Welcome to the Lounge

Colin Rae10-Oct-13 10:06

Colin Rae

10-Oct-13 10:06

Most people seem to forget that the 30 something pays $120/month only because his employer has heavily subsidized his healthcare. The employer usually picks up the lion's share of the insurance cost. This is why it is called an employee benefit.

The amount the employee has to pay is basically decided by the employer...

(BTW I've seen a lot of complaints about how the healthcare exchange insurance is "more expensive and less coverage than I get now". Well, no wonder! There's no employer paying for most of it. People with employer-subsidized insurance would be crazy to think they could get a better deal in the exchanges.)

charlieg10-Oct-13 10:11

10-Oct-13 10:11

Valid point, so I should clarify. The increases people are seeing are for those who buy their own insurance - not paid for by employers. Basically, what you used to be able to get from E-Insurance and other online places has radical price increases. Yes, if you have employer provided coverage, you'll see a fraction of the cost increase.

The new system rolling out favors larger employers. Unless of course you work for a company that cannot handle the cost increases.

Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.

"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759

Colin Rae10-Oct-13 10:33

Colin Rae

10-Oct-13 10:33

Yes, fortunately I have insurance through my employer. The full cost of insurance is downright scary, even before any potential increases. It all seems very inefficient... Smile | :)

Mark_Wallace10-Oct-13 19:39

Mark_Wallace

10-Oct-13 19:39

charlieg wrote:
Ask a 30 something who has been paying $120 month for health care. It's going to double if he's lucky. Why is his cost going up? Because someone has to pay for old farts like me. This is nothing more than theft.

You'll find that what we in Europe can't get our heads around is how anyone can think that $120 a month is more valuable than a human life.

.. Especially in a country which produces endless "entertainment" where people vehemently declare that they'd give up everything for one more hour with their father/mother.

It appears that being able to watch that kind of "entertainment" is worth at least $120 a month, but making those extra hours available to everyone (not just the protagonists of the "entertainment") isn't.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

charlieg11-Oct-13 3:17

11-Oct-13 3:17

Well, setting aside our warped sense of priorities - I'm not sure I follow you. Are you implying that all of the people who are complaining about the cost increases also have their smart phones and television?

Mark_Wallace11-Oct-13 3:27

Mark_Wallace

11-Oct-13 3:27

Put it this way: Britain was at its lowest point in history -- country and empire in tatters, no money, and with huge debts for B-grade war materials -- when it introduced the National Health Service.

The NHS costs everyone 9% of his income, between a lower and an upper limit -- it costs everyone a lot.

Ask any Briton if the NHS should be dissolved, despite the costs.

As far as Europe (and Canada) is concerned, you're all quite mad (or stupidly narrow-minded/greedy) for not wanting something similar.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

charlieg11-Oct-13 4:06

11-Oct-13 4:06

Well okay, I'm not really arguing here, trying to learn more. I work with a guy who spends/spent a good deal of time in Germany. He speaks highly of the system as well.

Please tell me what these lower/upper limits are. Based on the 9% rate, you just saved me a pantload of insurance costs Smile | :)

jschell11-Oct-13 9:20

11-Oct-13 9:20

charlieg wrote:
Ask a 30 something who has been paying $120 month for health care. It's going to double if he's lucky. Why is his cost going up? Because someone has to pay for old farts like me.

And what about the 45 year old that has seen cost increases for the past 15 years?

Not to mention of course that for many 30 years olds they don't have health insurance. And they were even less likely to have it 10 years ago - close to 30%.

And if one excludes government programs 40% of that group are not paying for anything - even when they get sick.

charlieg wrote:
Yes, we have issues in our healthcare system, but Obamacare seizes private property and moves it around to other people

The first means that a fix is required because the current system is not failing but rather has failed. The cost increases of the current system are not sustainable. Even excluding drastic measures such as declining all care to any who cannot pay the cost increases would mean most could not afford it in the future.

The second is alarmist nonsense.

charlieg11-Oct-13 9:28

11-Oct-13 9:28

What about him? You illustrate my point that apparently I am unable to convey. Yes, the current system has failed. We all know that the current insured subsidize the uninsured. It's the only way hospitals survive.

Why must they cover the uninsured? Government mandates. So, the distortion has already occurred. The ACA simply amplifies things... it reduces competition and increases costs. The only reason the populace supported it (according to polling data) is that it was sold as free.

Alarmist nonsense? The government has been doing this since it was created. It's why our constitution enumerated the powers of the federal government, which has long since departed from it. The AFA is nothing more than a step into a single payer system with the exception of the ruling class.

jschell14-Oct-13 7:50

14-Oct-13 7:50

charlieg wrote:
The AFA is nothing more than a step into a single payer system with the
exception of the ruling class.

Ok but then the solution is a constitutional congress.

jschell10-Oct-13 9:28

10-Oct-13 9:28

charlieg wrote:
but I'll see if I can be fair.

Just in case you were wondering - no you were not even close to giving a "fair" representation of the topic. That would require presenting both sides.

charlieg wrote:
Worse, they just flat out lied to make it more acceptable

Nonsense.

charlieg wrote:
They made some predictions based on common sense:

As always - people who are actually capable of predicting the future should make a lot of money doing that rather than eking out a living by writing predictions.

charlieg wrote:
I have personally seen #1, 3, and 4 occur.

Since it is not now in force one can guarantee that there is no cause and effect in that statement.

And #1 is a flat out wrong given that it has been happening for 15 years, under the existing system, and long before the new system was proposed.

charlieg wrote:
So, as bumbling as government is, we want them "doing healthcare"?

Since the existing system is very badly broken and getting worse not better something needed to be done. Other nations manage to run fairly effective health care for the vast majority of their citizens and seem to do so at a fraction of the cost so one is left with the supposition that is not government but rather the US government that is left with any failure to implement.

charlieg10-Oct-13 9:41

10-Oct-13 9:41

Well, we disagree on the fairness. I recognize we have issues in the system. But the system does not belong to the government or the people. My health care is my health care. That is where the argument was lost.

"Flat out lied" - nonsense.

You just lost all of your credibility. This administration has done nothing but lie.

jschell11-Oct-13 9:06

11-Oct-13 9:06

charlieg wrote:
Well, we disagree on the fairness

Your treatment was very one-sided which means it was not fair.

charlieg wrote:
<layer>But the system does not belong to the government or the people. My health care is my health care. That is where the argument was lost.

The US is not an anarchy. Every facet is regulated. The current system is regulated both at the state and federal level. So obviously that has nothing to do with it.

charlieg wrote:
This administration has done nothing but lie.

Nonsense. Nothing but an attempt to get a rise and based on nothing but fantasy. At best based on a lack of knowledge about the difficulty associated with analyzing and running complex systems and how the difficulty increases as the systems grow. At worst just ignorance.

Member 419459310-Oct-13 16:45

Member 4194593

10-Oct-13 16:45

Interestingly, only by quoting that exact statement can you get away with using the non-word "ain't" in an English class without a repremand (at least that was true when I went to school - probably not any more considering the speech patterns of all the news commentators - adverbs have seemed to completely disappear).

Dave.

jschell11-Oct-13 9:09

11-Oct-13 9:09

Member 4194593 wrote:
at least that was true when I went to school

Perhaps your teachers didn't understand that english was a living language and thus it does and will change. And\or perhaps they were paying attention to changes that were occurring. But to be fair they were probably trying their best to teach a limited set of rules and not the entire subject.

Mike Hankey10-Oct-13 3:36

Mike Hankey

10-Oct-13 3:36

If they can't even get the web site right what does that say about the impending healthcare system?

VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -Steven Wright

charlieg10-Oct-13 3:43

10-Oct-13 3:43

exactly my thought.

Mike Hankey10-Oct-13 3:53

Mike Hankey

10-Oct-13 3:53

There's a lot more I wanted to say but thought would be better suited for the soapbox and didn't want to stir a hornets nest, as I think a lot of people still support his arrogant ass.

He promised hope and change I just hope he don't change much more. 3 more years what else can he screw up!

VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.1 ToDo Manager Extension

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. -Steven Wright

charlieg10-Oct-13 3:45

10-Oct-13 3:45

Reminder - I really didn't want to start a war Smile | :)

I was just curious as to the reputation of CGI Federal. For 650 million... I love my digital rock.

MarkTJohnson10-Oct-13 4:04

MarkTJohnson

10-Oct-13 4:04

As a former CGI Federal employee, it is an American company sort of. The US Government has a lot of rules about how they do business. CGIF is owned by the parent CGI (a Canadian company) but it is firewalled from the rest of CGI kind of like a blind trust that a politician might have to control their investments but keep them from having any input so they couldn't be accused of influencing legislation to benefit their investments.

CGIF does contracts with the Federal Gov't. Name a branch of FedGov't and they probably are involved in it. American Passport? Probably processed at a CGIF location (because CGI bought Stanley Associates who had the lion share of that business)

CGIF people have to fill out a report ANY time they have a conversation with a CGI person. They can't work in the same building even on different floors. My boss had to fill out a contact report when there was a company social event and we mingled with regular CGI people.

Good company to work for, I had no real complaints other than the soda choices being Pepsi products in an office in Atlanta, the home of Coca-Cola. I was let go because the contract I was working under was ended and I couldn't find anything else with CGI/CGIF in Atlanta.

A couple of my former coworkers got on one of the exchange projects. It was started at the end of March and they were expected to have it stood up by Oct 1. Don't know if they made it or not. Seems like a lot of the exchanges were rush jobbed. From my experience it was because the Gov't side took forever to provide specs and probably changed them repeatedly once the development team got going.