This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Anything to see here?
Two-years have passed since the signing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare). At this point, one thing is clear, there was a significant “drafting” mistake in the original legislation. There has been an on-going fight over this. I think it's coming to a boil. If so, it couldn’t come at worse time for the Administration. Some connecting dots:
-A critical component of ACA was the establishment of Health Insurance Exchanges (HIXs). This was supposed to guarantee the availability of "affordable" insurance. Each state will have a HIX.
-Under ACA, a state could either, 1) establish its own HIX, 2) Do a partial HIX with federal support, or 3) Let D.C. pick up the whole thing.
-ACA provided strong incentives to the states to choose option #1 (90% reimbursement). It was originally assumed that a high percentage of the states would set up their own HIXs.
-To make the cost of insurance “affordable” there were tax-credits available for lower income individuals and families. These tax-credits are an essential ingredient to Obamacare.
-The following is the key language that is now in question: (Link)
Tax credits are available if
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependentof the taxpayer and.....
......which were enrolled through an Exchange established by the State
The tax credits are limited to those states that establish their own HIX. Period. The Letter of the Law reads, (clearly to me) that the ACA tax credits are not available in states that choose to have D.C. manage the required HIX (option #3)
-Many states have refused to set up their own HIX. The following shows the tally as of 11/29. Yesterday, NJ’s Chris Christie, surprisingly, said “Nix to HIX”.
-If the tax credits for “No HIX” states were to go away, Obamacare goes down for the count.
-The Obama Administration “fixed” the problematic “drafting error”. The President called the Treasury Secretary, (Geithner) and told him to fix it. Timmy, in turn, called the boss at the IRS, Doug Schulman, and told him to fix it. Doug issued a ruling that “eliminates” the conflicting language. Poof! The problem goes away. Maybe.
-Without the consent of Congress, the IRS changed the letter of the law on the most significant legislation in the past fifty-years. With out the IRS ruling, ACA was D.O.A.
The most recent development in this curious story came on Friday. Doug Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote a letter to Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) on this topic. (Link)
Elmendorf’s letter was in response to one from Issa. Elmendorf frames Issa’s question:
You asked for a description and explanation of CBO’s assumption that premium assistance tax credits established under ACA would be available in every state, including states where the insurance exchange would be established by the federal government.
Elmendorf answered with this:
To the best of our recollection, the possibility that those subsidies would only be available in states that created their own exchanges did not arise
To the best of our recollection?
When the CBO originally looked at ACA, it produced reports that assumed that the tax credits would be available to all states, regardless of what choice was made with HIX. This fact is now being used as “evidence” that legislators “intended” to have the credits available without restriction.
Issa’s letter was trying to get to the facts. Why didn’t CBO produce numbers that reflected the wording of the law? Elmendorf’s response was a put down (IMHO). He’s saying, “No one brought it up”.
I’ll repeat the words that are causing the problem. What’s your interpretation? What was the intent of Congress on the issue of availability of insurance tax credits? Do you think the IRS should have glossed this over? (It was a backdoor “fix”, plain and simple) Do you think Issa is going to rollover on this? (Not a chance) Did the CBO make a mistake by not considering the plain language in ACA back in 2010? (At a minimum, it should have asked for a clarification). And how about the, "We don't recall" answer from CBO?
tax credits are available... to those who were enrolled through an Exchange established by the State
The IRS "fix" will be challenged in court.
The Congressional Research Service has a good write up on the legal issues involved (Link).
The Cato Institute has been pounding away on this topic, Cato believes it has evidence that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Committee On Finance, spoke of ACA limiting tax credits to only states with their own HIX. (Link) (Video). If correct, it would be a problem for ACA. I doubt that Baccus is going to speak up on this. After all, he was one of the guys running the show.
I don't think this is as cut and dried as Cato makes it out to be. At a minimum, Baccus was confused on the critical question of tax credit availability. That is the point, the big-shots running the show did not really understand what they were doing. Most legislators had no clue what they were signing.
There is no easy fix to this. If you asked the House how it would apply the tax credits today, it would limit them, as the original law was written. That vote would be on party lines. There will be no effort to clarify the original language, that would open a huge can of worms. Stay tuned...
![]()
- advertisements -



Didn't they already try that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1iXE5ZQ4i4
Edited to hopefully phrase my point better.
How does a tax credit help lower income folks who get everything they pay in back in their tax refund? They get more back than they paid in...just another way to redestribute wealth.
Yes, a credit is a credit is a credit. If you owe nothing in tax, but have a credit, you get a refund. Credits are money.The credits are the source of the payments to the HIX.
And you thought only the Fed could print money.
And yes, Obamacare is a massive redistribution of wealth. That was the plan from the get-go.
a credit is a credit is a credit.
not so fast Mr. Krasting.
Take a look at the actual IRS tax forms (1040 etc.)
The IRS uses TWO definitions of "tax credit".
ONE type (like retirement savings credit) applies against the
total tax OWED.
The second type of tax credit (like American opportunity) counts as though part of the total tax PAID.
ONLY the second type of "tax credit" yields a "refund" (actually a payment) if you "owe nothing in tax" and have paid nothing in tax.
Type One credit may reduce the amount you owe, but you will only get you a refund if you (foolishly) paid too much tax during the year.
Which kind of "tax credit" applies under Obamacare?
Congress, if nothing else, is adept at job creation for lawyers.
"Credits are money."
Credits are not money, that whole premise is wrong. A credit is someone or something saying I have your money...do as I say and I will not take even more of your money.
almost pissed my pants, but I'm a spry fella' ... whew, though ...
If credits were money then those of us in the ever-dwindling but still Dreaded Private Sector would not have to associate with those persuasive and insistent folks in the "Credit (worthiness) Department" and the "Accounts Receivable Department" nor yet in the "Overdue Payments Department".
Due to cutbacks, sometimes these Departments are combined into only a portion of one individual. If credits were money (cash on the barrelhead) then these functions, wasteful and necessary, could be placed on the dustheap of history. But in the real world, Nyet Tovarich, as you point out.
The erosion of (consistent application and enforcement of) Contract Law is another largely unnoticed assault within the "Fundamental Transfomation" campaign.
- Ned
Fundamental Transformation...I guess its been right there all along, hiding in plain sight.
I don't know if O'Barry is the last act in this dumbing down of the sheeple and mixing of meanings but its gotta be getting close. What the elites/oligarchs want, eventually, is the destruction of money so everything is "credit".
Credit can be controlled by the state more easilly, focused toward (or witheld from) one individual or a group as easily as a mouse click now.
For one example (among many)...in my private contract, with my private employer, I am paid for services rendered to them. The choke point for me getting "my money" is the bank. If "my money" were only given as a credit and for some reason (or no reason at all) government or the bank decided to withold that credit I'm screwed out of my legally earned wages.
Credit = control.
Things aren't always what they are supposed to be/ You certianly supprised mme! ( Mis spell)
You have taught me more about History than any professor.
Yes, things are never as they are supposed to be but they are often presented by others as how they should be...with them in charge of course, it would be paradise on Earth, just ask them, they'll tell you so...lol.
Wise words nmewn/ ;-}
Their Sophists are expert, no doubt about that!
And DWS is taking on Bawnee Fwank's role quite well.
- Ned
"Professor" Lackoff...now there is another one who cheapens and bastardizes the language to the point it becomes unintelligible...by design.
In his cocooned, uber-elite statist world, the words "higher taxation" do not exist as normal people hear them, in his world he said "government investment", didn't you stupid people hear it? It flows from the premise that government (and those allied with it) are the most competent and efficient guarantors of ones own labor.
Point out that those same efficient guarantors are the very ones who have driven the US government into irrecoverable debt and you get a blank stare and a subject change to some other "phonetically challenged" emotional argument...like it was the "rich" who have done that.
Well, the "rich" are the ones making 200k now Lackoff...that would be people you hang around with.
I'm not sure what to make of this. I think the language was a mistake. ACA was pushed through in 72 hours, no one caught the error.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi came to the Chronicle for an editorial board meeting Wednesday. I used the opportunity to ask Pelosi about her most famous and quoted statement from 2010. On March 9, 2010, Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” What did you mean by that? I asked. Pelosi said that the quote “was taken out of context” and it is most often quoted “by the far right.”
Was this by design?
Here's your context...
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon."
It took me five seconds to find it...I'm so glad the controversy over this POS is over now. We can move on to the 400,000 jobs it created "very soon" in 2009-2010.
Not feelin it yet Nana.
The jobs will be to move postal workers and SEIU members into healthcare. The idiots who voted for these idiots who passed this have no clue how bad this will be. 2008 and 2012 elections were total fakes.
The cliff insures that they will not get all of their money back, no matter how liittle you contribute. It's called the (amt) or alternative minium tax, and shows up as a surprise on your 2012 form since the gvt already has their money. Bruce posted about it some 3 to 5 weeks ago.
Dude, the (actually) Alternative MAXIMUM Tax does not reach down to touch the (... touchy here, can't use the actual number, OK, I'll say ...) folks who are in the <50th percentile of wage earners. (got that, a less-than sign, and I did say wage earners, I'm guessing I'm safe on these grounds, but who knows?).
I'm in discussions with my CEO and Tax Advisor to ever-so-slightly under contribute 2013 so we end up writing a check vs. offering an interest free loan. My budz in CA have been unfortunate enough to have the state put in a sur-withholding thing to rob them of current income.
All within the published law, therefore I'm setting up to become a loophole cheat.
- Ned
{and ya gotta' stop signing up to their wording/characterizations. I've used this AMT definition and it is a light-bulb moment for > 2/3 of the people.}
I'm going to turn into a Dolphin laughing if this ruins the idea of Obamacare.
Thanks Bruce. Post of the week.
Nothing to see--whatever the IRS says is true, is true.
I saw an interesting article that noted many people do not claim unemployment benefits to which they are entitled. As unemployment benefits have been around for many years and is a program that is very well known with local offices in all 50 states where a person can apply that many who are qualified do not is surprising.
How much more difficult is it going to be to get people, particularly young healthy people, to enroll in a Obama's new healthcare plan? I don't the penetration will be very extensive at all.
I think Obamacare's penetration amongst young people will be deep, hard and quite painful.
They will be the source of money for the people who really need a ton of expensive healthcare.
But they won't mind...Sharing is caring.
Most young people have NO IDEA what's coming their way. They seem to think that they are gonna be on the getting side of the equation, not the giving.
I run into them all the time. I try to explain to them the three general rules of health insurance, but they don't believe me.
* The young subsidize the old...
* The working subsidize the retired/unemployed...
* The healthy subsidize the sick.
All of these guys are in their 20s and 30s; all are making $15/hour or better; all are basically healthy and are likely to only need a doctor for an injury. Obamacare will cost them MORE than regular old insurance would've cost under the old system... yet each and every one of them thinks a nice laminated card with their name on the front is gonna show up in their mailbox any day now. Yeah, sure... any day now.
The only thing showing up in their mailbox will be an IRS notice telling them what insurance they must purchase. Surprise, suckers!
It gets even better, when they finish there 2013 tax returns, they will note they have to pay a $750 penalty-tax, for which they will have no money with which to pay. They will look at their checking account and wonder if they can jiggle some bills somehow to not deplete the $43.58 they have on hand.
So, they will not buy insurance, because they cannot afford the mandated insurance with all the bells, whistles and features mandated by Obama, and just pay the fine. This is nothing more than a tax increase, and these morons have no clue.
i'm old and consider myself informed...and this is the first explanation of "whatever the phuck it is" i've ever read of the Affordable Care Act. I have been a supporter of the plan as publicly presented since day one...namely as an INSURANCE plan. forget for a moment that there are 40 million Americans without ANY health insurance (which is completely insane for a modern economy) ... the idea of Doctors not getting paid is not my idea of a good idea. And that's what 100% health insurance coverage means folks! how these exchanges will work...i will defer to the BK...for now...
The problem with health insurance is that the politicians at the state, and now the federal, level have mandated that plans provide a long list of "benefits" that include such things as transportation to and from doctors’ visits, massage therapy, acupuncture, sex change operations, wellness counseling, etc., etc., etc., which has vastly driven up the cost of insurance.
If we had catastrophic, high deductible insurance coupled with tax deductible accounts we could invest in to provide for premium payments, deductibles, co-payments, and which could grow and accrue to provide income in old age and be transferable to our heirs tax free to provide for their health costs, we could have a very inexpensive, market driven, freedom supporting system.
You think everyone should have health insurance, fine, but what right do you have to compel this upon others, first of all, and second, what we really have in Obama care is nothing more than a massive tax on the young and healthy.
In addition, Obamacare supposes its systems savings by cutting Medicare payments to doctors, who will just stop seeing elderly patients on Medicare, so you will have benefits, as smoking, joking Joe said, but you will not have access to to a service provider. So they are screwing you, too. The only people who make out are the insurance companies who now have a law that mandates people by their product, mandates what must be and what must not be in the product (so new market entrants cannot compete on innovation), restricts competition among providers, restricts services to beneficiaries, and guarantees a certain level of profit.
I would love such a deal for my business, except for the fact that I love and respect freedom, and would never dream of trying force people to buy my products and services. Obamacare is state controlled crony-capitalism (fascism) at its worst.
If you are indeed well informed, as you claim, and support this monstrosity, you may want to check you fascist tendencies.
Sorry to be so harsh, but just because you think something is a good idea does not give you, or anyone else the right to impose that idea on anyone else, if you love freedom and liberty.
Amen. Brave Sir Robin. You were not harsh in your response. Harsh would have been to allow the prior writer to posit such foolish ideas and to pass them off on others, without noting any of the numerous fatal flaws from which the plan suffers. It may have persuaded even one person that his point of view had any merit, while people who accept these ideas essentially have allowed the law to be passed. Further, despite the 2010 bloodbath, they have fallen for Obama's scams, lies and outright theft of America's future. Every vote for Obama, whether by a voter pulling a lever or the 100% districts where every single voter is reported to have chosen Obama (30,000+ and not one for Mitt?) will prove to be another nail in our nation's future. It is sad to think that when all of his ideas fail, as they have or will, there are millions of Americans who will respond by saying, "Look - Capitalism failed us. We need a new system," The reality is clear to anyone with an education who has had to work to provide for a family and wonders where all th money is disappearing. When I see figures, for example, that it costs the U.S. $60,000 per year for each family on the dole, it angers me as that is far above the median income level and is far more than the recipients ever receive.
We are a nation $70 trillion in the hole. There is no way out. Yes, it is worth talking about gold, silver, guns, prepping, farmland, etc. But, we already have millions of people on pain killers, anti-depressants or other drugs. Imaging what will happen when the money really runs out?
This should get me a load of negatives, but has anyone ever actually read the Unabomber's Manifesto? You might be surprised that what this man wrote is much more logical than anything that Congress or the President have et forth in years. Sorry, I'm not a fan of his techniques, but he was basically living the life preppers will have to live if they expect to survive in the world they see coming.
I've seen the greatest happiness in the poorest people in 3rd world countries. I've seen depression leading to suicide in several people with more wealth than 99% of individuals throughout the rest of the world. So, everything is upside down and we are clearly near the end (or beginning) of an historic change in the way humans co-exist. This is fairly certain because we cannot continue to co-exist based upon the current financial system in place, and any change in it will bring about massive economic dislocations. As wise people, or those who have lived in Communist, Fascist or Socialist regimes know, we are about to come to a time where the rich aren't that much richer than the poor, but the poor are much poorer than they are today. The welfare state must end and it will be ugly when it does. Sorry, I made this far too long. But, if you've read to the end I hope it was worth it.
Its a problem of expectations. We are typically our own worse critic and a lot of the children of prior generations were raised to believe they could have it all. As you can't, in a material way, it leads to a lot of dissapointment. The youger generations will have it much harder as the oportunities will be much less and many have grown up to believe they are entitled without even trying. Suicides will rise.
I know several doctors who are not taking Medicare in their practices and/or are retiring due to the changes coming with O'Care(including my own GP). I expect you'll probably see existing doctors being forced to take on Medicare patients or they will be excluded from any Gov't program payouts, including the State exchanges; you'll see current doctors having their massive student loan debt forgiven if they agree to provide care to Medicare patients for X number of years; you'll see free MD degrees with jobs offered to anyone willing to work in the system for the life of their medical career(X number of years).
As I understand it, the UK's NHS employs nearly all doctors in their hospital systems, which effectively controls wages, while they still have private practice MD's who contract back with NHS. I suspect that anyone using NHS with these private MD's makes that MD beholden to NHS and unlikely to try going it alone on the backs of cash paying customers if they don't like the payouts. I mean how do you undercut 'free' from NHS on one hand and low pricing from countries like India and Costa Rica on the other? And for those who scoff at going to India for an operation because it's a 'medical backwater', when's the last time you looked for an MD and didn't see 10-20% with Indian names?
And my current take is that NHS is falling apart due to poor doctor pay, lousy services, and rationing. Not only are we late to the game, we're in the wrong stadium...
Yet there is a thriving health insurance market in the UK competing with
the 'free' NHS.Have you seen the tax take in the UK that pays for 'free' ?
The private premiums are about 20 % of US ones.
I don't know how many comments here are from people that are doctrinaire
whatevers vs. people with actual experience of both systems.
I do have that experience.
American hospitals and doctors in my EXPERIENCE are marginally worse than
the NHS ones,and woefully below the level of private providers in the UK.
I will qualify that inasmuch as I haven't used medical services myself in the UK
for twenty years.
My wife who has quite recently both personally, and regarding her ailing mother,says its still
the case.
The same 'free market' for insurance and medical care is present and growing in the US and in Canada. It's generally better than what you get 'in the system' and it offers an alternative to leaving the country for even cheaper care. The biggest problem I have with that, and with what's coming with O'Care, is there is no 'opt out'. You have to pay the taxes into the system even if you don't want to use them. I'd like to spend my money where I want, when I want but those dollars are chasing someone else's abuse of the system or going into 'Administration' so they're gone and you're forced to pay for services you don't want, and never will use. You can get private clinic care, MRI's, Lasik, homeopathy, accupunture, even my upcoming knee rebuild, etc., etc., and pay out of your pocket and you'll generally pay a lot less than even your private insurer will pay with reduced rates. I don't carry normal medical but do carry a high-deductible catastrophic policy. Costs about $85mo., I keep the deductible in a boat, in a very wet environment.
Anectdotal: I got thrown from an ATV and broke a collar bone. I drove to a local pay-as-you-go clinic, paid a flat $95. Got x-rayed, a sling, tetanus shot, and a prescription which cost me $15 for generics. Done in less than 60 minutes including stop for coffee/meds. My mother suffered a severe pain in her side on a visit. Went to the ER as it was 3am. We were there for about 2 hours, 30 minutes of which was sitting in an empty lobby. She was seen by one attending for 15 minutes, had 2 shots of painkillers, other than that she rested on a exam table until the pain went away. They assumed it was a kidney stone as the pain subsided and she was able to move. We went to fill the prescription and that's that. Bill was over $13,000. I don't know what her portion, if any, was. Talk about absurd...
Oh and it is far worse than that in the UK. The hospital staff are unionized. Many of the UK hospitals in many cases are filthy which leads to more disease. Some of them look like field hospitals during 19th century wars.
We Like krispkritter
Insurance is wealth redistribution and nothing good will ever come of it. You can't get more out of a system than you put into it unless someone else pays, or government prints. If the system was self sustaining we would wouldn't be trying to figure out how to force those who don't need it into paying.
"Insurance is wealth redistribution..."
Not at all. If I VOLUNTARILY enter a contract to insure against a risk I deem to be so great that it might bankrupt me, there is great value in it. No "redistribution" whatsoever.
However, if I'm COMPELLED to enter any insurance contract (i.e, the ACA), the purpose of this compulsion is redistribution. IOW, it's a TAX.
The only reason ANYONE buys insurance is becasue they think it will cost them less than paying the actual outright costs. The only way this can happen is if those additional cost are paid by another...wealth redistribution, from those who don't need it to those who do. You may think that a moral thing to happen but it doesn't change the math of the transaction. No one can be blamed for wanting a good deal. How about a loan on an overpriced home at super cheap interest with no income documents required? You voluntarily entered the contract right? If people would just consider balance sheet accounting, rather than rationalization of how we want it to be. Like all the stuff we want but really don't think we should have to work for should be a "right". Right!!! You WILL be compelled to buy insurance because it is not sustainable as a voluntary program. A constant massive increase in costs should clearly demonstrate it.
No, that's not true. I buy health insurance because I think there's a 1 in a million chance I need to spend $1,000,000 on my health care next year. The expected cost of my health care next year is $1.00, but there's a minute chance it will be $1,000,000. I can't take the risk that the latter will happen - so I buy the insurance plan knowingly paying MORE than I expect my health care to cost next year. The insurance company aggregates these 1/1,000,000 risk cases and makes an underwriting profit on the permium we each pay over the expected cost of our health care. That's an entirely legitamite and useful purpose, I enter the contract voluntarily, or at least I did until Obamacare.
By your logic, ANY transaction in which one party comes out worse off than the other qualifies as "redistribution", freely entered into or not. Any stupid investor, for example, is redistributing his assets to others. Any dumb banker entering into a new loan with a previously deadbeat borrower is redistributing his assets.
Your definition of redistribution in the insurance context implies no value added. But there is value added. If I am able to insure the value of an asset over time against risks which I perceive as real, there is value added. Conversely, an underwriter (or speculator) sees value in entering the insurance contract.
Sure, gambling is legal. I'm just suggesting that it won't end well. The lottery has very few winners and lots of losers. How much would the lotto ticket be if 75% of the purchasers were winners? 100%? Health insurance payers are demanding more not less and the more they pay the more they will demand. Instead of just paying for what they receive they want to pay as little as possible for the winning lotto ticket. At some point, if everyone uses health insurance, there will be no cost saving and it will actually cost more than simply paying for the service because you have to pay for its administration. To your example of the stupid investor, when you get enough of them, won't it also collapse the system? Are you suggesting that your healthcare is dependant stupid purchasers investing badly in insurance?
I'm simply suggesting that there is value in mitigating the risk of financial disaster. If someone is willing to underwrite that risk, they should be free to do so.
Health insurance should be true insurance, not some sort of ridiculous first-dollar payment machine designed to cover the common cold and therefore destined to fail.
The only sustainable way to mitigate risk is to avoid the risky behavior. Look at banking and investing. What did risk mitigation do? It allowed risk to be taken out of the equation. Risk was irrelevant cause you could buy insurance. Insurance is always used to conceal risk and always leads to riskier behaviour. Risk is a neccessary part of life. It is important to aknowledge it and have it always in your sites. Anything that obscures it actually increases your risk. It used to be that people understood risk, avoided it when possible, saved for it as a means to financial security and let it motivate us to better outcomes. Now we insure it......with the largest insurance company in the world....the US government and typically with other peoples money. We all want security at the least expense to ourselves. That is our weakness. So afraid.....
"If the system was self sustaining we would wouldn't be trying to figure out how to force those who don't need it into paying."
Well said...succinctly describes the decline of the sustainability of the ponzi.
You stupid fuck, they are starving kids in the UK because they will not treat their extreme diseases.
The Independent Payment Review Board isn't there to tell you "YES" to your treatments, they are there to tell you "SAYONARA SUCKER". You think we can't afford health care now? How do we afford it all AND a new bureaucracy to run it? (See IPRB above). How many of the 40 million ar actually citizens? Wouldn't jobs be a better way to handle this? And, if a job would be better, why is Obama so disinterested in the economy focusing solely on raising taxes that he knows will fail?
Does the word "Societal Control" ever pop up in your informed thoughts? Head back to MoveOn or OFA, this shit don't fly here.
FORWARD SOVIET!
+1
It is all about control. Disagree with the govt and you might not get health care. It will be run like the post office. The "doctors" you will get will be totally unqualified. Look at some of the "doctors" they have in the UK. Idiots think some third world "doctor" who cannot even read having their life in their hands is a good idea.
The elites will get the best doctors. The sheep will get slaughtered.
Because HMOs and carriers NEVER say no to treatment?
What a fucking dipshit argument.
but you had your choice when you agreed to sign onto that particular insurer. after that it is a matter of contract dispute. not reading the policy terms is no defense.
you had your choice when you agreed to sign onto that particular insurer.
I've never had a "choice" of who my health insurance provider was. The way it's always seemed to work is:
1) get a job
2) the HR department tells you who the health-insurer is and gives you a half-dozen forms to fill out
3) choose between "the shitty plan" and "the cheaper and shittier plan"
4) start getting fucked over by either doctors or insurance companies or both
Are you in the USA? What sort of job gives you access to meaningful choices?
Well you're complaining about the half-socialist road. The government should never have mandated insurance be provided by employers. Businesses are not supposed to be health insurance plan managers, but that's what's required of them - and that's getting worse. Now we find that the only affordable insurance for most people is through these plans. It need not have been that way.
I have my own business. I choose my own insurance provider, and I fund my own HSA and pay for my own high-deductible plan, and I take care of myself, because going to the doctor costs me time and money. That's the least 'government-managed' position I can reach.
A Man with a mission. I'll stand a.side.
That was awesome/ You just blew my train of thought(sideways). I love to hate you! Chuck Walla?
who figured?
Is this anything like Japanese for "Death Panel?"
- Ned