# Affordable Health Care (Warning)



## owls84

Warning: This is not for political right or wrong talk but actual discussion on the Affordable Healthcare Act. Any non-topic discussion will be removed. Lets educate ourselves and play nice.  ​
Ok so I am actually reading this Affordable Healthcare Act in PDF, more specifically Section 9001 (Starts on page 1941). It talks about how they plan on paying for it and taxing (or penalizing) to raise funds and it talks about how now employers must put your total cost of your healthcare on your W-2. So this sends me into a panic because it says anything in excess benefit (pg. 1943 ln. 5) of $23,000 (for a family) is going to be taxed at 40% (pg. 1941 ln. 16) and so I panic more. Then I keep reading and it says the healthcare provider (pg. 1945 ln. 19) will be responsible for this tax not me. Basically saying that if you are going to supply expensive health insurance than you will be taxed for it.

Then I think, ok this will drive the cost up but if it does it will just tax them more. I am going back and forth on this so I am curios, would it in fact make companies drive cost down or pay a penalty? Take a look yourself. You really can read this if you try. I would just like to see what you think.  

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf


----------



## Blake Bowden

*"Obamacare" and the Supreme Courts Decision*

I haven't read the entire "Obamacare" bill, what I do know is that I get screwed each year by my healthcare provider. With Humana, my premiums have gone up 20% two years in a row! That's not a rumor, Glen Beck talking point, or Rush Limbaugh scare tactic, that's me writing a check each month!

I admit, I lean to the right, but why can't we just offer universal healthcare? American taxpayers pay for the citizens of Iraq to have it! This is one big issue I side with the left on.

The thing is, the so-called "rich" can afford whatever Premiums they are charged, the poor are taken care as well, it's those stuck in the middle who really feel the pinch. Back in my 20's, Rachel and I just paid out of pocket for healthcare. One day she had to goto the E.R. and WOW! By the time you get the hospital bill, the xray tech bill, the physician on duty bill you're easily pushing a grand! Yet if you're poor and your kid has a bad bowel movement, medicaid takes care of it. BS really. IMO, universal healthcare would level the playing field. Your thoughts?


----------



## cog41

*Re: "Obamacare" and the Supreme Courts Decision*

Well, and it's a deep one. There are just too many things wrong with this bill and the tick, I mean politics behind it.

I agree with ya on Humana though. We had it one year! And it was a bad year for sure. Worst insurance we ever had.

Back to ObamaCare. 

I don't support universal care, but I do support a complete overhaul of the insurance system, healthcare , auto, life, home, workers comp etc etc.... For now though we are on Obamacare. Yes, we pay for folks all over the world and I for one think we should stop.
I believe if ya want insurance then get it. If an employer wants to provide it, that's good too. They may even provide an employee the money for a years worth and if the employee fails to get insurance then that's their fault.
But thats for those of us who work or have some retirement.
Those other folks, the ones who don't and wont work, well now they're gonna be covered. By who? $$$ Wanna take a guess? We think we're paying for them now, just wait.

Hey, it's a mess. But I believe in the private sector.. Competition. I don't want a bunch of bureaucrats figuring if they should keep covering/treating my illness or injury.
My wife has rhuematoid arthritis and high blood pressure. We could spend 2 grand a month easy.
One shot can cost $400! 4 times a month! I or my daughter usually give it to her, not counting the other meds. fortunately we look for med coupons and any break the Dr office can provide.

I mean looking to the cost of meds, and treatment, and the tort reform would be a great place to begin an overhaul without burdening us with more taxes. Surely they can make the meds and sell them much cheaper than they do.
Buy it here it may cost 100. go to Mexicao or Canada same drug may be 40-50. Really?1?

Oh well, I said it was deep, and we're still in the shallow end.


----------



## cog41

I heard this version somewhere else. Sounds like if you opt out and pay the fine, well, the fine only goes up each year. No one or fewer and fewer are buying insurance so Eventually they'll only be one provider in town. The Obamcare Company.

Seriously, the additional tax on the provider may be paid by the provider but it'll have to be made up somewhere. Where? Where else? The insured! 
No way this can be cheap, low cost whatever. I just hope I can keep what I have for as long as I can.


Wow. Golly Gee! Gawwlee GrandPa The Guvmint here to save us all!


----------



## Blake Bowden

Threads merged


----------



## JTM

owls84 said:


> Ok so I am actually reading this Affordable Healthcare Act in PDF


 can i stop you right here?  This (crap) is 2700 pages long.  How far along are you and how much have you understood?  Can I go out on a limb here and assume you're full of crap?

edit: I know I don't participate on the forums very often, ya'll, but I'd like to just go ahead and say that I've been giving Josh a hard time for a very long time.  My political preference + our history = I give him a hard time... please take it easy.


----------



## AFM

Passing that bill the way it is was just a big (crazy) country financial mistake... Millions still unemployed and they are expecting people to be happy about it? Just another political move for upcoming elections...


----------



## Brent Heilman

One of the big problems I see with it is that it levels the playing field. Everyone is covered so everyone shares the brunt of the unhealthy. The way it was it was a risk based system. Healthy people pay less than the unhealthy. Now there is no risk reward. It doesn't matter if you are unhealthy or not everyone is in the pool together and so the rates will go up because you have to look at it as the unhealthiest people will be setting the rate at which everyone pays since the insurance companies have to look at their risk. It would be similar to requiring everyone regardless of whether they drive or not to carry car insurance. When every person has it then car insurance would be based off the worst driver for everyone. 

Also, in the beginning the left vilified the insurance companies as the problem in the healthcare system and why it was so expensive. If that was truly the case why did they pass a law mandating us to be customers? They passed a law that now requires us to buy from them. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## leebot

The problem I have with it is that you can't expect anyone to care how much anything costs unless they pay for it on their own.  It is only then that you find what each person values and what they are willing to pay.  I think we should have a single payer system with no insurance companies and no government.  You want it you pay for it.  We do this with most areas of our lives and it works fine.  The areas that we don't do it with are the ones that have problems.  The reason cost are so high is they never know if anyone is going to pay so they jack up the price hoping 10% will pay and then they can make money.  That is no way to run a business.  If I want or need something I should have to pay for it not the guy down the street or across town.   Lets face the facts eventually this will lead to all of us getting the bare minimum care and paying the most for it.  It is like demanding the government tax us all more so we can have a free car.  In the beginning we all get average nice cars fit for a family of 4.  In the end we are all riding the bus.  

I would much rather keep my money and decide what I want to do with it than give it to the government and have them tell me where it is going.  Think of all the programs that our tax dollars are sent on that none of see any reward for a much less a reason.  If Americans could see how each dollar of their tax bill was divided and only pay for that which the deemed necessary the government would only get 20% of what it collects now and millions of programs would be cut.  We need to return to those days where if you want something you pay for it.  If you cant pay for it, you don't buy it and government is not expected to give it to you.  

If people truly need assistance then we as brothers are obligated to help them.  That creates several things that government welfare of any kind can never create.  It creates a humble and  thankful heart.  For when you are truly in need and you humble yourself to a brother and ask that he help it creates an expectation that you will use what you have asked for with diligence.  You are also thankful that someone has come to your rescue and later when seeing someone in like condition you are reminded that you were in the same place once and you will give liberally to that brothers relief.

Is this not one of the first lessons we are taught?


----------



## BryanMaloney

Brent Heilman said:


> Also, in the beginning the left vilified the insurance companies as the problem in the healthcare system and why it was so expensive. If that was truly the case why did they pass a law mandating us to be customers? They passed a law that now requires us to buy from them. It makes no sense to me.



This is why I consider Obama to not be a leftist. He's a stealth right-winger. Every major initiative he has ends up feeding and enlarging the wealth and power of corporations.


----------



## AFM

And people are happy doing nothing about it... I just hope SOPA does not pass, that will be devastating!


----------



## BEDickey

Here is something to think about. They upheld the "mandate" as a tax, but tax bills must start in the house. Obamacare started in the senate. This is not the last we have seen of this by a long shot.


----------



## Brother Mark

All I know is my health care provider "blue cross blue shield" informed me that the cost of my medcine co-pays are going to be increasing, and the plan I have now that I use to pay 150 dollars a month for is going up to 200 a month and I don't get the same package. I want obamacare to be repealed, because I believe in the free market system. To me this socialist wish to have government health care is insane to me. How can we trust the government to run health care when they have bankrupted social security, meda care. I am a conservative so sorry is my views upset anyone, but we need to get the government out of the way and unleash the private section.


----------



## Belcher

what will the pros and  cons be with the government shutdowns. and the obamacare.  
what's the deal. .....


----------



## Blake Bowden

Why can't we have healthcare systems like Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, etc? They offer better (government) healthcare and life expectancy is higher than the U.S.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Blake Bowden said:


> Why can't we have healthcare systems like Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, etc? They offer better (government) healthcare and life expectancy is higher than the U.S.



Part of the answer is geopolitical history: Of all the major participants, the USA suffered the least from World War I and World War II. That's what it comes down to. (New Zealand was part of the British Empire during these wars, so its policies are inherited from the experience of the UK, proper.) WWI + WWII left the major participants thoroughly devastated, with a large number of young men coming back from war and no economy to speak of to take up the huge labor influx. Most of these countries had two choices: Adopt a Bismarckian approach or face dictatorship. (The USSR simply continued dictatorship--everyone loves your policies when the alternative is the gulag.) The Allies were painfully aware of the economic and social problems that made the Nazis and Fascists so popular, and every Allied country had a pro-Nazi/pro-Fascist movement before WWII.

So, that was their apparent choice: Follow the Weimar  Republic into destruction and start the cycle over again or adopt at least some level of paternalistic government. Under DeGaulle, it was conservative paternalism. In the UK, it was Labour-led social programs. The Social Democrats did it in Germany. In the USA, on the other hand, the economy took off like a rocket. We had the ONLY large industrial base that hadn't been bombed to pieces. It was easy to pay for healthcare through private means.

Part of the answer is racial: It has been well established that it is far easier to implement paternalistic systems, like "national healthcare" in racially homogeneous countries. It is no surprise at all that Scandanavia leads the way in this, since it has some of the least racially diverse countries in the world. However, as racial (and other ethnic) diversity increases, it becomes harder to obtain agreement to widespread social programs. People are innately inclined to accept programs that help "their own kind". Being happy to help others requires a higher level of refinement. The explosion of diversity in immigration after WWII made matters even more difficult in the USA.

Part of the answer is economic history: The USA was a pioneer in the insurance industry. Our government didn't have to worry as much about this issue because private benevolent aid and insurance companies were chugging along nicely. After WWII (funny how that keeps coming up), economic entrenchment of an insurance "industry" was massive, specifically because employers begged Roosevelt to allow them some way to compete for labor even in the face of a wage freeze. It was illegal to offer higher wages due to "wartime measures". Thus, how could you attract workers? Remember, you couldn't offer less hours and same total pay, since that would raise the hourly wage. So, the us government worked out a deal. They would exempt the portion of health insurance premiums paid by employers from taxation. This would allow employers to carry a larger portion of the insurance burden. Health insurance revenues skyrocketed, and a very powerful industry and lobby was born. Any attempt to impose a national system would have to fight against this industry.

Part of the answer is propagandic: From 1947 to roughly 1960, the USA defined itself as the world's sole defense against "Godless Communism". This is the era in which the Pledge of Allegiance was propagandistically altered to include "under God". This is the era in which the national motto was officially changed from "E pluribus unum" to the propaganda phrase "In God we trust." Thus, since anything that smacked of "communism" was automatically "Godless", and since the USA was the self-appointed defender of God (He's so helpless, don't you know) against "communism", and since "communist" propaganda heavily stressed how the state should supply services to the people, active political hostility built up in the USA against such programs.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Blake Bowden said:


> Why can't we have healthcare systems like Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, etc? They offer better (government) healthcare and life expectancy is higher than the U.S.


We could have that. We could. We don't want it. We are content to continue to swallow the whole "best healthcare in the world" meme and ignore the plain fact that "the best" is out of reach for the vast majority of us. Increasingly, "just adequate" healthcare is unreachable. But that's OK, as long as we don't have to consider any solution with the word "social" in it, no matter how much sense it makes.


----------



## dfreybur

Belcher said:


> what will the pros and  cons be with the government shutdowns......



Attempting free thought and avoiding partisanship by drawing on principles of republics and pointing out that both large parties have done something very much like this in living memory.  if I have articulated my points cogently they should work independent of the current piece of legislation and independent of what party membership one holds.  Making the attempt -

As someone who passed and still remembers elementary school civics - The shutdown is our republic in action doing what it was designed to do.  One large party had a temporary majority in both houses and used that to pass the most unpopular piece of legislation in several decades.  The other large party went on the defensive fighting against having a majority jam legislation down the throat of an unwilling minority.  In our republic minorities are *supposed* to defend themselves.  Whether you or I agree or disagree with the piece of legislation in question does not matter in this.  It's an example of tyranny of the majority and resistance of the minority.  As such it's functioning correctly.  The parts that both large parties can agree on are getting done.  The rest is under contest.

As someone who is not a member of either of the large parties involved in the deadlock - This is artfully done.  The party on the attack, that is to say the party committing the tyranny of the majority, is using the short memory of the voting public to turn the tide of public opinion against the party on the defensive, pressuring them to stop defending themsevles and allow the tyranny of the majority to win.  The party on the attack is using lack of knowledge of the difference between direct democracy and republic to their own advantage.

It's not long ago I remember the other large party having a similar majority in both houses.  They used it to pass not one large law but a lot of little ones.  They called it the "Contract with America".  Nicer PR name than the current mess but every bit the same type of abuse of power.  At the time they triggered a similar but smaller mess when they lost one of the houses in the next election (as always happens).  They got more of what they wanted because they used grape shot in their cannon of tyranny of the majority where this time the other party is using a single large ball in their cannon of tyranny of the majority.


----------



## phamason

Which party came up with the individual mandate first? Does anyone know?


----------



## BryanMaloney

phamason said:


> Which party came up with the individual mandate first? Does anyone know?



No party did. It was part of a proposal from the Heritage Foundation. The idea was that an employer mandate (EM) to provide insurance was too much of a hardship for corporations. The employer mandate was never implemented, by the way, at any point in US history. EM was part of a Nixon plan and part of the Clinton plan. However, the really painful thing for America was a law called "EMTALA". EMTALA was a Reagan law--he signed it. EMTALA requires hospitals that accept medicare to provide "emergency care" (not defined) to anyone, regardless of ability to pay. This turned hospital emergency rooms into free clinics for any malady or minor problem. Since the Clintons were proposing an employer mandate, which made corporate donors mad (might only be able to afford one solid gold yacht a month, after all), the Heritage Foundation countered with the individual mandate, which was denounced by the liberals of the 1990s so loudly that no national party got behind it in any major way.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Someone once said, "You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

*Opinion*: The Affordable Care Act was legislation "crammed down the throat" of an unwilling minority. 
*Fact*: Votes determine which legislation is passed. The opponents of The Affordable Care Act lacked the votes to get their way.
*Fact*: Before this event, The House of Representatives had tried, 46 times, to repeal The Affordable Care Act. They were unsuccessful 46 times.
*Opinion*:  A petulant minority of House Republicans were willing to throw the  economy, the nation's credit rating, and the livelihoods of tens of  thousands of Americans under the bus if they couldn't get their way.
*Fact*: The economy and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans went under the bus two weeks ago.

*Opinion*: The government shutdown was an acceptable function of our republic's process of government.
*Fact*: While entirely legal and within the rules, this play by an intransigent minority in the House of Representatives presented profound hardships to tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and sucked tens of billions of dollars out of our economy. 

*Fact*: The reputation of The House of Representatives has been badly tarnished by this episode.  
*Fact*: It's even worse for the Republicans. Last week's WSJ/NBC poll showed the lowest approval rating for the GOP in the history of that poll.

*Opinion*: The U.S. has "the best healthcare in the world".
*Fact*: By any credible measure, we do not, despite spending far more per capita than any other industrialized nation, and...
*Opinion*: ....The Affordable Care Act is not likely to change that.


----------



## BryanMaloney

None of this wouldn't be a problem if the US government didn't spend like someone having a hypomanic episode. Who volunteers to put their favorite program on the chopping block for the greater good?


----------



## ufuze

I work for the software company who is part of the exchanges.  All I can say is this: ACA is meant to fail and disrupt. It is doing its job.

My Freemasonry HD


----------



## dfreybur

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> ... despite spending far more per capita than any other industrialized nation ....



By the way, this shows that throwing money at a problem is not always the way to solve it.  The US sent men to the Moon by throwing money at the problem but it is not a method that works in general.

The problem is policy and how policy leads to incentives, not budget.  I'll go farther than that.  What is happening in medicine is predictable based on data from the history of science and technology.  It's only partially a policy issue.

Technologies move towards maturity and grow less expensive with improving outcomes as they follow that curve.  Then once they are mature there is less and less innovation.  Each incremental improvement costs more and more so they become more and more expensive for diminishing improvements.  Pick a technology and chart its progress.  Eventually they all follow this path until they are replaced with a new science or new technology.  Vacuum tubes did this before being replaced by transistors.  Large single threaded computers did this before being replaced by parallel computing.

Allopathic medicine is the most successful medical methodology in history.  Allopathic medicine has run its course and there is no little room for improvement.  What is needed is a new advance in the science behind it (genetics and custom treatment is progressing nicely in science but prevention is not) plus a significant technological change that drives the price down at the same time as driving the results up.

As with any advance in science there is never a guarantee it will ever happen.  And so we are faced with a policy issue.  Every medical oversight group in the world is facing the conundrum that human life has infinite value but medicine has a finite budget.  Someone I know explained it like this "Canada resolved their medical expense problem by pulling the plug on Granny".



> ....The Affordable Care Act is not likely to change that.



When Health Savings Accounts HSA started coming out I thought it over and liked the concept.  Insurance had programmed many to think medicine is free.  Just pay the insurance policy and you're done.  That lead to the Tragedy of the Commons in medicine.  Prices climbed decade after decade.  An HSA system shows people that medicine costs money.  Every dollar spent comes out of a limited budget set by the HSA.  Get in too much trouble and it's handled by the umbrella policy.  But the zero up range it's money out of the person's account.  That teaches fiscal responsibility at the start.  Not quite the ideal system as it drives people to pile on activities in a year where they already hit their out of pocket maximum but it's far better than any policy that depicts medicine as "free".

Public schools are "free" either.  They are paid for by taxation.  That's the same system shifted from insurance company to local tax board.  Sure enough there are studies that show that throwing more money at public schools does not help either.  It's policy and responsibility that works not cash, except in cash starved districts.  Cash only helps pull up out of desperation not up to excellence.  Same thing in medicine.


----------



## BryanMaloney

dalinkou said:


> Why?



ACA is what nobody wants, except the insurance companies. Liberals hate it, conservatives hate it. Everybody except the insurance companies wants it to fail. Liberals will say "It failed when we tried to accommodate insurance companies, we have to adopt socialism." Conservatives will say "It failed when government got this involved, we have to abolish insurance regulations, abolish medicaid, and abolish medicare.


----------



## Blake Bowden

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> We could have that. We could. We don't want it. We are content to continue to swallow the whole "best healthcare in the world" meme and ignore the plain fact that "the best" is out of reach for the vast majority of us. Increasingly, "just adequate" healthcare is unreachable. But that's OK, as long as we don't have to consider any solution with the word "social" in it, no matter how much sense it makes.



Right on. Rich? No problem. Poor? Medicaid. In the middle? Best of luck.


----------



## Proudvet09

Well said brother

My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Blake Bowden

Just came in the mail! Hey I thought insurance was supposed to be cheaper, at least that's what the Dictator in the White House promised. A 19% increase sucks!





My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BryanMaloney

Insurance will only be cheaper if you are in the list of favored ones. That is how Chicago machine politics works.

Elect a Chicago machine politician, get the Chicago machine.


----------



## Tx4ever

Uninsured Americians 33 to 43 Million , Estamated cost of Obama care 1.1 Trillion , someone do the math


----------



## dfreybur

Blake Bowden said:


> Just came in the mail! Hey I thought insurance was supposed to be cheaper, at least that's what ...  promised. A 19% increase sucks!



We know how government buzzwords work.  The word "Affordable" in some program means the price doubles by the time the program is in full swing.  Everyone who has thought it through should understand that a 19% increase only means the doubled price will take several years to phase in.  Politicians know that the masses are gullible enough that if the word "Affordable" appears in the name of a program enough will vote for it that it will pass.  History is not one of the several liberal arts and sciences but rhetoric and logic are.  Those who study rhetoric and logic are not among the gullible masses and will not be surprised by either the initial 19% increase nor by the inevitable doubling.  The price difference does suck but it was an inevitable and obvious result from the gate.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

dalinkou said:


> If the government establishes a chokehold on healthcare, the best you can hope for is the lowest common average for the masses, which will cost much more and deliver much less than I have right now.



Funny, that's not how it has worked out in every other industrialized nation. They pay less, and get more. Yes, in every case. The problem is that most healthcare consumers lack utterly the ability to make an effective analysis of what they are getting for their money. If they did have that capability, they would be outraged.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Here's a question: Should we repeal laws that require people to have electricity and running water to be permitted to live in a house? How about just repealing the requirement for electricity? After all, aren't those just newfangled luxuries when viewed through the perspective of human history as a whole? Is there one standard, forever and eternal, for what is deemed and enforced as "necessary" by a society, or is it possible that the standard can validly change? If you believe there is only one eternal standard, then you had better start lobbying to repeal all requirements for residential electricity. PS: Yes, the government does subsidize private electricity use by the low-income...


----------



## DJGurkins

I don't believe it is required that you have electricity or pluming in a house you own and live in( Amish). but your point is well taken.


----------



## BryanMaloney

DJGurkins said:


> I don't believe it is required that you have electricity or pluming in a house you own and live in( Amish). but your point is well taken.




Old Order Amish houses are not built in jurisdictions that require such things, as far as I know (some Amish do have these things, these days, although they restrict their use). However, try to build a house in Corpus Christi and do it without any electricity or running water--see how far you get with local authorities.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

dalinkou said:


> You might want to carefully research this.  By research, I mean that you should spend some time in Europe to get a feel for how much things cost, and then interview Europeans in the U.S. to see why they love to come HERE to work and live.
> 
> Socialism places an incredible tax burden it's citizens, most of whom do not have it as easy as you might think.  Forgetting that point will put you on a slippery slope where government control will deliver a different bill of goods than it sells.



Actually every single person that I have talked to from those places would not trade things. Yes, my sample size is small, but then so is the collection of "average citizens" trotted out by Fox News to show us how "everyone there hates socialized medicine". In other words, the reality is far different than the conservative echo chamber would have us believe. 

Higher taxes? A more even distribution of wealth? I'll take it. I am old enough to remember when we had both of those things in the U.S. The standard of living, for most Americans, was better.


----------



## Blake Bowden

I called Aetna directly and asked them why my premiums are going up and without hesitation I was told "due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."


----------



## Aeelorty

> I called Aetna directly and asked them why my premiums are going up and without hesitation I was told "due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."



Why don't you change insurance then? Isn't that one of the points of the ACA, that it is possible to shop around now?


----------



## buddygcpa

There are plenty of opinions about this on both sides, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether you base your opinion on carefully researched facts or total fiction is also up to you. Whether you support the President or not is also your choice. However, a reference to the President as "the Dictator in the White House" is offensive to me and gives me a great deal of concern about continuing to follow this forum, given the source of that reference.


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Blake Bowden

Aeelorty said:


> Why don't you change insurance then? Isn't that one of the points of the ACA, that it is possible to shop around now?



Because the quote on healthcare.gov is even more expensive and doesn't include dental.

Sent from my SM-N900V using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Here's a question: Should we repeal laws that require people to have electricity and running water to be permitted to live in a house? How about just repealing the requirement for electricity? After all, aren't those just newfangled luxuries when viewed through the perspective of human history as a whole? Is there one standard, forever and eternal, for what is deemed and enforced as "necessary" by a society, or is it possible that the standard can validly change? If you believe there is only one eternal standard, then you had better start lobbying to repeal all requirements for residential electricity. PS: Yes, the government does subsidize private electricity use by the low-income...



I am one of those rule makers in the electric industry which is mostly privet companies and NO the government doesn't subsidize any electric at all.  It is all done through privet donations. I also work with my local food pantry which will pay bill when needed.  In Texas TXU and Reliant energy are the only companys that give that pantry money for bills.  The only law to have electricity is some local occupancy law in cities and municipalities. I do this work in many electric ISO/RTO of the US and Canada.  ERCOT, SPP, MISO, PJM SERC,WECC.....

You can see me in the TAC meeting videos in the link below and the only reason I am putting this link out there is in the past what I have said has been impuned with out evidence.  http://www.texasadmin.com/ercotac.shtml


----------



## jvarnell

To understand why Obomacare will not lower any cost and can not you will have to think about the diferance between health care and health insurance.  No one is or has ever been denied health care.  The problem is who and how it is paid for.  When you put the government or anyone else in the middle you will always increase the cost for each level added.  the insurance companies already are there and Obomacare adds the IRS and buracrats in there.  Insurance is a socialassion of dollars at a time point so there is not a big spike in how someone spends.  This could be fixed with health savings accounts.


----------



## dfreybur

jvarnell said:


> T This could be fixed with health savings accounts.



They were just beginning to drive total costs down when Obamacare was passed.  They were not given the time needed for the process to run to stable lower prices.

With HSAs folks saw the price of every medical decision and the initial prices came out of their pocket, pretax if they signed up for that.  Knowing the price drove decision making to take price into account.  But it it hit the fan there was still coverage for bad medical years when you exceeded your out of pocket maximum.

With Obamacare folks are going to act like medical care is free and not associated with the price of the insurance, as has been happening gradually over time anyways.  Acting like it's free drives the actual costs up.  it's a variation on the tragedy of the commons.


----------



## Txmason

Any Bros. in the insurance business that I might be able to talk to as I need new insurance after having the Texas High Risk Pool which is going away. I would appreciate any help that can be offered. 

Best,
Jerry


"Without exertion there can be no progress."   Bear Grylls


----------



## dfreybur

Blake Bowden said:


> Because the quote on healthcare.gov is even more expensive and doesn't include dental.



If you want more accurate information be prepared for a shock.  Go to the companies listed for each plan offered and look up the public price listing.  If you are like us it will be at least twice what we are paying now.  As I expected.  My wife was furious and all I could say was I had predicted that well over a year ago.

Apparently all of the Obamacare plans include dental and vision.  The wording is something like children's dental.  When I tried to read about that I didn't understand what it meant.  For generations we have been underwriting elementary school through high school primary and secondary education with taxes so it's likely something like that.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Blake Bowden said:


> I called Aetna directly and asked them why my premiums are going up and without hesitation I was told "due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."



You could have called them ten years ago and asked the same question, and the answer would have been "Because f--- you." Insurance premiums go up, and nothing ever stops this. This time around, though, there is someone convenient to blame. Part of the problem is that, for decades, insurance companies reaped the benefits of a sweet, sweet, sweet Federal government deal hatched by Roosevelt the Second. During WWII, a wage freeze was implemented. Employers screamed blue bloody murder--they couldn't get good people. Roosevelt exempted employer contributions to health insurance from the freeze and from other aspects of wages, such as taxation. That meant it the government essentially encouraged employers, big-time, to give money to insurance companies. A few decades later, here we are, and it's time to pay the piper. Uncle Sugar hands out nothing for free. Eventually, like any Mafia Don, he comes knocking to collect payment for his little "favor".

What makes matters worse is that the insurance companies were quite profligate. Instead of driving hard bargains with medical providers, most plans just ponied up. The 500-lb gorillas of Medicare and Medicaid would have made it hard for commercial insurance to have played hard-ball, though.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I am one of those rule makers in the electric industry which is mostly privet companies and NO the government doesn't subsidize any electric at all.  It is all done through privet donations. I also work with my local food pantry which will pay bill when needed.  In Texas TXU and Reliant energy are the only companys that give that pantry money for bills.  The only law to have electricity is some local occupancy law in cities and municipalities. I do this work in many electric ISO/RTO of the US and Canada.  ERCOT, SPP, MISO, PJM SERC,WECC.....



Really, so the TVA wasn't a government project? Funny, I did not know that. You'd better contact the TVA and tell them to stop lying to everyone about being affiliated with the government. And you, yourself, admit to laws requiring residential electricity--even if they are "local occupancy laws". They still have the force of law.


----------



## sani

Hello my bro

Sent from my SM-N900P using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

dalinkou said:


> Have these things been attempted (especially wealth re-distribution)?
> 
> If so, how did they turn out?  What were these Great Societies like?



Well, yes, as a matter of fact, they have been attempted, and they were rather successful. Let's start with the U.S.

I believe that we can agree that the period of time that spans the end of WWII to the mid-70's as the summit of this country's economy. The middle class grew the most during that time. That's a redistribution of wealth, BTW. Now let's have a look at the top and bottom bracket tax rates. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
ZOMG! Taxes on the wealthiest were as high as 92%! And yet..., the economy continued to grow. 
Want to see some _real_ wealth redistribution? See - http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...ncome.html?household-incomes-mean-nominal.gif
Note the dramatic divergence of of those top two lines that began in the late '70's and really took off in the early '90's. 

While the correlation between median income and a healthy economy can not be ignored, the glaring inconsistency is in where the tax revenue is coming from. 

OK. Enough about the good old days. What's happening in the world today? The UN's "Human Development Index" (HDI) is as good a yardstick as there is when comparing "standard of living" internationally. It measures things like income, education, and life expectancy. The IHDI (inequality-adusted HDI) is the measure of actual development (versus potential). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI 
While we have recovered some since the huge drop in the 2011 report, we still suck compared to all those "socialist" European countries. They must be doing something right.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> No one is or has ever been denied health care.


Sigh...
While this is a common misconception, reinforced regularly by the conservative echo chamber,* it is patently false. *Yes, your medical emergency will be treated if you show up at the emergency room, regardless of your ability to pay, but you will be expected to pay what you can. What you can't pay for is covered by the rest of us who do have health insurance. That care is not "free", by any measure. Moreover, it is just about the most expensive care available. Using ER's as the "safety net" for health care is nothing short of insane from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, and not just because of the price tag for what you _can_ get in that scenario...

Try going to the ER for any preventative medicine-type visit. You will be shown the door. So all that money that might have been saved if you had access to cost-effective health care is lost. Again, those of us that do have health insurance pick up that tab.



> The problem is who and how it is paid for.


So far, you are quite correct. The price tag on any given medical test or treatment is driven by what the insurer's will pay. Since the insurance industry makes it's money off of what they do with our money while they're holding onto it, it is always in their interest to have that amount be as high as possible. Of course it is also important for them to make it as difficult as possible for the health care vendors to receive any of that money, and their strategies for this have been raised to a fine art. 



> When you put the government or anyone else in the middle you will always increase the cost for each level added.


Well, no. You don't. 
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

Seems to me that something like "Medicare for everyone" would have been a much more efficient system than the mess that is Obamacare. 

Health care is not free, but it does not have to cost what it does in the U.S. right now. Again, by any credible measure, we (the U.S.A.) just plain suck at getting value for our dollars spent on healthcare.


----------



## dfreybur

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Well, yes, as a matter of fact, they have been attempted, and they were rather successful. Let's start with the U.S.
> 
> I believe that we can agree that the period of time that spans the end of WWII to the mid-70's as the summit of this country's economy. The middle class grew the most during that time. That's a redistribution of wealth, BTW. Now let's have a look at the top and bottom bracket tax rates. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
> ZOMG! Taxes on the wealthiest were as high as 92%! And yet..., the economy continued to grow.
> Want to see some _real_ wealth redistribution? See - http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...ncome.html?household-incomes-mean-nominal.gif
> Note the dramatic divergence of of those top two lines that began in the late '70's and really took off in the early '90's.
> 
> While the correlation between median income and a healthy economy can not be ignored, the glaring inconsistency is in where the tax revenue is coming from.
> 
> OK. Enough about the good old days. What's happening in the world today? The UN's "Human Development Index" (HDI) is as good a yardstick as there is when comparing "standard of living" internationally. It measures things like income, education, and life expectancy. The IHDI (inequality-adusted HDI) is the measure of actual development (versus potential). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI
> While we have recovered some since the huge drop in the 2011 report, we still suck compared to all those "socialist" European countries. They must be doing something right.



Trying to compare those charts after adjusting for inflation makes a very large difference.  Since around 1980 there has been roughly a factor of 10 increase in prices.  That means in 1982 when there was a 50% income tax on income over $102K that's the equivalent now on $1M.  The accelerating graph takes on a similarly different meaning once adjusted for inflation.

Incidentally the chart to show the problem of diverging wealth is the net worth one not the income one.  And more particularly the inflation adjusted net worth.  Diverging wealth is a problem but I don't see how it correlates to health care.

As to the UN chart sure enough it shows the US and Canada in the second best shading color.  Compared to most of the world we thus have incremental improvements as our goal.

The standard reaction to increasing tax rates applies - Given the job the government currently does with the money why should anyone favor giving them more?  This applies especially to medicine.  Currently the US spends far more than other countries but does not have the best results.  Throwing additional money at the problem is thus not the answer, nor is giving the government more of the money.


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Sigh...
> While this is a common misconception, reinforced regularly by the conservative echo chamber,* it is patently false. *Yes, your medical emergency will be treated if you show up at the emergency room, regardless of your ability to pay, but you will be expected to pay what you can. What you can't pay for is covered by the rest of us who do have health insurance. That care is not "free", by any measure. Moreover, it is just about the most expensive care available. Using ER's as the "safety net" for health care is nothing short of insane from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, and not just because of the price tag for what you _can_ get in that scenario...
> 
> Try going to the ER for any preventative medicine-type visit. You will be shown the door. So all that money that might have been saved if you had access to cost-effective health care is lost. Again, those of us that do have health insurance pick up that tab.
> 
> 
> So far, you are quite correct. The price tag on any given medical test or treatment is driven by what the insurer's will pay. Since the insurance industry makes it's money off of what they do with our money while they're holding onto it, it is always in their interest to have that amount be as high as possible. Of course it is also important for them to make it as difficult as possible for the health care vendors to receive any of that money, and their strategies for this have been raised to a fine art.
> 
> 
> Well, no. You don't.
> http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
> 
> Seems to me that something like "Medicare for everyone" would have been a much more efficient system than the mess that is Obamacare.
> 
> Health care is not free, but it does not have to cost what it does in the U.S. right now. Again, by any credible measure, we (the U.S.A.) just plain suck at getting value for our dollars spent on healthcare.



I also want to "Sigh" because you think it is a misconception. It is very true it is just how much healthcare you receive.  The responsibility on your self and not the general public for the equality of outcomes in healthcare.  You have the responsibility for your own healthcare and it is not a right.  Just like as a Mason you have the responsibility to help the poor and penny less bro. ...  How can the Government be the one to order you too.   The outcome of healthcare is a personal thing.


----------



## BryanMaloney

dfreybur said:


> Trying to compare those charts after adjusting for inflation makes a very large difference.



Funny you should say "adjusting for inflation". My eldest son babbled some silly nonsense about historical tax rates lately, so I decided to see what the reality was. I pulled down information from the IRS on annual taxation for several years (1950-2010, in 5-year increments), specifically of number of returns filed by income and total income taxes collected by income. I adjusted for inflation using the "price of a consumer bundle" (which reflects a "historically steady lifestyle" more accurately than does the consumer price index). A little math, and we get the following:



The income is a log10 scale. You will note that, while the highest top taxation was in 1950, by 1955, the actual inflation-adjusted true taxation on the basis of income taxes collected had visibly dropped and remained in a very tight cluster from 1955-1985. Then another cluster appeared in 1990-2010. The higher-tax cluster was during the "summit" of the US economy AND the "nadir" of the recession of the 1970s. Indeed, the taxation of the 1970s was indistinguishable from the taxation of the best of the boom years. The second cluster has a much lower "top" effective tax rate, however it crosses both the alleged economic "golden age" under Clinton and the alleged "great recession" that followed under Bush and Obama.

What I take home from this is that tax bracket structures could very well be prosperity-neutral! We neither taxed our way into prosperity nor did we tax away prosperity. Instead, our economy after WWII has done what it has done regardless of how we diddle with our income tax structure. This is, of course, heresy to both sides of the question.

It also only reflects one element--the effective tax "rate" as a percentage of income vs. said income level.


----------



## BryanMaloney

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Well, yes, as a matter of fact, they have been attempted, and they were rather successful. Let's start with the U.S.
> 
> I believe that we can agree that the period of time that spans the end of WWII to the mid-70's as the summit of this country's economy. The middle class grew the most during that time. That's a redistribution of wealth, BTW. Now let's have a look at the top and bottom bracket tax rates. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
> ZOMG! Taxes on the wealthiest were as high as 92%.



Are you aware of just how wacky the US tax code was at that time? It was possible to structure things in such a way that, in 1969, at least 155 people were in the "high income" category of the IRS and yet paid not a penny of income tax--these were the people allegedly in that 92% bracket. They did not break the law of that time, even though they were in that bracket. This is why Alternative Minimum Tax was passed. It would have been smarter to reform the whole system, but Congress can't think that far ahead. Blindly citing historical tax brackets proves nothing.


----------

