exempted from it because of the mandate to play ball like the citizens are. About the only thing you got right is that this is not an ACA subsidy. It does however, defeat the entire purpose of pushing congress into the exchanges so they have to play by the same laws the rest of the subjects have to play by. Again, by executive decree, the administration has removed the largest incentive for the government to mske thr exchanges work by removing them from the effects of living under the same rules as everyone else.
No, they have been pretty clear in that they want the law as written followed. If they qualify for a subsidy within the framework of the law, there isn't a problem with it. The subsidy the wanted removed was the one worked out by congress and the administration that is outside the law.
As for the effect of working for an employer that doesn't provide coverage, yes that was exactly the point. The ACA was supposed to require everyone to get insurance who didn't already have coverage and the amendment was by desighn supposed to make congress be in that same catagory. Thd idea was that if congress had to live by the same rules, they would make sure it didn't stay sll screwed up.
It was only an already rising cost because seniors were just signing up for it and it was at that time, only rising for the government. Medical costs skyrocketed in the late 80's and all through the 90's.
I do agree with the single payer system being the flaw but the comment was about the costs and why. Not what would have avoided it.
What is the deductables on those plans? I'm hearing that in sone areas the cheap plans have a several thousand dollar deductable
One of the republicans added an amendment to the ACA before it got out of commity. It said that congress and staffers and i think the top level administration had to forho thr luxury federal insurance and buy from the exchange like millions of citizens would have to. It was a live by your own rules type thing.
Anyways, along the lines, the congressional staffers realized it was hoing to cost them big bucks and obama devised a way to subsidize about 70% if their costs through reallocating existing money. This defeated the entire purpoe of forcing congress to live by the same rules it set for the people and pissed a lot of conservatives off.
The arguments range from it is esentially a pay cut which the counter argumrnt id that it is the same for pay cut for working americans who now have to get insurance to it was a stupid requirement and should be ignored.
If you listen to the tea party republicans, they claim the law as being implemented is not the law as passed, the administration has decreed certain people and companies are exempt from it or provisions in it. There are lots of companies dumping coverage of spouses, some are dropping pension coverage for retirees because the aca iffers some sort of coverage. Most people's insurance premiums are increasing 50% or more. The cheap coverage seems to have deductables ashigh as $8,000 for dingled and more for family coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
It was created and developed in 68 to address the cost of medicare and signed into law in 73 by nixon. HMOs may have existed before, but not federally recognized like today nor for the purpose to limit government costs. My point is valid.
What do you mean they couldn't change the law legally? The elected government can change any law, even the constitution. What they did wad completely legal and by design. What they aldo did was failed in changing the law but sbsolutely nothing about it was illegal.
Ted cruise never filibustered anything on this. That was only a mass media explaination of what was happening during his speech. The fact of the matter is that Reid gave him 18 hours on the floor to make his case and the time limit was prearranged.
Check the senate record if you don't believe me. Chech the end of his dpeech where reid asked him if he would yeild 15 minutes to mccain if he gave him another hour and Cruze said no, the deal was made and he would follow it.
You mean that the president wasn't out thee telling the drmocrats not to vote on any of the bills the house passed? He wasn't leading the senate in this?
It has nothing to fo with sleeping durring civic class and everything to do with paying attention to who said what during this. A lot of blame for this goes to most all of the government. Or do you believe that no negotiations means those who refused to negotiate where somehow never involved?
I eish i wasn't replying on my phone as it eould be easier to post links and that grammar would be better. But the reason healthcare costs so much is because the government got involved in the first place. Not the market. There hasn't been a market since 1965-68.
In 65 when meficare was created, the government found out how ecpensive careing for seniors actually was. In 68, the government created the HMO in an attempt to control costs. Medicare was supposed to be ran like one but the idea was to pawn people not being treated for a chronic condition onto insurance companies. This didn't work to well so they made some changes again to create sort of a hybref system. Still being too expensive, thr government then divided the country into 5 economic zones and averaged the costs of treatments and only paid that amount. This means the rural doc who has little overhead recieved more the he would normally change and the urban doc who pays 5 times the rent snd deals with 30% more taxes gets less. So the urban doc has to charge more to raise the averages and get what he needs.
By this time, insurance companies where getting gouged so the government changed the way the average was calculated from the average of costs to average before discounts. They then devidef to discount themselves and only pay a percentage of the costs. So insurance companies get their discount, the government takes their discount, and the uninsured pay full price until it is obvious they won't pay the bill, then discounts are given under the guise of charity which aids the non-profit status of medical facilities, but more impotantly, will not lower the average cost formula.
So with all this manipulation going on, the incentive is to actually increase costs . Wash and repeat a few times- including the government changing the amount of imbursements for treatment and you have a healthcare system that is the most expensive in the world.
Again, sorry about the grammar. I'm on a cheap phone and it is dificult to post clean.
I guess puusy way out is an artifact of a previous time when calling someone s puss was actually a challange to do better or more. Today, iy probably does not carry as strong of a point as it used to.
My comment was intended to challenge someone thinking of suicide to work a little harder at finding another way to deal with those problems.
Now as for your premise about self preservation. I understand your point but think it might be even more complicated than you already pointed out. I have been sky diving, i used to repell regularly. I have road bulls (almost qualified for the PBR series). I regularly ride motorcycles without a helmet and rode a dirt bike when i was younger. I don't say this to brag that i'm uber elite, but to illistrate that some people go against that grain of self preservation and effectivly stand on thr edge of a building. I don't think it takes as much effort as you think.
Why are you ignoring what i said then substituting what you want to make this about, then srgue sgaisnt that rather then anything i have said?
You csn try and scold me when you find out ehat was acyuslly said. In the mean time, stop blindly spouting shitt about something completely different from what i said and trying to claim it somehow discredits me. Normally, i would slam you lack of reading comprehension about now but it is obvious you didn't even read what was posted or linked to and are operating on kneejerk protect the line to save the administration bs. Save your polititard trolls for someone else
The free speech is somewhat limited here due to the fact that most of the bullying hoes on in school where the government compels the child to attend under penalty of law.
Think of it this way. Imagine the government forcing you to go to a town meeting and allows preachers to claim you are going to hell becausr you are an atheist.
Isn't killing yourself the same as ignoring the situation? How is killing yourself going to mske anytjing better?
I mean seriously, you kill yourself and your bully moves on to harrass another person. You have not helped anyone and possibly dragged someone else in. If you are going to let someone else have enough power over yourself that you would end your life, take the bully to the grave with you. Or better yet, deal with it in a way that causes nobody to die.
Listen, tons of teens run away every year just to force an issue. They aren't out on the streets, they are hiding at a friends house or something. As i said, they need to get caught. For most of us, this is obvious from what i wrote.
But lets play your game a bit. Is it better for a suicidal teen to be dead or exposed to the streets for a while? Because that is what was said, instead of killing themselves, they could run away.
It could be worse. If a man in the middle intercepts the communications, they have it indefinately. One of the first things they teach in forensics is that younever work from the original so a copy will likely always be around once they have a copy of it.
What you describe to me sounds like poor parenting but the fact of the matter is thr kid could run away. They will be caught and they will be talking to people who will give more then lip service and if it happens several times, chances are the kid will be moved to a different home and likely school. The problem could be solved without ever killing yourself. Chances are, you would get mental health along the way too.
Now, i did get some bullying for a short period of time in school. My then pastor asked another kid to help. All it took was being able to hang out with him a couple times and it all stopped. So you are probably corect that i don't know what it is like. He didn'T even intervein on my behalf that i know of. There are ways of dealing with this other then suicide period. And that is without getting into thr entire fighting back scenarios.
So you actually think it is more tough to escape your problems by suicide then to confront them as the very thing that would make you contemplate it. I think you are wrong but will not object to your lead by example.
When a speeding driver weaves around traffic in a congested area to avoid an accident that would have been because of their inability to stop, we don't ignore their wreckless behavior because they got lucky.
Lets not idolize suicide or the person who kills themself and make it more attractive to others having hard timed in life. Sure, you could say the world is better off without them, but that would be a bit uncouth. There are always options other thrn your oen death.
Yes, the cop who was called to stop her from harming herself shot and killed her because she had a knife. A lot of people were pissed over that. Some of the cops were even outraged as they had dealt with her before and knew she wasn't a threat to anyone but herself. She had mental issues and had done the attemped suicide thing a couple times before.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15658_the-ten-minute-suicide-guide.html
People should read that article.
You are likely correct. People i know of that has actually commited suicide hid their plans until they did it. I don't know a bunch of people who did it, but of the 4 or 5 over the last 45 years who have, we never really saw it comming. The one suicide that the person constantly claimed they would, was actually shot and killed buy a cop who responded to her threat of suicide. Of course no one thought she was serious about killing herself but the cop that saw the knife she was threatening to slit her wrists with.
Or the parents could have corected the girls and punished them- or in the least, made it clear that bullying others wasn't acceptable. As the sheriff said, the parents had been contacted by their kids behavior and didn't seem to do anything to curb it.
In some states, if the parents have knowlege thier kids are doing illegal acts and fail to stop them, they can be held liable criminally for those acts. I'm not sure if bullying can truley be criminal (free speech) but failing to take reasonable steps to cure criminal bahavior might be.
Now for a side rant. Suicide is a pussy way out. No one should commit suicide over the actions of another but if they feel compelled to give that other person that much power, they should take them out in the process. It would likely make the world a better place as a result of their cowardice.
I'm trying to find some information on it, but i think something along those lines happened in the OJ Simpson trial. I think the defene was able to challenge some evidence because the cops jumped the fence and later talked to kato about it. They didn't get it tossed, but they had the oppertunity to argue over it. But that was a state prosecution-not federal and the rules may be different.
You saying it is debunked or calling it right wing doesn't make it not true. I linked to emails where the administration and one of the irs head disclosing private tax data. The dates are before the lawsuit which is over the IRS giving private information to a political group apposed to their position. The private data given to the political group included donar information.
Why don't you pay attention instead of playing a fool for for a lost cause. The administration got access to private information and the IRS gave that information to political groups unlawfully and that information was used unlaefully. Fo a damned google search on it if you want sources other thrn i provided.