(07-30-2017 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Entitlements are not inherently bad - underfindingbthem is. At some point, we as a society can, and should, and have made the decision to try and eradicate aspects of society we find unbearable (see seniors dying). I hate the talk of entitlements as being santa Clause because it completely ignores the very tangible good many of them have done.

There is undoubtedly a politician who would promise to eliminate seniors dying, and undoubtedly voters who would believe him.

As for Santa Claus: no one says that Santa Claus doesn't do good things. What they say is that he does good things at no costs, and that unfortunately people tend to treat entitlements as if yhey too were cost less. It is not true that the success stories of entitlements are ignored -- in fact, that's why the beneficiaries are so tenacious and successful in keeping them (see, e.g., sugar tariffs, movie tax breaks, and all the other ways in which government subsidizes particular people). What is generally lost in the discussion is the costs.

(07-30-2017 02:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Entitlements are not inherently bad - underfindingbthem is. At some point, we as a society can, and should, and have made the decision to try and eradicate aspects of society we find unbearable (see seniors dying). I hate the talk of entitlements as being santa Clause because it completely ignores the very tangible good many of them have done.

There is undoubtedly a politician who would promise to eliminate seniors dying, and undoubtedly voters who would believe him.

As for Santa Claus: no one says that Santa Claus doesn't do good things. What they say is that he does good things at no costs, and that unfortunately people tend to treat entitlements as if yhey too were cost less. It is not true that the success stories of entitlements are ignored -- in fact, that's why the beneficiaries are so tenacious and successful in keeping them (see, e.g., sugar tariffs, movie tax breaks, and all the other ways in which government subsidizes particular people). What is generally lost in the discussion is the costs.

By the way my word garble above was meant to say under funding them is (typed on an iphone and I didn't see that).

My issue with the Santa Claus line is that a lot of politicians pushing to support entitlements do so by also pushing for tax increases to help fund the entitlements. I do agree that I think many citizens don't really appreciate the costs required to keep these programs working, though.

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Entitlements are not inherently bad - underfindingbthem is. At some point, we as a society can, and should, and have made the decision to try and eradicate aspects of society we find unbearable (see seniors dying). I hate the talk of entitlements as being santa Clause because it completely ignores the very tangible good many of them have done.

There is undoubtedly a politician who would promise to eliminate seniors dying, and undoubtedly voters who would believe him.

As for Santa Claus: no one says that Santa Claus doesn't do good things. What they say is that he does good things at no costs, and that unfortunately people tend to treat entitlements as if yhey too were cost less. It is not true that the success stories of entitlements are ignored -- in fact, that's why the beneficiaries are so tenacious and successful in keeping them (see, e.g., sugar tariffs, movie tax breaks, and all the other ways in which government subsidizes particular people). What is generally lost in the discussion is the costs.

By the way my word garble above was meant to say under funding them is (typed on an iphone and I didn't see that).

I don't think there was any ambiguity there.

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issue with the Santa Claus line is that a lot of politicians pushing to support entitlements do so by also pushing for tax increases to help fund the entitlements.

That is indeed the case sometimes.

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do agree that I think many citizens don't really appreciate the costs required to keep these programs working, though.

It's not just intellectual understanding of the costs (although that is a problem, because it's just physiologically difficult for human beings to think rationally about numbers as large as government-scale expenditures). It's also that the benefits of the entitlement are concentrated while the costs are diffuse (sometimes even diffuse in time -- i.e. the costs will be borne mainly by people not yet alive). Thus the beneficiaries are highly motivated to organize for maintaining the benefit, while the payers are much less motivated to organize for reducing it, or even for re-examining it at all. In that milieu, anecdotal examples (e.g. "How can you push Grandma off the cliff?") can easily overwhelm the discussion at the expense of more general considerations (e.g. "Do the overall costs outweigh the benefits?"

One infuriating example is the asinine beer-distributor-protection scheme that Texas has. No rational person thinks the scheme is a good idea, or would design a state alcohol policy that way. But the beer distributors owe their very livelihood to the scheme, and thus will pour as much money as they can into maintaining it, and crucify politicians who even question it. The public is the loser, but it's not a game-changing issue to any particular citizen. Result: the special beneficiary wins, and the public loses.

Just as you made clear that not all entitlements are bad, it's also true that not all of them are good. But it might be true that, good or bad, they all tend to be a bit sticky. Hence the libertarian in me says (as with any enactment that is susceptible to a ratchet effect): tread lightly, even when it seems good.

(07-30-2017 04:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Entitlements are not inherently bad - underfindingbthem is. At some point, we as a society can, and should, and have made the decision to try and eradicate aspects of society we find unbearable (see seniors dying). I hate the talk of entitlements as being santa Clause because it completely ignores the very tangible good many of them have done.

There is undoubtedly a politician who would promise to eliminate seniors dying, and undoubtedly voters who would believe him.

As for Santa Claus: no one says that Santa Claus doesn't do good things. What they say is that he does good things at no costs, and that unfortunately people tend to treat entitlements as if yhey too were cost less. It is not true that the success stories of entitlements are ignored -- in fact, that's why the beneficiaries are so tenacious and successful in keeping them (see, e.g., sugar tariffs, movie tax breaks, and all the other ways in which government subsidizes particular people). What is generally lost in the discussion is the costs.

By the way my word garble above was meant to say under funding them is (typed on an iphone and I didn't see that).

I don't think there was any ambiguity there.

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issue with the Santa Claus line is that a lot of politicians pushing to support entitlements do so by also pushing for tax increases to help fund the entitlements.

That is indeed the case sometimes.

(07-30-2017 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do agree that I think many citizens don't really appreciate the costs required to keep these programs working, though.

It's not just intellectual understanding of the costs (although that is a problem, because it's just physiologically difficult for human beings to think rationally about numbers as large as government-scale expenditures). It's also that the benefits of the entitlement are concentrated while the costs are diffuse (sometimes even diffuse in time -- i.e. the costs will be borne mainly by people not yet alive). Thus the beneficiaries are highly motivated to organize for maintaining the benefit, while the payers are much less motivated to organize for reducing it, or even for re-examining it at all. In that milieu, anecdotal examples (e.g. "How can you push Grandma off the cliff?") can easily overwhelm the discussion at the expense of more general considerations (e.g. "Do the overall costs outweigh the benefits?"

One infuriating example is the asinine beer-distributor-protection scheme that Texas has. No rational person thinks the scheme is a good idea, or would design a state alcohol policy that way. But the beer distributors owe their very livelihood to the scheme, and thus will pour as much money as they can into maintaining it, and crucify politicians who even question it. The public is the loser, but it's not a game-changing issue to any particular citizen. Result: the special beneficiary wins, and the public loses.

Just as you made clear that not all entitlements are bad, it's also true that not all of them are good. But it might be true that, good or bad, they all tend to be a bit sticky. Hence the libertarian in me says (as with any enactment that is susceptible to a ratchet effect): tread lightly, even when it seems good.

I think "a bit sticky" is a "tad of an understatement".

(07-30-2017 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And its *way* easier to campaign that your opponent will push Granny in her wheelchair off a cliff. But that one seems to be tried and true, isnt it?

Oooh, death panels!

(07-30-2017 05:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And its *way* easier to campaign that your opponent will push Granny in her wheelchair off a cliff. But that one seems to be tried and true, isnt it?

Oooh, death panels!

Oooooh..... Charlie Gard.....

(07-30-2017 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 04:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Just as you made clear that not all entitlements are bad, it's also true that not all of them are good. But it might be true that, good or bad, they all tend to be a bit sticky.

I think "a bit sticky" is a "tad of an understatement".

One might say that understatement is my middle name.

(Then again, one might need to have one's head examined...)

(07-30-2017 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 05:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And its *way* easier to campaign that your opponent will push Granny in her wheelchair off a cliff. But that one seems to be tried and true, isnt it?

Oooh, death panels!

Oooooh..... Charlie Gard.....

I forgot ACA coverage was available to Brits.

(07-31-2017 10:48 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 05:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And its *way* easier to campaign that your opponent will push Granny in her wheelchair off a cliff. But that one seems to be tried and true, isnt it?

Oooh, death panels!

Oooooh..... Charlie Gard.....

I forgot ACA coverage was available to Brits.

Just as fanciful as conservatives/republicans actively murdering Granny, eh?

(07-30-2017 08:52 AM)Owl75 Wrote:  I am not sure Hambone has this exactly right. I am no expert on this but the ACA made numerous changes in both Medicaid and Chips, including funding of Chips, eligibility, etc
If you want to get into the details here is a link
http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-b...d-the-aca/
I think it is entirely possible that the ACA changes got this person coverage, but you might need more details to be sure.

With respect (and I mean that) ... nope.

There were changes with regard to families/parents of children on CHIP... and there were transitions from CHIP to Medicaid for families with children between 100 and 133% of the FPL... but these are 'funding' or 'under which branch' changes... not eligibility changes.

There were also changes to the registration/renewal methods (as I mentioned)

Note that the period speaking about the uninsured rate in the Kaiser group begins in 1997 when CHIP was created, 11 years before the ACA.

This site :

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blo...-rate-2008

(an Obama specific site) says that it was 9.5% in has dropped to 5.3%... which is not meaningless, but also means that we dropped by a similar percentage between 1997 and 2008. It may not be apples:apples, but it's got to be in the ballpark

again we're talking about 0-18... and many of those 18 yr olds are no longer living at home and/or not in high school so they wouldn't have been eligible for CHIP and now aren't either (because they're no longer children) but ARE now eligible for Medicaid. Is this 4.2% of the population? Probably not... but it's not zero... and I suspect the balance is people who were eligible for CHIP, but for any of a variety of reasons (probably mostly the annual enrollment period and they're otherwise healthy so the parents don't really care/focus on it). Given that the report states that there are still 5.2mm people eligible, but not enrolled, this makes some sense.

There is nothing in the KFF summary that talks about previously ineligible children now being eligible.

In other words, as I suggested... while the enrollment period may have mattered to some, I seriously doubt it mattered to a mother of a child with such a history. If someone wants to say that her divorce is what put her below the line, that MAY be true... but I've never seen an insurance policy that didn't allow for changes outside the enrollment period for 'significant changes in life'. Surely you didn't have to wait until January to register a baby born in November, and you wouldn't have known to register them the previous January.

I suppose I'd have to admit that there could be some sliver where this particular person was aided and wouldn't have been before (through no fault of their own)... i.e. they're between 100 and 133% of the FPL and the transition AWAY from CHIP means that these services are covered and they weren't before... but I also see people who similarly lost coverage.... 'Thanks Obama' would be just as appropriate there too....

I do this for a living.... not politics to me

(07-31-2017 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 10:48 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 05:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And its *way* easier to campaign that your opponent will push Granny in her wheelchair off a cliff. But that one seems to be tried and true, isnt it?

Oooh, death panels!

Oooooh..... Charlie Gard.....

I forgot ACA coverage was available to Brits.

Just as fanciful as conservatives/republicans actively murdering Granny, eh?

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about. The link above is about Sarah Palin talking about death panels.

Sorry to have checked out of this conversation for a while. Will get back to it later, have a kid in the hospital currently, so really getting enough of the health care system as it is, don't want to debate it online too. Not fun, but nothing life threatening, coming home tomorrow.

(The kid I referenced earlier in the thread has been home for about a week and is doing much better.)

Also, some "real news" from the bizzaro world we have created: Trump thanked a person who turned out to be a twitter bot (i.e a fake person) who posted a lot of memes about "fake news"...

Graham-Cassidy? Having a hard time seeing this one passing. My understanding of it is that it is a much more radical change than other Trumpcare attempts, and would largely turn health care over to the states. Do Republicans really want health care to be the biggest issue in state politics?

Not a fan of Graham, and this does nothing to move the needle in his favor. Bismarck funded by a consumption tax is the only way to go.

Which medical organizations support this horrible bill?

How will it make health care better for anyone?

What about the promise to not touch medicaid or get rid of the pre-existing condition protections?

What about 50 other things I could bring up?

Is there any argument *for* this bill, or is Chuck Grassley right when he says there are reasons the bill "shouldn't even be considered" but hey, we said we'd do something, so he's going to vote for it? How many lives is the GOP willing to destroy just so they can say they got rid of Obamacare?

(07-31-2017 04:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 10:48 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 05:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Oooh, death panels!

Oooooh..... Charlie Gard.....

I forgot ACA coverage was available to Brits.

Just as fanciful as conservatives/republicans actively murdering Granny, eh?

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about. The link above is about Sarah Palin talking about death panels.

FYI

McCain just came out against the bill. Paul is already against it. If either Murkowski or Collins comes out against it, it's dead. Again.

McCain: "I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried." In fairness, there was some bipartisan work being done to stabilize the markets, but it was rejected by Ryan/McConnell/Trump. Maybe it will get a second try.

(11-05-2016 06:32 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Yes. Mine is up 46%. That brings the total increase up to about 250% from what I was paying when I started self-insuring six years ago.

President Obama said a family would save on average $2500 per year under the Affordable Care Act. My insurance is now close to $6000 more per year for a policy that in some ways provides less coverage than before. Could someone please explain to me how getting less for a lot more has benefited me?

Update:
I just got my new premium statement for 2018. Actually, it's a proposed premium statement, because for the third time in four years my insurance carrier discontinued the policy I had. For the substitute policy, the rate goes up 25%, which now means instead of saving $2500 a year like Obama said I would, I'd be paying about $8700 a year more.

I'll ask again the question that I asked last year (and that was never answered, at least by anyone who thinks the ACA is a good idea): Could someone please explain to me how getting less for a lot more has benefited me?

The other side of the rapidly increasing premiums is the rapidly increasing deductibles.

Spending 300% more (relative to start of paying for my own 5-6 years ago) for right to spend 700 per cent more as an annual deductible.

Also, word to the wise: If you are going to have an accident or serious health issue, make sure it happens on or just after January 1. My neighbor broke her heel bone last year on Nov 15, surgery in last week of November. Scope was such that they knew that they had to have a follow up surgery 8 weeks later.

The family got nailed having to pay fully out their own pocket for 95 per cent of the November surgery and and 100 per cent of the late January surgery and almost had to pay the full cost of followups and rehab as well.

In the age of Obamacare level deductions, that one-two punch for health issues that span through December into the new year is a doozy.