How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Conan71]

I saw the new law requires 80% and 85% of the insurance companies' expenditures to be in claim payments depending on size of the company (as I remember).  It would have been just as easy for congress to have penned in 65% or 95%.  Anyone have numbers on what is realistic on the overhead?  What happens if the company doesn't meet those numbers?  I haven't had a chance to read the 2000+ pages yet.

I like the end of exclusion for pre-existing conditions and no more dumping of customers but only time will tell if cost will come down.

What happens if they miss that target?  Bonuses for everyone!

[Red Arrow]

What happens if they miss that target?  Bonuses for everyone!

Silly me.  Why didn't I think of that?

[fotd]

We've been mistrustful, though perhaps not afraid of our government from the very beginning; it's written into the fabric of the nation.

The military is one thing the Feds are specifically charged with and one thing they do pretty well.

The Blame Bush game is getting really old, as is the juvenile and inane name-calling.  Please stop it.  Or more pointedly, shut the hell up.

Typeface point taken, Nathan.    How do you know the bill will accomplish those things?  I don't necessarily doubt you, but I'd like to know.  Surely those don't take up the full volume, the other stuff worries me...

What? Not afraid just fear? Written into the fabric?

They do pretty well so keep feeding the MIC?

It's not a blame Bush (Shrub, Dumbya, Cheney Puppet etc.) game. It's history. Unless, you're anti intellectual and anti economics.

[JeffM]

The Blame Bush game is getting really old, as is the juvenile and inane name-calling.  Please stop it.  Or more pointedly, shut the hell up.

Yeah, cuz after Reagan got elected.... nobody was playing the "Blame Carter game."  

[buckeye]

What? Not afraid just fear? Written into the fabric?

They do pretty well so keep feeding the MIC?

It's not a blame Bush (Shrub, Dumbya, Cheney Puppet etc.) game. It's history. Unless, you're anti intellectual and anti economics.

...just...wow...

blame carter, blame bush, etc

I don't much approve of blaming one's predecessors period.  Time to take responsibility for the problems at hand.

[nathanm]

I don't much approve of blaming one's predecessors period.  Time to take responsibility for the problems at hand.

I think our own ramblings on this site prove how blame is everything in politics. Forward looking solutions are ignored, as typically are the people who push them.

[Red Arrow]

I think our own ramblings on this site prove how blame is everything in politics. Forward looking solutions are ignored, as typically are the people who push them.

Although sometimes there are people that truly believe the "forward looking solutions" are not the correct forward looking solutions.  It's politics.  Sometimes an honest disagreement gets buried in the partisan chatter.

[nathanm]

Although sometimes there are people that truly believe the "forward looking solutions" are not the correct forward looking solutions.  It's politics.  Sometimes an honest disagreement gets buried in the partisan chatter.

Yes, but some of the time even a flawed solution is better than doing the absolutely nothing the naysayers desire, which seems to be what politics has devolved to now.

This he-said-she-said TV news format promotes the insane notion that all ideas are equally good and all opinions are equally valid, no matter what level of factual support there is for a given idea or opinion. It leaves us with a bewildered electorate that can't make informed decisions because it's nearly impossible to get any facts on which to base a reasonable opinion.

Since my job mostly consists of a cycle of clicking and typing furiously for anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes, followed by waiting for the computer to finish doing something for somewhere between 5 minutes and 5 hours, I have the luxury of time to do a lot of research on a lot of different topics. This allows me to have opinions grounded in reality on many different subjects. People may not agree with them, but they are considered, and even subject to change with new information. If I were basing my opinions solely what one can find in/on the Tulsa World, KRMG, and the CBS Evening News, I think I'd still have a lot of opinions, but I don't think I'd (usually) have a solid basis for them.

Sometimes I think people react so rabidly to opposing political ideas precisely because they don't have any real factual basis. It becomes a matter of faith. A matter of identifying as a "Glenn Beck" person or a "Keith Olbermann" person or what have you. It's more about being part of an ideology or a movement than about informing oneself and thinking for oneself.

[Red Arrow]

Yes, but some of the time even a flawed solution is better than doing the absolutely nothing the naysayers desire, which seems to be what politics has devolved to now.

This he-said-she-said TV news format promotes the insane notion that all ideas are equally good and all opinions are equally valid, no matter what level of factual support there is for a given idea or opinion. It leaves us with a bewildered electorate that can't make informed decisions because it's nearly impossible to get any facts on which to base a reasonable opinion.

Since my job mostly consists of a cycle of clicking and typing furiously for anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes, followed by waiting for the computer to finish doing something for somewhere between 5 minutes and 5 hours, I have the luxury of time to do a lot of research on a lot of different topics. This allows me to have opinions grounded in reality on many different subjects. People may not agree with them, but they are considered, and even subject to change with new information. If I were basing my opinions solely what one can find in/on the Tulsa World, KRMG, and the CBS Evening News, I think I'd still have a lot of opinions, but I don't think I'd (usually) have a solid basis for them.

Sometimes I think people react so rabidly to opposing political ideas precisely because they don't have any real factual basis. It becomes a matter of faith. A matter of identifying as a "Glenn Beck" person or a "Keith Olbermann" person or what have you. It's more about being part of an ideology or a movement than about informing oneself and thinking for oneself.

I agree with the post above.  I will have to add, however, that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing a flawed something.  That's hard to get a handle on sometimes.   Doing something, anything.... is not always the correct solution.

I will also agree that you are frequently better informed than most.  I may still disagree though.

[Conan71]

I agree with the post above.  I will have to add, however, that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing a flawed something.  That's hard to get a handle on sometimes.   Doing something, anything.... is not always the correct solution.

I will also agree that you are frequently better informed than most.  I may still disagree though.

My reaction was similar to yours when I read that, but he did put in the caveat: "sometimes".

Doing a flawed something simply to have the pride in saying: "Look we finally got health care reform" isn't a good solution if it doesn't solve the problems it purports to in the first place or if it creates an additional problem like higher deficits (just waiting for Rwarn and the "CBO chorus"), inflationary pressures, or additional unemployment.

Tinkering for the sake of tinkering doesn't present a good solution.  We got sold out to the insurance companies on this.  Take a read on who some of the insurance execs were who helped write this pile.  I simply cannot sit back, digest this and say: "Wow, I'm glad this passed!"

At least according to what Brunoflipper posted last night, the pre-existing condition part of the bill doesn't really do a whole lot for people like JeffM who have been waiting on this bill.  I understand his optimism for what he's hoping the PEC part of the bill could do to expand his career options and ease financial burdens.  I can't fault someone for that, but a lot of people have put false hope in this bill and Congress has been the proverbial fox watching over the flock.  Even GOP solutions were loaded in favor of the insurance companies, so I don't fault this as being entirely partisan.

If even 1/2 of what the article purported that Bruno posted is correct, this was a huge, huge mistake and we've been chumped.

[Red Arrow]

My reaction was similar to yours when I read that, but he did put in the caveat: "sometimes".

I saw his "sometimes" and added a "sometimes" case of my own.

[Gaspar]

Abuse of language irritates the Crap out of me.  What the heck is a "Forward Looking Solution."

A solution is only a solution if it solves the problem and doesn't create new problems.

You can't improve on the impact of your language by adding silly qualifiers.

I could sure use some "Proactive Synergy" right now.

[Townsend]

I could sure use some "Proactive Synergy" right now.

That's not going to work in my paradigm.

[Red Arrow]

"Proactive Synergy"

Energy drink?

[Gaspar]

Energy drink?

So much more than an energy drink.  It gets idiots promoted.