Obamacare

No, no, no. You're going about this all wrong gas.
What they're saying is that driving is necessary
True. They are saying this.
and a natural human right.
False. They are not saying this.

At least in my case (and I presume @Dave's as well), what I am saying is that owning a vehicle has become like having a phone number, an address, a degree/certification, a computer with Internet access, or even a specific type of wardrobe. They have become private sector unfunded mandates which are required to participate in current society. Specifically, they are required to seek and keep gainful* employment. Some may argue that this is a transportation issue, but an equal argument could be made that this is really a jobs issue. After all, if I had the opportunity to earn a decent wage from my home, I wouldn't need to drive so much, right? Does a person get fat due to lack of exercise or is it due to overeating? They both contribute, but which is the root cause? With a large enough sample size, some general assumptions can be made that guide the treatment of society as a whole, but things are much different at the individual level. Poverty may be the cancer which is eating away at society, but we don't need the wholesale necrosis of chemotherapy, we need to revert them back into healthy cells, and the ones that refuse to repair can go ahead and succumb to apoptosis.

--Patrick
*Defined as any earnings sufficient to pay for the house/clothes/car/utilities but still have enough left over to buy food.
 
Poverty may be the cancer which is eating away at society, but we don't need the wholesale necrosis of chemotherapy, we need to revert them back into healthy cells, and the ones that refuse to repair can go ahead and succumb to apoptosis.
You're saying people who can't get not poor should kill themselves (for those without a biology background, or willing to read wiki, that's what it means).

WTF???
 
You're saying people who can't get not poor should kill themselves (for those without a biology background, or willing to read wiki, that's what it means).
Quite the opposite, actually. I said that they should get (actual, not token) support to become unpoor, but that those who refuse said support should be allowed to fail.

In reality, they probably won't die, they'll just lose their home/car/clothes/telephone/autonomy and have to move back in with family. "Reabsorbed by other cells," as it were.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
actually i bet that guy is trying to get obamacare unfunded
I didn't say him, I said someone like him. That guy was put in charge of energy. The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.
 
I didn't say him, I said someone like him. That guy was put in charge of energy. The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.
I do think all Congressional representatives should be at minimum required to re-pass the SAT IIs for math, history, and all the sciences every new term.
 
The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.
Don't give them any ideas.
I do think all Congressional representatives should be at minimum required to re-pass the SAT IIs for math, history, and all the sciences every new term.
Testing to renew their drive-the-country license? I'm actually OK with that. Teachers have to stay current in their fields, why shouldn't representatives?

--Patrick
 
Thinking a little about it - I don't really think I'm on board with the congressman tests. Those could be abused, and honestly book smarts aren't super necessary to be a regular congressman.


Being on any sort of specialized committee, however.....I'm reminded of that guy on the science committee that thinks climate change isn't real.
 
Right. There's still the question about who gets to make the tests, but anything that reveals the onset of dementia sounds like it could be useful.

--Patrick
 
Thinking a little about it - I don't really think I'm on board with the congressman tests. Those could be abused, and honestly book smarts aren't super necessary to be a regular congressman.
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.
 
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.
I once posted something similar regarding what change I'd like to see in election rules.
I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something like, "The pool of eligible candidates shall be composed only of those people not seeking office."

My rationale being that if you're great, everyone else will already know you're great, and we won't need you to tell us how great you are.

--Patrick
 
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.
I would totally be on board with this.
 
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.
I think we'd end up with even more of a do-nothing Congress than we already have. Or worse, if there's never an income, that's an easier in for corporate bribery.

But I do agree that it should be a service to the country, not a way to ascend the ranks. Just not sure how to effect that. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.
 
I think we'd end up with even more of a do-nothing Congress than we already have. Or worse, if there's never an income, that's an easier in for corporate bribery.

But I do agree that it should be a service to the country, not a way to ascend the ranks. Just not sure how to effect that. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.
Make corporate bribery illegal.... y'know, like it already should be but isn't really.
 
Make corporate bribery illegal.... y'know, like it already should be but isn't really.
But then it comes down to what's a gift, what's putting money towards something, etc. It would cost more tax dollars going through the court proceedings than just paying the elected official.

Then again, I have to keep in mind the distinction in the analogy. Anyone can be on jury duty; odds are only rich people will ever be in Congress, so it's not like they need those perks if they really want to influence things. The real problem is a lack of integrity. I don't know if there ever was such a thing in Congress though; certainly not during my lifetime.
 
"Integrity" and "Congress" are not usually used in a sentence together, except to comment that they aren't used in a sentence together.
 
I still can't sign in. There's an interesting article on Forbes today about it the crashing, suggesting that they designed the site to force people to enter personal information before giving them quotes in order to downplay how their insurance is likely to go up if they aren't subsidized.

"On average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under obamacare, will be 99% more expensive for men and 62% more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system."

The obvious counter argument is that the poor shouldn't be able to see the high costs and become discouraged and not even apply, so not providing cost information until the user has entered enough information benefits the poor.

Still, they should be able to provide quotes, even subsidized quotes, without forcing everyone through a door that can't support the huge load being placed on the servers.
 
I was able to get quotes, including an assumed subsidy, from ehealthinsurance.com. I did have to put in financial information, but I did not have to enter any personally identifiable information or create an account. I found it to be more expensive than what my employer offers for less coverage, so I stopped at the price list and didn't go any further. It probably would have been more expensive, had I gone through the whole process, due to my wife's epilepsy.

I live in Ohio, so if you live somewhere else, YMMV.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I was able to get quotes, including an assumed subsidy, from ehealthinsurance.com. I did have to put in financial information, but I did not have to enter any personally identifiable information or create an account. I found it to be more expensive than what my employer offers for less coverage, so I stopped at the price list and didn't go any further. It probably would have been more expensive, had I gone through the whole process, due to my wife's epilepsy.

I live in Ohio, so if you live somewhere else, YMMV.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
I don't think that's the right website. I think you're supposed to use healthcare.gov ... I think ehealthinsurance.com is a private enterprise.
 
I don't think that's the right website. I think you're supposed to use healthcare.gov ... I think ehealthinsurance.com is a private enterprise.
It is a private enterprise, but it can access the exchanges for pricing purposes, and can act as the purchasing agent if you want (at least, as I understand it). They are upfront about the fact that the numbers you get are just estimates, and may vary. I thought it was helpful, if only from an illustrative point of view.
 
The rumor going around work is that our High-deductible plan with an HSA is going away because it doesn't meet the requirements (heaven forbid someone save and pay for their coverage themselves). I'll see in a couple of weeks when enrollment comes around.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The rumor going around work is that our High-deductible plan with an HSA is going away because it doesn't meet the requirements (heaven forbid someone save and pay for their coverage themselves). I'll see in a couple of weeks when enrollment comes around.
We just had ours. Our health insurance options got reduced to 2 choices - $4000 deductible HSA plan, or $3000 deductible regular plan with $30 copay and 20% coinsurance. Both of these options are about $10/mo more expensive in premiums than previously for individuals (and even more for families), and the deductible for the non-HSA option doubled from last year.
 
But gas! You're getting more for your money!

You may not have wanted the few things extra you get, and some don't even apply to you, but this is for you own good, you know.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But gas! You're getting more for your money!

You may not have wanted the few things extra you get, and some don't even apply to you, but this is for you own good, you know.
Last I heard my premiums were supposed to go down by as much as $2500 a year. But I guess not! Has that happened for anyone?

 
Top