It was not a predatory plan, it was a premium plan. It had excellent coverage. I'm not a lawyer nor an accountant so delving into the particular requirements of the thousands of pages of new regs that led to the policy's demise is a bit much to ask. I had the same policy for a number of years
I won't deny the possibility of what you're saying, I just don't understand how that's possible. Surely the ACA isn't outlawing "premium", "excellent coverage" plans, is it? Is that what you're alleging? That the ACA arbitrarily outlaws good plans? Why would such legislation even be drafted, to accomplish what goal? Furthermore, why wouldn't anyone be able to point out that bit of legalese responsible this and say "See -- This is why the ACA is terrible" in the years since it's been signed into law? It just doesn't add up to me. Surely out of the many millions of people complaining about the ACA, one of them would be identify the piece of the law that requires the cancellation of such "premium" plans, no? Do you understand how someone who hasn't been negatively impacted in the way you describe might be skeptical regarding such claims? I mean, I'll grant that it's possible, but it really just doesn't make sense.
The AHA doesn't lower costs, it raises them. All the insurers and health care providers have to ensure they're compliant which is not a cheap thing to do. That expense alone raises costs. I'm judging the performance based on my own costs. The amount billed for care I've received previously haven't changed significantly, it's the replacement plan paying out less. So it's not the cost of care that's increasing, it's my out of pocket expense. So the new plan costs more and covers less. Maybe I'm in an unlucky edge case, but I hear a lot of people say the same of their own situation. Even the health care providers I see are complaining about it.
Okay, so there's compliance costs. That's a very real cost in the healthcare industry. Some estimates of what percentage of healthcare costs are the result of compliance burdens are hard to believe. I won't deny that additional regulation in that industry could (and likely would) have significant costs. Even something as simple as the Sunshine Act (2007) has had a significant impact in the industry. I believe compliance (and all other) costs were included in surveys conducted that demonstrate that overall, the ACA has had a positive impact on the cost of healthcare. Looking at the numbers, it is evident that the cost of healthcare has continued to rise since the ACA hit, but the rate at which it is increasing has dropped to 3% (from 5%-7%). These numbers aren't very comprehensive. It would be nice to know not just the average impact, but the median and maybe even the distribution of cost impact. Maybe some small number of people is saving a huge amount and everyone else is getting a slight cost increase (although I don't think that's likely). Maybe some small number of people is getting royally fucked and everyone else is getting a slight cost decrease (also unlikely). These numbers only tell us that on average, the rise in costs has been somewhat stemmed, and that the increased costs of compliance have been more than countered by decreased costs elsewhere.
If Medicare pays so much, why had places like the Mayo Clinic dumped all their patients that have it? That's not a thing that is done lightly. That was a big talking point while the legislation was being debated. Many facilities across the country are faced with dropping those patients or charging more to everyone else to eat the loss. You're pointing to the pay as a problem, but it's not true that every doctor is raking in a fortune. With the decrease in compensation for services rendered, they have fit more patients in just to keep the lights on. Some specialists may be making a ton of money, but IMO, they've earned it
Indeed, if they keep it up, they'll soon have caught up to the Walmart probe out in the Kuiper Belt, the Apple spacecraft out exploring the Oort cloud, and the Exxon-Mobil "lander" navigating the depths of the seas on Titan.
You say "for a government run operation" as though those weren't the most impressive operations to date.
I know that the AHA was responsible for the cancellation because that was the reason cited. Granted, they could have been lying, but the only reason would have been because the plan was no longer viable given the new requirements put in effect by the legislation, which would still mean that it was cancelled by the AHA.
I mean, that sounds rather vague. It's unlikely that your policy contained a clause saying that it would be discontinued if any legislation titled "Affordable Care Act" was passed. It's similarly unlikely that the ACA specifically singled out plan #X provided by insurer $Y as no longer legal. So it's become clear that "they said so" is your only basis for knowing that the passage of the ACA was the cause of the cancellation. But you don't know why, specifically, that was the case. For someone that's so infuriated by the impact of the ACA, you don't seem very motivated to get more information on the subject. Either way, let's at least acknowledge that it is possible your plan was discontinued because it was predatory and/or ineffectual, in which case your ire may not be entirely justified.
Of course it was supposed to lower costs. That's what was pitched to the public. The first A stands for AFFORDABLE. Increasing out of pocket expenses is the opposite of making something more affordable. The average family's costs were supposed to decrease by a substantial amount, and for a lot of people, that never happened. The biggest group of people benefiting are those who get subsidized policies, but many of them had insurance before. Their costs went up like mine and suddenly they had to be subsidized. Some resent it. They don't understand how any of this helped when they used to be self sufficient and now rely on handouts to pay for a lesser policy than they had before.
Lower costs as compared against what? Are you comparing costs from one year to the previous year? Why do you feel that to be a fair comparison? Do you honestly believe that in the absence of the ACA, your costs would have remained the same year over year? Especially when you consider that healthcare costs have been rising by double-digit rates for years? That's a disingenuous comparison to make. The reason the ACA was passed was to reign in the costs of healthcare, which are (by anyone's measure) spiraling out of control. If you believe that the ACA is failing in this goal because absolute costs are not decreasing, then you had some very lofty expectations, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, if you feel the ACA is having a negative impact on costs (compared to how things would have looked had we done nothing), then you're flat out incorrect, as this isn't a matter of opinion. All studies of the issue have shown that, in general, healthcare is cheaper today with the ACA than it would have been today without the ACA. That means, necessarily, that the ACA is, in general, saving us money. I wouldn't doubt that some are being helped more than others, and that some might actually be being harmed. But in general, overall, the ACA is lowering costs compared to how costs would otherwise be without the ACA. Comparing against the previous year is disingenuous because it assumes that without the ACA, costs would not have risen, which is a baseless (and frankly, ridiculous) assumption.
I don't want single payer. It's not the federal government's job to force it on us.
I understand that a great many people "don't want single payer". Usually the debate turns to one rooted in political ideology, sadly. Nonetheless, regardless of how you feel about single-payer, if it were to be implemented in America, it would very much be the federal government's job to force it on us. That's how single-payer works.
People from countries that have it come here for care they can't receive in their own country. That should tell you something. People in the UK go on medical vacations to o
I'm not sure how you expect a group to get their message out without paying people to do so. Banners and flyers cost money too. It's not just TV ads. Your campaign staff needs to put food on the table and a roof over their head. In order to find out that your opponent is lying in their book, you need to come up with a copy of the book, which probably means buying one. That all requires spending money.
I'm pretty sure nobody's talking about restrictions on campaign financing that are so draconian that they'd prevent the purchase of a book. That might be a bit of a strawman argument. Regarding the food on the table and roof over head, I support the notion that the political process shouldn't be the basis of anyone's livelihood. Candidates that are actually supported by actual people will find supporters that voluntarily support them. I'd imagine that candidates that are supported primarily by non-natural "persons" would inherently have a harder time finding such voluntary support, and I feel that would be a good thing. Limited funding would level the playing field between candidates, allowing those with relatively little funding (by today's standards) to have comparable exposure to those who are flush with cash. Unable to leverage financial advantage to win elections, politicians might instead have to win votes by supporting popular policies instead. I would welcome such a change.
In addition, Lessig intends to set up a two tiered system, where candidates that the media supports are allowed to have an outside group (the media) spend money on their behalf, in addition to their "non-spending speech." Candidates not supported by the media only have the "non-spending speech," which is of course unworkable in practice. Also of note, Lessig's bet, and he's talked about this, is that the candidates he personally supports are the ones that get support from the traditional media.
Is this an actual problem? Or, more importantly, is this an actual problem that is solved by enabling unlimited money-as-speech? Which candidates were railroaded by the media during the last presidential election? Was it Romney or Obama? Or was it Johnson, Stein, Goode, and Anderson? Did this unlimited money-as-speech approach help Johnson, Stein, Goode, and Anderson overcome this media bias? Or did it help Romney and Obama dominate the conversation, further silencing everyone else? I think the problem of media favoritism that you describe is only exacerbated by the influence of money, as the candidates favored by the media are all too often the same ones favored by those with deep pockets.
This argument is just "money is bad because I say so." It's not "money is bad because it has an outsized effect" or "money is bad because it makes people do things they wouldn't otherwise do" or "This system is bad because some people are/would be treated unfairly under it." It's just "money is bad because it makes me uneasy."
No, this argument is just "I, personally, don't like excess money in politics". It's a statement of personal belief, an opinion, and not an argument that excess money in politics is bad. Perhaps I should have separated this statement of personal belief from the rest of my argument so that it wouldn't be mistaken for something it's not.
I'm not sure what your idea of the "nature of democracy" is. I prefer one correlated with an idea from free market theory. One of the conditions that makes a market free is that all actors have perfect knowledge of the available products. In this case, that's voters having perfect knowledge of the candidates. Clearly, 100% perfect knowledge is unattainable, but in order to make an informed choice, voters need to know what candidates stand for. There's only three ways a candidate can do that. They can either do it themselves personally, which doesn't scale, pay their supporters to help them, which costs money, or have outside groups (including the media)
They spent about the same, but one side was elected at a far greater rate. I don't think the problem is as big as you're making it sound.
Personally, the spending of vast sums of money on campaigns makes me uneasy. I don't like the idea of elections being bought. That's my personal stance regardless of whether or not money is the primary determining factor in who is elected. I'd like to clarify my earlier point, as the way I originally stated it is easily countered, as you just demonstrated. It's not that money wins elections, it's more that money buys votes. Some campaigns are more efficient and can buy votes at a lower cost, some campaigns are in safe districts where one party has an inherent advantage. To say that the side with more money wins is an oversimplification. All other things being equal, the side with more money wins. That being said, all other things are seldom equal. In any case, I still thing the influence of money in politics, however large or small, is clearly nonzero. Any nonzero influence of money on politics, I believe, corrupts the nature of democracy.
Under current law, groups of individuals who feel a candidate isn't being treated fairly by the media (positively OR negatively) have other options to get their message out. Lessig's restrictions on free speech would take that away.
Would it, though? As far as I understand the restrictions being proposed, it would only impact those groups of individuals' spending. It would have no impact on non-spending speech. If you're right and money isn't as big an issue as I'm making it sound, then this restriction on spending similarly isn't that big an issue, no?
I wasn't able to keep my plan, and it was not a shitty plan.
I wasn't able to keep my plan either. But, now that you mention it, my employer forced a change of plans on me the year before the ACA was passed too. And indeed, there's been other times where I've been unable to keep my plan, entirely unrelated to the passage of any healthcare legislation (as far as I know). How do you know the ACA was the proximate cause for your old plan's cancellation? Furthermore, which aspect of your old plan caused it to be outlawed under the new law?
My health care costs have risen since the AHA took effect.
So have mine. My health care costs have been dramatically rising since long before the ACA took effect. From what I've seen, data suggests that overall costs did rise, but they rose at a considerably lower rate than they had been rising previously. Obviously, it's not likely that this trend holds true for every individual, and it's possible that your costs did indeed rise more than they would have otherwise. Overall, though, the numbers suggest that on average, the growth of healthcare costs has been decreased. Not exactly a resounding success story, but an improvement nonetheless.
Plans were supposed to continue and costs were supposed to go down.
Liked plans were supposed to continue (with the understanding that the ACA wouldn't impose a requirement for insurers to continue all existing plans, so your plan's continuation would still be subject to the whims of your insurer). Costs were supposed to go down compared against continuing the way things were. I don't think anyone ever claimed that absolute costs would actually decrease, merely that the ACA would help reign in the rapidly rising cost by slowing the rate of growth.
Single payer is a nightmare.
That's... actually... See, I don't understand why people say this. USA is the only developed country in the world with this type of healthcare system. Every country that outranks us on the Human Development Index has a single payer system.
We have some of the best health care facilities in the world.
Yes, and we have some of the highest costs and worst outcomes in the developed world. People that think the US healthcare system is some shining star are simply ignorant of the world beyond these borders.
Single payer will end that.
That seems like a silly claim. Why would the signature on checks impact healthcare beyond the accounting department? If my doctor bills Washington instead of me or my insurance company, why does the quality of care I receive need to change? Any answers I've heard to these types of questions inevitably end up sounding like a whole of assumptions about how a single payer system needs to be run.
We'd all be on secret waiting lists like the folks trying to get treatment at the VA.
Those waiting lists aren't very secret if you're posting on slashdot about them, but I digress. I invite you to learn about how single payer healthcare systems work in other developed countries. Crack open Wikipedia and read some of the cited references. Maybe you'll find some useful ammunition for your crusade against the implementation of such a system here. Or maybe you'll find that it's really not as scary as "secret waiting lists", that it's a lot cheaper, and that it helps people live longer, happier lives.
The only thing I see that would have been an improvement would have been to try and separate health insurance from our employers. Even that may have been "careful what you wish for".
Man, there's conservative, and then there's you. The way I see it, the healthcare system in this country is so broken (based solely on absolutely extreme expense and relatively poor outcomes) that I'm okay with trying anything to fix it. There's no need to be careful when everything is already so far gone. You're worrying about some worst-case scenario as though you don't realize we're already living in it.
I didn't vote for Obama (the second time around). I have mixed feelings about the ACA (I was hoping for a single-payer system, and I fear that this compromise approach may leave us even worse off than we were before).
But, come on, man. As far as I'm aware, the only people whose plans were discontinued were the predatory and/or ineffectual ones explicitly outlawed because they were predatory and/or ineffectual. If you honestly believe that Obama's "if you like it, you can keep it" pledge ought to have applied to shitty plans that no reasonable person would be expected to "like", then I would argue that you're not a reasonable person.
If you like your Internet service, you can keep it. Period.
Cue the idiots complaining that Obama lied because passage of the Fair Networking Act (Obamanet) has caused their ISP to stop offering 4800 baud dialup plans.
I see these "debates" (and I use that term loosely) on Slashdot rather frequently. I just want to say thank you, on behalf of myself and anyone else like me that simply doesn't have it in them to deal with these people. You have the patience of a saint.
They supported a number of Republican candidates. One of their two winning campaigns was for a Republican. In other words, they helped elect as many Republicans as Democrats.
Of course, it's rather disheartening to hear people always trying to put a political spin on these sorts of things. I don't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) and I still support MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC.
What fucking shithole do you live in where there were only two candidates to choose from?
At least vote for a write-in, you lazy bastard! I voted for non-Republicrats when presented with the option, and write-ins otherwise. It took me a few minutes after work. It didn't change the election, but it bought me the right to complain, not only about the establishment politicians that got re-elected, but also the indolent assholes like yourself!:)
Most people - about 80% by some estimates - are fucking idiots. They claim loyalty to either the Democrat or Republican party, yet remain largely ignorant of the fact that both parties take the same position on an overwhelming majority of issues, and that neither party's platform is especially aligned with their personal interests. They vote according to their team, even though their team doesn't share their beliefs. Relatively inconsequential issues (gay rights, abortion rights), issues which are unlikely to have any direct personal impact on an overwhelming majority of individuals (a majority of the population is not gay and will not have any abortions), are cited as reasons for supporting one party over another.
And you say it's Lessig that's blind to his own bias. If only the average voter were as "blind".
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Generally speaking, an election is won by the candidate with the largest purse. There are occasionally exceptions, and sometimes a political platform plays a bigger role than campaign funding. However, those are exceptions, not the norm. Any impartial observer of the political process in this country acknowledge this reality.
Some people, such as myself (I support both MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC), feel that this corruption of representative democracy is a threat to our country. An immediate threat, one that is more pressing than the threat posed by a overzealous legislature eager to strip the freedoms of the people by passing dangerous amendments to the Constitution. The democratic process is broken now, today. How do you propose we fix it? Or are you simply saying that you have no problem with the purchase of elected office, and that democracy really isn't worth saving?
I understand that technically, these proposals for campaign finance reform can be considered free speech restrictions. I agree that any curtailment of the rights set forth in the Constitution ought to be well considered. However I feel that, much like restrictions on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, such restrictions are on the whole beneficial to society. Am I missing some unintended consequences that you can see the proposed restriction having? Do you believe that if Lessig were successful, there would be some harmful impact on free speech?
Since when do challengers have more campaign money than incumbents? And how are "their guys" no longer in charge? While MAYDAY PAC's supported candidates did poorly, an overwhelming majority of incumbents were re-elected (I think I heard over 90%). That's because MAYDAY PAC didn't support incumbents (I don't know off-hand how many of their eight candidates were incumbents, but I'd be surprised if there were more than two), they supported reformers.
I'd hope that you and people like you don't vote, but I've seen the election outcome, and, well, fuck.
Which part am I to weasel around? The part about the meaning of words being subject to change over time?
You're right, I concede. At the time SOX was drafted, a "tangible object" meant something entirely different than it does today. A lot has changed since 2002, eh?
While I agree that there are forms of life that externalize digestion, I challenge you to show me one that externalizes metabolism. Viruses might be an obvious candidate, except that they're not considered to be forms of life (I believe precisely because they are not capable of metabolism).
But again, I'm not a biologist. My understanding of this subject is informed primarily by the writings of physicist Freeman Dyson.
My use of an ad hominem was not a fallacy because my conclusion is not based on it. I.e. I did not say "Only an idiot would say that, so it's wrong."
When you said "only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same or that the US is more extreme", I took this to mean that you were implying that the idiot (per his or her idiocy) would be incorrect, and that they (Balaka and the US Armed Forces) are not about the same and that the US is not more extreme. If this what not what you intended to communicate, then I was indeed wrong, and glad to hear that we're both idiots and agree that Balaka and the US Armed Forces are about the same.
As you noted, my observation was irrelevant to the conclusion. However, I'm sure you realize that being irrelevant and being incorrect are two different things.
Ah, or not. I guess you just favor a style of debate that makes liberal use of non sequitur arguments then?
Those are not all statements of fact, particularly the latter statement. Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values. If you're talking about other behaviors, you'll have to be more explicit. It's a fallacy to depend on abstractions too much because it leads to false equivalences, which I think you may have done.
I similarly question the veracity of your first statement here. A majority of Muslims today will disagree with the claim that Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values.
The claim was that the US Armed Forces is as much a Christian group as Balaka is a Muslim group. That is a different matter. You have to look at the aims of each group, not merely the composition.
Why do I have to do that? I would argue that you have to look at the claimed religion of their members, not merely the aims of each group.
Remember, you said that some could argue that Balaka was merely paying lip service to Islam, just like some groups in America may pay lip service to Christianity.
Indeed, as both Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in violent conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion adopted by their members.
Comparing the goals and methods of the groups, you'll see that supposedly Christian-dominated groups in the US, which are called Christian groups, do very little to promote Christianity within the armed forces or government. In fact if you have done any research on the subject you'll know how careful the US Army is to refrain from appearing "too Christian" by dint of its membership, going so far as to ban people from sending Bibles to troops in Muslim countries.
I didn't mean to make any claims regarding motives of the hostile parties, or tolerance of other religions in their ranks, nor do I think this is relevant to the argument I set forth. If anything, the US Armed Forces' reluctance to appear "too Christian" would seem to indicate that they're keenly aware that people might make the very comparison I'm making.
Muslim groups like Seleka in CAR, on the other hand, have a stated goal of establishing Muslim rule and sharia law over the territory they conquer.
So is that the criteria for a group being religious? Not a majority of their members proclaiming being members of a given religion, but instead a stated desire to establish a theocracy? Perhaps we just disagree on what it means to be religious, and this is the reason why we're in disagreement.
So what evidence do you have that the USAF is as Christian in method, structure, and goals as Seleka is Muslim?
I looked up religious demographics in the US Armed Forces. Roughly 70% Christian. That's my evidence for them being as Christian in membership as Balaka is Muslim (though Balaka is closer to 100% Muslim). I don't see a qualitative difference between 70% homogeneity and 100%.
No, I am arguing that the rule of law requires an actual understanding of the law and a reasonable interpretation of language.
The only one that can interpret language is a person. Which is why such an approach is generally referred to as the rule of man, as opposed to the rule of law. Clearly written legislation doesn't need interpretation, it only needs application.
There really are phrases that any reasonable person would understand one way even if the words might suggest something else if read by an AI or a non-native speaker.
Legislation that is ambiguous, which is what you seem to be describing, is precisely that which does need interpretation, and indeed is unfit for rule of law, and is useful only for the rule of man, by definition.
I would go so far as to say that allowing every bizarre over-broad interpretation of law (such as applying SOX to the fishing boat case) is an example of allowing rule of man to take over.
SOX is being applied to exactly what it says to apply it to. Tangible objects. A "reasonable person" (to borrow your phrase) would agree that a fish is indeed a tangible object, and that it is not a bizarre over-broad "interpretation" to say so.
For example by applying a law that was never meant to be applied such that a minor infraction suddenly carries a major penalty.
Here, by talking about what was "meant to" be, you are ascribing intent to the legislators that drafted SOX. On what basis? Is your basis for ascribing such intent stronger than the definitions of the words "tangible" and "object"? Can you set forth sufficient evidence to make a convincing argument that the legislators meant not what they wrote, but instead what you say they meant? In short, you're arguing that the legislators drafted an erroneous law, and that you know what they meant. This is why such a position is referred to as rule of man, because application of the law depends not on the actual text of the law (which you argue is faulty) but on man (you and your subjective claims of intent).
Essentially I advocate calling bullshit when someone wants to bend the law to their will.
But don't you see that that's exactly what you're doing? Instead of abiding by the actual text of the law (a fish is a tangible object), you're bending the law to your will (by saying that the law means to only address tangible objects in the context of documents and records in the financial industry) when the text itself says something completely different. If indeed your claim of the legislators intent is correct and the text of the law is overly broad, the legislators are the ones who ought to draft a corrected bill for the Congress to pass. It shouldn't be on you, me, or the judiciary to do so. We're not Congress.
Legislative intent is often quite discernible and it is perfectly valid to do so in order to squash these impermissible efforts by individuals to effectively re-write the law
Quite discernible? By whom, people? That's my point. You're okay with allowing arbitrary judiciary to "interpret" laws quite liberally, to ascribe intent to legislators under the assumption that judges always meet everyone's criteria for being reasonable. Those that prefer the rule of law over the rule of man argue the opposite, that the judiciary are (often) unelected and therefore not accountable to the people, and consequently should not be afforded this much power within our government. They (and I) argue that it is the sole and exclusive responsibility of our legislature to create legislation that is clear and unambiguous such that the judiciary need only apply it without any need for interpretation.
Useful links: Originalism is what you appear to favor, yet you've cited no references regarding your claims of
only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same
Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That is, whether or not a person that comes to this conclusion is an idiot is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion.
Here are some statements of fact. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces are groups of individuals that have a religious majority among them. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion of their respective majority.
If the US Armed Forces are "not true Christians" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Christianity, then it stands to reason that the Balaka are "not true Muslims" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Islam. To say otherwise is to embrace a blatant disregard for reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It was not a predatory plan, it was a premium plan. It had excellent coverage. I'm not a lawyer nor an accountant so delving into the particular requirements of the thousands of pages of new regs that led to the policy's demise is a bit much to ask. I had the same policy for a number of years
I won't deny the possibility of what you're saying, I just don't understand how that's possible. Surely the ACA isn't outlawing "premium", "excellent coverage" plans, is it? Is that what you're alleging? That the ACA arbitrarily outlaws good plans? Why would such legislation even be drafted, to accomplish what goal? Furthermore, why wouldn't anyone be able to point out that bit of legalese responsible this and say "See -- This is why the ACA is terrible" in the years since it's been signed into law? It just doesn't add up to me. Surely out of the many millions of people complaining about the ACA, one of them would be identify the piece of the law that requires the cancellation of such "premium" plans, no? Do you understand how someone who hasn't been negatively impacted in the way you describe might be skeptical regarding such claims? I mean, I'll grant that it's possible, but it really just doesn't make sense.
The AHA doesn't lower costs, it raises them. All the insurers and health care providers have to ensure they're compliant which is not a cheap thing to do. That expense alone raises costs. I'm judging the performance based on my own costs. The amount billed for care I've received previously haven't changed significantly, it's the replacement plan paying out less. So it's not the cost of care that's increasing, it's my out of pocket expense. So the new plan costs more and covers less. Maybe I'm in an unlucky edge case, but I hear a lot of people say the same of their own situation. Even the health care providers I see are complaining about it.
Okay, so there's compliance costs. That's a very real cost in the healthcare industry. Some estimates of what percentage of healthcare costs are the result of compliance burdens are hard to believe. I won't deny that additional regulation in that industry could (and likely would) have significant costs. Even something as simple as the Sunshine Act (2007) has had a significant impact in the industry. I believe compliance (and all other) costs were included in surveys conducted that demonstrate that overall, the ACA has had a positive impact on the cost of healthcare. Looking at the numbers, it is evident that the cost of healthcare has continued to rise since the ACA hit, but the rate at which it is increasing has dropped to 3% (from 5%-7%). These numbers aren't very comprehensive. It would be nice to know not just the average impact, but the median and maybe even the distribution of cost impact. Maybe some small number of people is saving a huge amount and everyone else is getting a slight cost increase (although I don't think that's likely). Maybe some small number of people is getting royally fucked and everyone else is getting a slight cost decrease (also unlikely). These numbers only tell us that on average, the rise in costs has been somewhat stemmed, and that the increased costs of compliance have been more than countered by decreased costs elsewhere.
If Medicare pays so much, why had places like the Mayo Clinic dumped all their patients that have it? That's not a thing that is done lightly. That was a big talking point while the legislation was being debated. Many facilities across the country are faced with dropping those patients or charging more to everyone else to eat the loss. You're pointing to the pay as a problem, but it's not true that every doctor is raking in a fortune. With the decrease in compensation for services rendered, they have fit more patients in just to keep the lights on. Some specialists may be making a ton of money, but IMO, they've earned it
Indeed, if they keep it up, they'll soon have caught up to the Walmart probe out in the Kuiper Belt, the Apple spacecraft out exploring the Oort cloud, and the Exxon-Mobil "lander" navigating the depths of the seas on Titan.
You say "for a government run operation" as though those weren't the most impressive operations to date.
Alright, Barf.
The irony that actual adults are expected to not proudly wear vile condescending attitudes and otherwise act like jackasses?
I know that the AHA was responsible for the cancellation because that was the reason cited. Granted, they could have been lying, but the only reason would have been because the plan was no longer viable given the new requirements put in effect by the legislation, which would still mean that it was cancelled by the AHA.
I mean, that sounds rather vague. It's unlikely that your policy contained a clause saying that it would be discontinued if any legislation titled "Affordable Care Act" was passed. It's similarly unlikely that the ACA specifically singled out plan #X provided by insurer $Y as no longer legal. So it's become clear that "they said so" is your only basis for knowing that the passage of the ACA was the cause of the cancellation. But you don't know why, specifically, that was the case. For someone that's so infuriated by the impact of the ACA, you don't seem very motivated to get more information on the subject. Either way, let's at least acknowledge that it is possible your plan was discontinued because it was predatory and/or ineffectual, in which case your ire may not be entirely justified.
Of course it was supposed to lower costs. That's what was pitched to the public. The first A stands for AFFORDABLE. Increasing out of pocket expenses is the opposite of making something more affordable. The average family's costs were supposed to decrease by a substantial amount, and for a lot of people, that never happened. The biggest group of people benefiting are those who get subsidized policies, but many of them had insurance before. Their costs went up like mine and suddenly they had to be subsidized. Some resent it. They don't understand how any of this helped when they used to be self sufficient and now rely on handouts to pay for a lesser policy than they had before.
Lower costs as compared against what? Are you comparing costs from one year to the previous year? Why do you feel that to be a fair comparison? Do you honestly believe that in the absence of the ACA, your costs would have remained the same year over year? Especially when you consider that healthcare costs have been rising by double-digit rates for years? That's a disingenuous comparison to make. The reason the ACA was passed was to reign in the costs of healthcare, which are (by anyone's measure) spiraling out of control. If you believe that the ACA is failing in this goal because absolute costs are not decreasing, then you had some very lofty expectations, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, if you feel the ACA is having a negative impact on costs (compared to how things would have looked had we done nothing), then you're flat out incorrect, as this isn't a matter of opinion. All studies of the issue have shown that, in general, healthcare is cheaper today with the ACA than it would have been today without the ACA. That means, necessarily, that the ACA is, in general, saving us money. I wouldn't doubt that some are being helped more than others, and that some might actually be being harmed. But in general, overall, the ACA is lowering costs compared to how costs would otherwise be without the ACA. Comparing against the previous year is disingenuous because it assumes that without the ACA, costs would not have risen, which is a baseless (and frankly, ridiculous) assumption.
I don't want single payer. It's not the federal government's job to force it on us.
I understand that a great many people "don't want single payer". Usually the debate turns to one rooted in political ideology, sadly. Nonetheless, regardless of how you feel about single-payer, if it were to be implemented in America, it would very much be the federal government's job to force it on us. That's how single-payer works.
People from countries that have it come here for care they can't receive in their own country. That should tell you something. People in the UK go on medical vacations to o
Mod parent up. Fucking brilliant.
I'm not sure how you expect a group to get their message out without paying people to do so. Banners and flyers cost money too. It's not just TV ads. Your campaign staff needs to put food on the table and a roof over their head. In order to find out that your opponent is lying in their book, you need to come up with a copy of the book, which probably means buying one. That all requires spending money.
I'm pretty sure nobody's talking about restrictions on campaign financing that are so draconian that they'd prevent the purchase of a book. That might be a bit of a strawman argument. Regarding the food on the table and roof over head, I support the notion that the political process shouldn't be the basis of anyone's livelihood. Candidates that are actually supported by actual people will find supporters that voluntarily support them. I'd imagine that candidates that are supported primarily by non-natural "persons" would inherently have a harder time finding such voluntary support, and I feel that would be a good thing. Limited funding would level the playing field between candidates, allowing those with relatively little funding (by today's standards) to have comparable exposure to those who are flush with cash. Unable to leverage financial advantage to win elections, politicians might instead have to win votes by supporting popular policies instead. I would welcome such a change.
In addition, Lessig intends to set up a two tiered system, where candidates that the media supports are allowed to have an outside group (the media) spend money on their behalf, in addition to their "non-spending speech." Candidates not supported by the media only have the "non-spending speech," which is of course unworkable in practice. Also of note, Lessig's bet, and he's talked about this, is that the candidates he personally supports are the ones that get support from the traditional media.
Is this an actual problem? Or, more importantly, is this an actual problem that is solved by enabling unlimited money-as-speech? Which candidates were railroaded by the media during the last presidential election? Was it Romney or Obama? Or was it Johnson, Stein, Goode, and Anderson? Did this unlimited money-as-speech approach help Johnson, Stein, Goode, and Anderson overcome this media bias? Or did it help Romney and Obama dominate the conversation, further silencing everyone else? I think the problem of media favoritism that you describe is only exacerbated by the influence of money, as the candidates favored by the media are all too often the same ones favored by those with deep pockets.
This argument is just "money is bad because I say so." It's not "money is bad because it has an outsized effect" or "money is bad because it makes people do things they wouldn't otherwise do" or "This system is bad because some people are/would be treated unfairly under it." It's just "money is bad because it makes me uneasy."
No, this argument is just "I, personally, don't like excess money in politics". It's a statement of personal belief, an opinion, and not an argument that excess money in politics is bad. Perhaps I should have separated this statement of personal belief from the rest of my argument so that it wouldn't be mistaken for something it's not.
I'm not sure what your idea of the "nature of democracy" is. I prefer one correlated with an idea from free market theory. One of the conditions that makes a market free is that all actors have perfect knowledge of the available products. In this case, that's voters having perfect knowledge of the candidates. Clearly, 100% perfect knowledge is unattainable, but in order to make an informed choice, voters need to know what candidates stand for. There's only three ways a candidate can do that. They can either do it themselves personally, which doesn't scale, pay their supporters to help them, which costs money, or have outside groups (including the media)
They spent about the same, but one side was elected at a far greater rate. I don't think the problem is as big as you're making it sound.
Personally, the spending of vast sums of money on campaigns makes me uneasy. I don't like the idea of elections being bought. That's my personal stance regardless of whether or not money is the primary determining factor in who is elected. I'd like to clarify my earlier point, as the way I originally stated it is easily countered, as you just demonstrated. It's not that money wins elections, it's more that money buys votes. Some campaigns are more efficient and can buy votes at a lower cost, some campaigns are in safe districts where one party has an inherent advantage. To say that the side with more money wins is an oversimplification. All other things being equal, the side with more money wins. That being said, all other things are seldom equal. In any case, I still thing the influence of money in politics, however large or small, is clearly nonzero. Any nonzero influence of money on politics, I believe, corrupts the nature of democracy.
Under current law, groups of individuals who feel a candidate isn't being treated fairly by the media (positively OR negatively) have other options to get their message out. Lessig's restrictions on free speech would take that away.
Would it, though? As far as I understand the restrictions being proposed, it would only impact those groups of individuals' spending. It would have no impact on non-spending speech. If you're right and money isn't as big an issue as I'm making it sound, then this restriction on spending similarly isn't that big an issue, no?
I wasn't able to keep my plan, and it was not a shitty plan.
I wasn't able to keep my plan either. But, now that you mention it, my employer forced a change of plans on me the year before the ACA was passed too. And indeed, there's been other times where I've been unable to keep my plan, entirely unrelated to the passage of any healthcare legislation (as far as I know). How do you know the ACA was the proximate cause for your old plan's cancellation? Furthermore, which aspect of your old plan caused it to be outlawed under the new law?
My health care costs have risen since the AHA took effect.
So have mine. My health care costs have been dramatically rising since long before the ACA took effect. From what I've seen, data suggests that overall costs did rise, but they rose at a considerably lower rate than they had been rising previously. Obviously, it's not likely that this trend holds true for every individual, and it's possible that your costs did indeed rise more than they would have otherwise. Overall, though, the numbers suggest that on average, the growth of healthcare costs has been decreased. Not exactly a resounding success story, but an improvement nonetheless.
Plans were supposed to continue and costs were supposed to go down.
Liked plans were supposed to continue (with the understanding that the ACA wouldn't impose a requirement for insurers to continue all existing plans, so your plan's continuation would still be subject to the whims of your insurer). Costs were supposed to go down compared against continuing the way things were. I don't think anyone ever claimed that absolute costs would actually decrease, merely that the ACA would help reign in the rapidly rising cost by slowing the rate of growth.
Single payer is a nightmare.
That's... actually... See, I don't understand why people say this. USA is the only developed country in the world with this type of healthcare system. Every country that outranks us on the Human Development Index has a single payer system.
We have some of the best health care facilities in the world.
Yes, and we have some of the highest costs and worst outcomes in the developed world. People that think the US healthcare system is some shining star are simply ignorant of the world beyond these borders.
Single payer will end that.
That seems like a silly claim. Why would the signature on checks impact healthcare beyond the accounting department? If my doctor bills Washington instead of me or my insurance company, why does the quality of care I receive need to change? Any answers I've heard to these types of questions inevitably end up sounding like a whole of assumptions about how a single payer system needs to be run.
We'd all be on secret waiting lists like the folks trying to get treatment at the VA.
Those waiting lists aren't very secret if you're posting on slashdot about them, but I digress. I invite you to learn about how single payer healthcare systems work in other developed countries. Crack open Wikipedia and read some of the cited references. Maybe you'll find some useful ammunition for your crusade against the implementation of such a system here. Or maybe you'll find that it's really not as scary as "secret waiting lists", that it's a lot cheaper, and that it helps people live longer, happier lives.
The only thing I see that would have been an improvement would have been to try and separate health insurance from our employers. Even that may have been "careful what you wish for".
Man, there's conservative, and then there's you. The way I see it, the healthcare system in this country is so broken (based solely on absolutely extreme expense and relatively poor outcomes) that I'm okay with trying anything to fix it. There's no need to be careful when everything is already so far gone. You're worrying about some worst-case scenario as though you don't realize we're already living in it.
I didn't vote for Obama (the second time around). I have mixed feelings about the ACA (I was hoping for a single-payer system, and I fear that this compromise approach may leave us even worse off than we were before).
But, come on, man. As far as I'm aware, the only people whose plans were discontinued were the predatory and/or ineffectual ones explicitly outlawed because they were predatory and/or ineffectual. If you honestly believe that Obama's "if you like it, you can keep it" pledge ought to have applied to shitty plans that no reasonable person would be expected to "like", then I would argue that you're not a reasonable person.
If you like your Internet service, you can keep it. Period.
Cue the idiots complaining that Obama lied because passage of the Fair Networking Act (Obamanet) has caused their ISP to stop offering 4800 baud dialup plans.
I see these "debates" (and I use that term loosely) on Slashdot rather frequently. I just want to say thank you, on behalf of myself and anyone else like me that simply doesn't have it in them to deal with these people. You have the patience of a saint.
They supported a number of Republican candidates. One of their two winning campaigns was for a Republican. In other words, they helped elect as many Republicans as Democrats.
Of course, it's rather disheartening to hear people always trying to put a political spin on these sorts of things. I don't vote for Democrats (or Republicans) and I still support MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC.
What fucking shithole do you live in where there were only two candidates to choose from?
:)
At least vote for a write-in, you lazy bastard! I voted for non-Republicrats when presented with the option, and write-ins otherwise. It took me a few minutes after work. It didn't change the election, but it bought me the right to complain, not only about the establishment politicians that got re-elected, but also the indolent assholes like yourself!
In my experience, that's way off.
Most people - about 80% by some estimates - are fucking idiots. They claim loyalty to either the Democrat or Republican party, yet remain largely ignorant of the fact that both parties take the same position on an overwhelming majority of issues, and that neither party's platform is especially aligned with their personal interests. They vote according to their team, even though their team doesn't share their beliefs. Relatively inconsequential issues (gay rights, abortion rights), issues which are unlikely to have any direct personal impact on an overwhelming majority of individuals (a majority of the population is not gay and will not have any abortions), are cited as reasons for supporting one party over another.
And you say it's Lessig that's blind to his own bias. If only the average voter were as "blind".
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Generally speaking, an election is won by the candidate with the largest purse. There are occasionally exceptions, and sometimes a political platform plays a bigger role than campaign funding. However, those are exceptions, not the norm. Any impartial observer of the political process in this country acknowledge this reality.
Some people, such as myself (I support both MAYDAY PAC and WOLF PAC), feel that this corruption of representative democracy is a threat to our country. An immediate threat, one that is more pressing than the threat posed by a overzealous legislature eager to strip the freedoms of the people by passing dangerous amendments to the Constitution. The democratic process is broken now, today. How do you propose we fix it? Or are you simply saying that you have no problem with the purchase of elected office, and that democracy really isn't worth saving?
I understand that technically, these proposals for campaign finance reform can be considered free speech restrictions. I agree that any curtailment of the rights set forth in the Constitution ought to be well considered. However I feel that, much like restrictions on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, such restrictions are on the whole beneficial to society. Am I missing some unintended consequences that you can see the proposed restriction having? Do you believe that if Lessig were successful, there would be some harmful impact on free speech?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Since when do challengers have more campaign money than incumbents? And how are "their guys" no longer in charge? While MAYDAY PAC's supported candidates did poorly, an overwhelming majority of incumbents were re-elected (I think I heard over 90%). That's because MAYDAY PAC didn't support incumbents (I don't know off-hand how many of their eight candidates were incumbents, but I'd be surprised if there were more than two), they supported reformers.
I'd hope that you and people like you don't vote, but I've seen the election outcome, and, well, fuck.
A bit more in general? Or is there some particular insight that I'm missing that would lead me to also fear the rule of law?
Which part am I to weasel around? The part about the meaning of words being subject to change over time?
You're right, I concede. At the time SOX was drafted, a "tangible object" meant something entirely different than it does today. A lot has changed since 2002, eh?
Also, I truly love your sig.
Digestion is not metabolism.
While I agree that there are forms of life that externalize digestion, I challenge you to show me one that externalizes metabolism. Viruses might be an obvious candidate, except that they're not considered to be forms of life (I believe precisely because they are not capable of metabolism).
But again, I'm not a biologist. My understanding of this subject is informed primarily by the writings of physicist Freeman Dyson.
I thought there were only two necessary processes:
#1 Hereditary reproduction
#2 Metabolism
The reason viruses aren't considered alive is because they don't metabolize. Admittedly, though, I'm not a biologist.
My use of an ad hominem was not a fallacy because my conclusion is not based on it. I.e. I did not say "Only an idiot would say that, so it's wrong."
When you said "only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same or that the US is more extreme", I took this to mean that you were implying that the idiot (per his or her idiocy) would be incorrect, and that they (Balaka and the US Armed Forces) are not about the same and that the US is not more extreme. If this what not what you intended to communicate, then I was indeed wrong, and glad to hear that we're both idiots and agree that Balaka and the US Armed Forces are about the same.
As you noted, my observation was irrelevant to the conclusion. However, I'm sure you realize that being irrelevant and being incorrect are two different things.
Ah, or not. I guess you just favor a style of debate that makes liberal use of non sequitur arguments then?
Those are not all statements of fact, particularly the latter statement. Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values. If you're talking about other behaviors, you'll have to be more explicit. It's a fallacy to depend on abstractions too much because it leads to false equivalences, which I think you may have done.
I similarly question the veracity of your first statement here. A majority of Muslims today will disagree with the claim that Jihad for the purpose of establishing an Islamic state is in keeping with Islamic values.
The claim was that the US Armed Forces is as much a Christian group as Balaka is a Muslim group. That is a different matter. You have to look at the aims of each group, not merely the composition.
Why do I have to do that? I would argue that you have to look at the claimed religion of their members, not merely the aims of each group.
Remember, you said that some could argue that Balaka was merely paying lip service to Islam, just like some groups in America may pay lip service to Christianity.
Indeed, as both Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in violent conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion adopted by their members.
Comparing the goals and methods of the groups, you'll see that supposedly Christian-dominated groups in the US, which are called Christian groups, do very little to promote Christianity within the armed forces or government. In fact if you have done any research on the subject you'll know how careful the US Army is to refrain from appearing "too Christian" by dint of its membership, going so far as to ban people from sending Bibles to troops in Muslim countries.
I didn't mean to make any claims regarding motives of the hostile parties, or tolerance of other religions in their ranks, nor do I think this is relevant to the argument I set forth. If anything, the US Armed Forces' reluctance to appear "too Christian" would seem to indicate that they're keenly aware that people might make the very comparison I'm making.
Muslim groups like Seleka in CAR, on the other hand, have a stated goal of establishing Muslim rule and sharia law over the territory they conquer.
So is that the criteria for a group being religious? Not a majority of their members proclaiming being members of a given religion, but instead a stated desire to establish a theocracy? Perhaps we just disagree on what it means to be religious, and this is the reason why we're in disagreement.
So what evidence do you have that the USAF is as Christian in method, structure, and goals as Seleka is Muslim?
I looked up religious demographics in the US Armed Forces. Roughly 70% Christian. That's my evidence for them being as Christian in membership as Balaka is Muslim (though Balaka is closer to 100% Muslim). I don't see a qualitative difference between 70% homogeneity and 100%.
No, I am arguing that the rule of law requires an actual understanding of the law and a reasonable interpretation of language.
The only one that can interpret language is a person. Which is why such an approach is generally referred to as the rule of man, as opposed to the rule of law. Clearly written legislation doesn't need interpretation, it only needs application.
There really are phrases that any reasonable person would understand one way even if the words might suggest something else if read by an AI or a non-native speaker.
Legislation that is ambiguous, which is what you seem to be describing, is precisely that which does need interpretation, and indeed is unfit for rule of law, and is useful only for the rule of man, by definition.
I would go so far as to say that allowing every bizarre over-broad interpretation of law (such as applying SOX to the fishing boat case) is an example of allowing rule of man to take over.
SOX is being applied to exactly what it says to apply it to. Tangible objects. A "reasonable person" (to borrow your phrase) would agree that a fish is indeed a tangible object, and that it is not a bizarre over-broad "interpretation" to say so.
For example by applying a law that was never meant to be applied such that a minor infraction suddenly carries a major penalty.
Here, by talking about what was "meant to" be, you are ascribing intent to the legislators that drafted SOX. On what basis? Is your basis for ascribing such intent stronger than the definitions of the words "tangible" and "object"? Can you set forth sufficient evidence to make a convincing argument that the legislators meant not what they wrote, but instead what you say they meant? In short, you're arguing that the legislators drafted an erroneous law, and that you know what they meant. This is why such a position is referred to as rule of man, because application of the law depends not on the actual text of the law (which you argue is faulty) but on man (you and your subjective claims of intent).
Essentially I advocate calling bullshit when someone wants to bend the law to their will.
But don't you see that that's exactly what you're doing? Instead of abiding by the actual text of the law (a fish is a tangible object), you're bending the law to your will (by saying that the law means to only address tangible objects in the context of documents and records in the financial industry) when the text itself says something completely different. If indeed your claim of the legislators intent is correct and the text of the law is overly broad, the legislators are the ones who ought to draft a corrected bill for the Congress to pass. It shouldn't be on you, me, or the judiciary to do so. We're not Congress.
Legislative intent is often quite discernible and it is perfectly valid to do so in order to squash these impermissible efforts by individuals to effectively re-write the law
Quite discernible? By whom, people? That's my point. You're okay with allowing arbitrary judiciary to "interpret" laws quite liberally, to ascribe intent to legislators under the assumption that judges always meet everyone's criteria for being reasonable. Those that prefer the rule of law over the rule of man argue the opposite, that the judiciary are (often) unelected and therefore not accountable to the people, and consequently should not be afforded this much power within our government. They (and I) argue that it is the sole and exclusive responsibility of our legislature to create legislation that is clear and unambiguous such that the judiciary need only apply it without any need for interpretation.
Useful links: Originalism is what you appear to favor, yet you've cited no references regarding your claims of
only an idiot would come to the conclusion that they're about the same
Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy. That is, whether or not a person that comes to this conclusion is an idiot is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion.
Here are some statements of fact. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces are groups of individuals that have a religious majority among them. Both the Balaka and the US Armed Forces engage in conduct that is contrary to the values professed by the religion of their respective majority.
If the US Armed Forces are "not true Christians" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Christianity, then it stands to reason that the Balaka are "not true Muslims" because their conduct is contrary to the values professed by Islam. To say otherwise is to embrace a blatant disregard for reason.