U.S. Politics: Hairpiece In the Middle East Part 2

[DMC]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not sure really. Everything I've read suggests that they have enforced the penalty only through deducting it from refunds. 

My understanding is they never even ended up doing the bolded.  But like I said, be happy to be proven wrong.

[Cas Stark]

8 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

No, people are just irritated that you think that your one anecdote about you being lucky and avoiding all of the myriad medical pitfalls that are possible is somehow worth anything approaching equal weight with the vast numbers of people who simply weren't able to make your choice.  

Great, you got lucky.  That makes as much damn sense as saying that welfare shouldn't exist because one homeless guy won the lottery.  Good social planning, that.  Lets all just buy lottery tickets.  

Millions of people are just like me, why do you think they never got the numbers of people signing up they expected?  Why do you think only sick people signed up?  And more signed up as the penalties increased?  Because it isn't as good of a deal as people...most of you I would guess are getting your health care from employer plans, so it's all philosophical...like to think, it isn't a good deal for everyone, it isn't a good deal unless you are almost on the poverty line for your income, or you have major medical problems, at least in my state.  That's it.  Nothing about being lucky, just an anecdote from someone who actually has dealt with the exchange insurance.  I never expected to change anyone's mind, but I didn't expect to be attacked and called a liar and have my actually semi famous PCP called a criminal who is perpetrating some kind of fraud.  That is the telling part.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

Millions of people are just like me, why do you think they never got the numbers of people signing up they expected? 

Partially because more people kept their employer sponsored insurance than they expected. And partially because the mandates could use more teeth.

Just now, Cas Stark said:

Why do you think only sick people signed up?  

It's called adverse selection. The problem is well known. That was the whole point of the mandates.

Just now, Cas Stark said:

..most of you I would guess are getting your health care from employer plans,

Yes I do. And I think it stinks I get a federal government subsidy, via the tax exclusion, for my health insurance, while less fortunate people don't.

Just now, Cas Stark said:

..like to think, it isn't a good deal for everyone, it isn't a good deal unless you are almost on the poverty line for your income, or you have major medical problems, at least in my state.  That's it.  Nothing about being lucky, just an anecdote from someone who actually has dealt with the exchange insurance.  I never expected to change anyone's mind, but I didn't expect to be attacked and called a liar and have my actually semi famous PCP called a criminal who is perpetrating some kind of fraud.  That is the telling part.

Let me offer up a bit of fig leaf here. I think it's important to listen to folks like yourself so we can think about how to make the system better. And certainly, people on the cusp, not getting help with subsidies because they are beyond the FPL guidelines, but not having employer sponsored insurance, are in the lurch. And something needs to be done about that.

On the other hand, if everyone thinks they are going to get more out of the system than what they pay into it, then the system will not work. The system simply doesn't not work unless healthy people pay into it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

My understanding is they never even ended up doing the bolded.  But like I said, be happy to be proven wrong.

I can't prove it. That said, it does appear from an earlier post that Cas Stark was under the impression that he/she would be subject to a penalty for not carrying insurance, so in that case at least it appears to have been working as intended.

[Cas Stark]

An IRS spokesperson said it was too early to know how many people paid penalties this tax season. About 6.5 million taxpayers paid a total of $3 billion in penalties for failing to have coverage in 2015, down from 8 million people who paid $1.6 billion in penalties in 2014, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress in January. The minimum penalty increased between 2014 and 2015.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/trump-obamacare-mandate-enforcement-237937

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's called adverse selection. The problem is well known. That was the whole point of the mandates.

Exactly.

27 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Because it isn't as good of a deal as people...most of you I would guess are getting your health care from employer plans, so it's all philosophical...like to think, it isn't a good deal for everyone, it isn't a good deal unless you are almost on the poverty line for your income, or you have major medical problems, at least in my state.

I live with my brother, he's uninsured.  I was uninsured between the ages of 27 to 29.  It's not philosophical.  I have a significant chunk of my cheap-ass grad-student paycheck taken out for health care even though I haven't been to a doctor since I was 18.  That's how the system works.  I've dealt with it, you should too.

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I can't prove it. That said, it does appear from an earlier post that Cas Stark was under the impression that he/she would be subject to a penalty for not carrying insurance, so in that case at least it appears to have been working as intended.

Yes.  Under the impression, however, is very different than actually being leveled penalties.  I was under the same impression for quite awhile, I just didn't "buy it."  Which I suppose is a very appropriate euphemism.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

An IRS spokesperson said it was too early to know how many people paid penalties this tax season. About 6.5 million taxpayers paid a total of $3 billion in penalties for failing to have coverage in 2015, down from 8 million people who paid $1.6 billion in penalties in 2014, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress in January. The minimum penalty increased between 2014 and 2015.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/trump-obamacare-mandate-enforcement-237937

Well there ya go.  I was wrong.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes.  Under the impression, however, is very different than actually being leveled penalties.  I was under the same impression for quite awhile, I just didn't "buy it."  Which I suppose is a very appropriate euphemism.

Sure, but the question was "how are you any worse under the ACA" and Cas Stark's answer is basically that he/she was out the cost of a plan they didn't use due to the fact that they would sustain a tax penalty if they didn't carry it.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, but the question was "how are you any worse under the ACA" and Cas Stark's answer is basically that he/she was out the cost of a plan they didn't use due to the fact that they would sustain a tax penalty if they didn't carry it.

Yeah being someone who is literally in that same boat, I don't find that explanation satisfying.  Anyway, in regards to my beliefs on the tax penalty:

 

[Gareth]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

So, every doctor who gave me a discount for not having insurance, the PCP, the podiatrist, the dermatologist, the optometrist, they all were breaking the law? This seems unlikely.  Really, really unlikely.

It depends on your state law.  If you want to, the easiest way to tell is to call CMS fraud hotline and ask them.  You can do it annonymous. 

[all swedes are racist]

59 minutes ago, Fez said:

There were some state legislative special elections tonight; Democrats continued their trend of overperforming in these elections since the general election, including finally flipping two seats.

One was a New Hampshire house seat, which is impossible to read into. NH is way too swingy and the state house districts are tiny. But Republicans out-register Democrats 2:1 in the district (though Trump had only won 51-44). The vote for the Democrat here was 52-48.

The other was a New York assembly seat out on Long Island, Peter King's area. Full numbers aren't available yet, but Trump had won the seat by 20 points, so its a big swing away from him.

 

All eyes on Montana-AL on Thursday, despite the idiocy of the DCCC trying to bury the race.

speaking of that nh statehouse seat, as someone that grew up like, 2 towns over, can't say i'm not all that surprised. albeit, it's been over a decade, but my recollection is that area may skew conservative numbers wise, i don't thinks it's all that hardcore ideologically. but, that being said, it probably doesn't mean that much; nh is just plain fucking weird 

[felice]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Like I said, its a risk.  It's a risk that I undertook for several years, before ACA, when my premiums for an individual w/no children were apprx. $600 a month, and I determined this was much more than what I would be spending  if I paid for everything myself.  I saved tens of thousands of dollars by being uninsured.  And, I never had that unforseen illness

What would have happened to you if you did have an unforseen illness or accident during that time?

[all swedes are racist]

lmao, if you are not on twitter, it's almost worth it to join now to watch sean hannity's slow motion melt down... extremely good shit

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, commiedore said:

lmao, if you are not on twitter, it's almost worth it to join now to watch sean hannity's slow motion melt down... extremely good shit

Has Hannity ever done anything between full melt-down or accusing the Clintons of killing somebody?  I suppose that's more an existential question.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Has Hannity ever done anything between full melt-down or accusing the Clintons of killing somebody?  I suppose that's more an existential question.

Nope. He's like Bill O'Really with less credibilty, if that's even possible.

[DMC]

He's like Bill O'Reilly with nothing to show for it!  .....Too soon?  Or just bad taste?  Yeah, bad taste.  I'm posting it anyway conscience.

[ThinkerX]

Cas's experience reminds me of an episode from my life, when I went to the ER a couple years before the ACA kicked in.  The hospital tab was close to $2000, for what amounted to ten minutes of 'doctor time' and a hundred bucks or so worth of bandages and pain killers.  I protested the total, filled out some forms, supplied some info, and that tab dropped by about 70%.  Had I not had insurance, or not protested, that discount would not have happened. 

 

I have had some routine stuff done since signing onto the ACA.  The insurance is damn near worthless - it might have saved me all of two hundred bucks for this, and I'm being generous.  The hospital billing system is a freaking nightmare with multiple bills coming in, all labeled in byzantine codes.  I take each one to the hospital's staff and ask them 'what's this about' and get gobbly-gook explanations.  I have been double billed a couple times - a tale I hear from others as well - this despite a new and improved billing system.  Last month, I received a refund for one such double billing that occurred well over six months ago.  My attitude is if this is the best these people can come up with, then screw them.  That fee structure alone warrants prison time for its creators. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

That fee structure alone warrants prison time for its creators. 

Sweet, so you're totally against the hospitals then. (that fee structure has nothing to do with the ACA)

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Sweet, so you're totally against the hospitals then. (that fee structure has nothing to do with the ACA)

No. 

I am against an incomprehensible billing system that appears to be designed to swindle people.

I am tired of paying the insurance company each month, only to get little or nothing knocked off the hospital/doctors bills.  It appears I have to spend thousands of dollars before the insurance actually kicks in, and I suspect, that should that happen, I get hit with a hefty increase in rates.

So, legit question: Why pay thousands of dollars each year for something that requires thousands more spent to actually be effective, when there is a 70% discount off the actual service that can be claimed?  

 

Or, say, 3 grand a year in premiums plus AT least a couple grand in doctors/hospital fees verses say, just paying the discounted amount - call it a grand. $1000 without insurance verses $5000 with insurance. 

Viewed that way, the whole insurance system looks like a scam. About the only counter argument is 'well, something really nasty/expensive might happen' - but in that case, the profit oriented insurance company WILL seek to ditch that expense (YOU) any way they can, using any loophole available - which is why even well insured people frequently loose their houses or go deeply in debt from medical issues.  (well, part of the reason, anyhow).    

 

My attitude, expressed multiple times on this board since the ACA was being formulated is this:

Expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover everybody.  If need be, triple the relevant taxes.  You pay into that, the basic procedures cost you NOTHING. Doctors who do not accept this loose their rights to practice.  Attack actual medical costs directly with draconian price controls - enough of this utter BS about Hospital 'A' charging 50 grand while Hospital B across town charges 5 grand for the exact same procedure. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

LMAO.  It's all one practice, the waiting room is divided.  It's right out there in open.  There is a huge sign for 'concierge patients'.

 I am afraid that maybe you simply don't know as much as you seem to think you do.  

All I did was give my personal story of not having insurance v. ACA insurance and everyone jumped on me, and my doctor, calling him a criminal and me a taxpayer sponge.  It's not very pretty.

Well, what can a person say but that you guys have one fucked up medical system.

When you tell me "I'm getting a 70% discount from a doctor who's nice to people without health insurance", I have to say there's some kind of bullshit going on. Although from what Gareth said, you are probably being billed the same amount the doctor bills insurance companies, so where the bloody hell is the 70% discount? If insured patients are paying (through their insurance) $30 for $100 of 'services' and uninsured patients are paying $30 for $100 of 'services', who the hell is paying $100?

It sounds like those department stores that regularly have mattresses on sale at 50% or 70% off - who ever pays the 'regular price'?

Like I said, when my dentist offers me a discount it's for cash paid under the table, and the discount is based on the amount he bills insurance companies. The $100 for teeth cleaning that gets sent to insurance companies becomes $60 for cash. The insurance company isn't being billed $60.