I Wear Pants;1521959 wrote:How is he worse than Quaker? Because he disagrees with you?

BoatShoes has charts and graphs and cool thingys like that. : thumbup:

Manhattan Buckeye;1521980 wrote:Because he is an idiot and doesn't understand the concept of insurance. How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that a risk based industry is focused on risk? Are you stupid or are you really stupid?

Lower risk people are enrolled all the time in THE HEATH CARE INDUSTRY at the same price as everyone else. where I work, a 26 year old male pays the same as a 30 year old female, or a 52 year old man.

A family of 3 pays the same as a Catholic family of 7. It's called cost averaging. Get those lips off of the republican dick and wrap them around a reality pipe and suck on it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1521980 wrote:Because he is an idiot and doesn't understand the concept of insurance. How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that a risk based industry is focused on risk? Are you stupid or are you really stupid?

Quaker's posts are just as stupid but not only that they aren't even original content.

Devils Advocate;1521990 wrote:Lower risk people are enrolled all the time in THE HEATH CARE INDUSTRY at the same price as everyone else. where I work, a 26 year old male pays the same as a 30 year old female, or a 52 year old man.

A family of 3 pays the same as a Catholic family of 7. It's called cost averaging. Get those lips off of the republican dick and wrap them around a reality pipe and suck on it.

At the same time, my low-aged, relatively healthy company pays lower premiums than most companies around, because of those factors. But ours will be rising significantly the next 2 years when those factors are thrown out.

Devils Advocate;1521990 wrote:Lower risk people are enrolled all the time in THE HEATH CARE INDUSTRY at the same price as everyone else. where I work, a 26 year old male pays the same as a 30 year old female, or a 52 year old man.

Their out of pocket portion of the premium might be the same, but the chances that the actual cost of their carrier premium is the same would be virtually nil.

Devils Advocate;1521990 wrote:A family of 3 pays the same as a Catholic family of 7. It's called cost averaging. Get those lips off of the republican dick and wrap them around a reality pipe and suck on it.

See above.

Solid mini-meltdown tho.

fish82;1522015 wrote:Their out of pocket portion of the premium might be the same, but the chances that the actual cost of their carrier premium is the same would be virtually nil.

Mostly because insurance gives them a group rate and does not do an individual risk analysis. I've always said it makes more sense for younger/single people, even couples without children, to buy their own insurance - IF they could get a rebate of that portion of their salary going to health care.

Hadn't really thought about it, but how badly does all this suck for people getting dropped by their company that have subsidized other workers at their firm for years and now get tossed just as they are approaching a time they would net benefit?

I Wear Pants;1521976 wrote:What's this guess based on?

So, when I post related supporting links I get lambasted, and when I don't I get lambasted.

Convenient of you.

Manhattan Buckeye;1521980 wrote:Because he is an idiot and doesn't understand the concept of insurance. How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that a risk based industry is focused on risk? Are you stupid or are you really stupid?

So, you are saying with the government-forced imposition of community rating, that you still may not come to the campfire and sing kumbaya with the group.

Will now pay to get divorced ..... obamaKare strikes again.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/10/02/Why-Divorce-Attorneys-Will-Love-Obamacare

Another consequence / more destruction

Change we can believe in ...

Fiction:

obama: "if you like your health plan you can keep it"



Fact:

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

Lower risk people are enrolled all the time in THE HEATH CARE INDUSTRY at the same price as everyone else. where I work, a 26 year old male pays the same as a 30 year old female, or a 52 year old man.

A family of 3 pays the same as a Catholic family of 7. It's called cost averaging

As an employer that has provided health insurance to my employees for over 20 years, where we have shopped the market usually on average every 2 years, I have NEVER seen a quote from an insurance company that didn't include a breakdown of premiums based on the people insured. Now your company may average costs in terms of what their employees have taken out of their paychecks, such that all employees pay the same amount or same percentage of their gross, but that comes from your employer not the insurance company.

Now usually when it comes to these rates the insurance company usually charges a family rate for more than 2 dependents...hence for a family of a husband, spouse and 2 children, the rate is the same if there are more children. This is actually based on actuarial data that shows that additional children don't really significantly add to the risk.

fish82;1521989 wrote:BoatShoes has charts and graphs and cool thingys like that. : thumbup:

MB called Devils Advocate the worst poster on these boards (which is another bad opinion held by MB) and then IWP asked how DA is worse than Quaker, to which you now replied in the post I am quoting. It is neat how you were thinking of me I guess but I was not the subject of IWP's question. :RpS_wub:

HitsRus;1522062 wrote:As an employer that has provided health insurance to my employees for over 20 years, where we have shopped the market usually on average every 2 years, I have NEVER seen a quote from an insurance company that didn't include a breakdown of premiums based on the people insured. Now your company may average costs in terms of what their employees have taken out of their paychecks, such that all employees pay the same amount or same percentage of their gross, but that comes from your employer not the insurance company.

Now usually when it comes to these rates the insurance company usually charges a family rate for more than 2 dependents...hence for a family of a husband, spouse and 2 children, the rate is the same if there are more children. This is actually based on actuarial data that shows that additional children don't really significantly add to the risk.

Not to mention you get pounded in the ass for insuring females between 24-34

HitsRus;1522062 wrote:As an employer that has provided health insurance to my employees for over 20 years, where we have shopped the market usually on average every 2 years, I have NEVER seen a quote from an insurance company that didn't include a breakdown of premiums based on the people insured. Now your company may average costs in terms of what their employees have taken out of their paychecks, such that all employees pay the same amount or same percentage of their gross, but that comes from your employer not the insurance company.

Now usually when it comes to these rates the insurance company usually charges a family rate for more than 2 dependents...hence for a family of a husband, spouse and 2 children, the rate is the same if there are more children. This is actually based on actuarial data that shows that additional children don't really significantly add to the risk.

Hits, don't let facts get in the way of the liberal rants.

This could set-up a really precarious confrontation in a year or so...If Repubs maintain the House and Dems maintain the Senate, with most of the country demanding they end the Obamakare debacle Dems might dig in to accept only single payer.

That's Reid/Obama/Pelosi's legacy. They aren't going to let it go or budge. Repubs won't, either. That might be the confrontation that finally gets some hostages shot.

It could be really, really bad for the country if Obamakare fails. Dems couldn't pass single payer, so they pass Obamakare - without a single Repub vote - and then will use it's failure to force Repubs to vote for single payer.

gut;1522188 wrote:This could set-up a really precarious confrontation in a year or so...If Repubs maintain the House and Dems maintain the Senate, with most of the country demanding they end the Obamakare debacle Dems might dig in to accept only single payer.

That's Reid/Obama/Pelosi's legacy. They aren't going to let it go or budge. Repubs won't, either. That might be the confrontation that finally gets some hostages shot.

It could be really, really bad for the country if Obamakare fails. Dems couldn't pass single payer, so they pass Obamakare - without a single Repub vote - and then will use it's failure to force Repubs to vote for single payer.

I was talking to a friend over lunch yesterday about this. I told him that I actually believe that the failure of Obamacare was brilliantly built-in to the program from start. Pelosi gave us a hint when she said they had to pass Obamacare so we could learn what was in it.

The Dems want it to fail so they can point the finger of blame as usual at the Repubs (never mind that they own 100% of Obamacare) and then lay the idea of single-payer on the table as the "final solution".

^^

At least the 1099 provision is gone:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/18/obamacares-1099-tax-reporting

Only government can think of something this stupid. It as if no one has ever worked at all. We routinely go to business dinners at restaurants, purchase gasoline at franchised stations, and stay in franchised hotels. We never asked any employee what the business' tax identification number was.

^^^Let's hope we can quietly repeal even more layers of Obamacare. They should rename it the National Embarrassment Act.

believer;1522234 wrote: I told him that I actually believe that the failure of Obamacare was brilliantly built-in to the program from start.

Many people have speculated that. Athough with control of all 3 branches and a near supermajority in the Senate, it was all they could "pass". I don't think they had the Dem votes to pass single payer. And with every Repub voting against Obamakare, I'm not sure where they'll have votes to pass single payer

^^^I think the Dems are hoping that Repubs will have grown tired of the struggle, that employers are ready to toss in the towel, and that the general public is ready to resign themselves to the idea of national health care.

You may be right that the votes still aren't there but I have a hunch that single-payer is not a matter of if but a matter of when.

^^^This.

We have been programmed since the early 90's (Hillary Clinton) that we as Americans shouldn't have to pay for health care....and that sentiment has slowly but surely wormed its way into the American consciousness. As a healthcare provider, Everyday, I see people refuse /delay needed healthcare treatment soley on the basis of what insurance pays for and not on healthcare needs. These are not people that are necessarily low income....it is just that the attitude is that if insurance is not going to pay for it, I'm not going to have it done. The funny thing is that when people know that a service is not covered, and they want it, they save for it pretty quickly or get a loan or financing...say cosmetic plastic surgery or lasik. But a colonoscopy? The first question is "what is the co pay?" and the second statement is "I can't afford that!"...and they put off having it done. So it is pretty common to see people walk around with an abcessed tooth or a big boil on their back, all the while spending on hair, make up, designer clothes etc. The actual thought of having to spend money or to save money for necessary healthcare is not in their minds.

BoatShoes;1522068 wrote:MB called Devils Advocate the worst poster on these boards (which is another bad opinion held by MB) and then IWP asked how DA is worse than Quaker, to which you now replied in the post I am quoting. It is neat how you were thinking of me I guess but I was not the subject of IWP's question. :RpS_wub:

LOL.

Translated: "He wasn't talking about me."

You're welcome.

"MB called Devils Advocate the worst poster on these boards (which is another bad opinion held by MB)"

Correct. Devil's Advocate is just a clown poster here - everyone knows you are far worse because you might be halfway serious.

fish82;1522259 wrote:LOL.

Translated: "He wasn't talking about me."

You're welcome.

Thought I would I would go into detail since you were so eager to post about me that you seemed to miss the obvious. Sort of Biggdogg of you IMNSHO IYAM :RpS_wub:

Manhattan Buckeye;1522265 wrote:"MB called Devils Advocate the worst poster on these boards (which is another bad opinion held by MB)"

Correct. Devil's Advocate is just a clown poster here - everyone knows you are far worse because you might be halfway serious.