Bush is a hero
Lost In Transition

United States

#171436 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
Difference being, no matter how "nice" they are and how much they "care", the insurance company has one mandate - profit, above all else. They will make their profit, and more power to them. As I already said, my retirement investments probably share in the profit, so that "jealousy" statement comes off as doubly stupid.
Surprise the crap out of us. Deal with the points in the post, not your cranky and self-serving "analysis" of character. THAT would be a pip.
Profits make the world go 'round. Unless you're the government, in which case confiscation makes the world go 'round.
Just a few profit margins of companies whose products are basic neccessities these days:

Pfizer pharma..........46%
Nova Nordisk pharma....30%
Microsoft..........29%
Amgen pharma..........27%
Apple..........22%
Google..........22%
Monsanto..........17%
Procter and Gamble.....14%
Colgate-Palmolive......14%
NextEra power..........14%
Nike..........11%
United Health..........4.5%
Aetna..........3.9%
Conoco refining........2.1%
Valero refining........1.9%
Chris Clearwater

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#171437 Nov 6, 2013
Forgot to say according to testimony today you might be giving your ss info for healthcare to a convicted felon. I'm sure somehow we can blame Hannity for that.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#171438 Nov 6, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm paying $200 a month for my high detuctible with HSA. My company spots me the first $1500 in my HSA, and I will be carrying over better than a $grand$ of that (I'm pretty anal about my health) this year. So I'll have $2500+, and the pre-tax write-off, right from the get go. As a fully employed, solidly middle class white male obamacare can't touch that. It was never intended to.

I think you might be missing the point, though. You're asking me if, after the government priced me out of my existing policy, did I go onto the government's web site to see if the government can save me any money.
Eh?
In fact that is exactly what I'm asking.

I'm reading instance after instance of people who were able to get better plans, and oftentimes cheaper up-front. I can show you ObamaCare opponents who converted precisely due to finally seeing their savings. with better coverage, on the exchanges. Besides the up-front costs, they also save in the bigger picture (which almost no one takes into account) in terms of coverages they didn't have before, ie, out-of-pocket caps, prescriptions, preventive care, etc.

If you, like me, happen to be among the healthier component that rarely use insurance (yet), then yes, any viable fiscally-responsible system needs us too. That is exactly why insurance providers did everything in their power pre-ACA to insure as much as possible ONLY those like us. Their motive was profit, God bless 'em. The ACA merely makes steps toward opening access to more people, with an eye toward us all being healthier, and saving ALL of us money in the long-term. A single-payer system would have been the most efficient (for those of us not just ideologically but truly anal about fiscal efficiency), but then the lies about "gov't takeover" might have actually had some lean meat.

That's the kicker. The vast majority have a problem seeing the long-term. I'm told by allegedly non-partisan sources that it will. The opposition have only made scary predictions and misleading "reports". Both sides allegedly "lie". When I have to depend on outside sources to help decide, naturally I'm going to lean toward the one that has been caught lying the least, and examine their respective apparent motives.
Chris Clearwater

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#171439 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No Hip I believe if you were doing better you'd have a whole different take on those evil corporations that happen to employee a bunch of people at liveable wages and provide health insurance too. You said you want anecdotal evidence but whenever someone gives that you say it's no good. You are so sour about our life in America I wonder what you are still doing here.
Your accusation of getting personal means nothing to me as when it comes to you it's okay to get personal. You are one mixed up guy.
I don't think you are cranky. In a crazy way this messed up Obama care might be good as I'm laughing my butt off. Even Obama couldn't hide his lies and its a hoot to see anyone try to defend it.
Chris Clearwater

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#171440 Nov 6, 2013
Btw remember when Obama said GM is on the move and payed everything back? Yea, another lie. We lost 9.7 billion on the deal. Have to give a shout out to Bush on this as well. This crap did start under him and then went into overdrive under the liar in cheif.
Lost In Transition

United States

#171441 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>In fact that is exactly what I'm asking.
I'm reading instance after instance of people who were able to get better plans, and oftentimes cheaper up-front. I can show you ObamaCare opponents who converted precisely due to finally seeing their savings. with better coverage, on the exchanges. Besides the up-front costs, they also save in the bigger picture (which almost no one takes into account) in terms of coverages they didn't have before, ie, out-of-pocket caps, prescriptions, preventive care, etc.
If you, like me, happen to be among the healthier component that rarely use insurance (yet), then yes, any viable fiscally-responsible system needs us too. That is exactly why insurance providers did everything in their power pre-ACA to insure as much as possible ONLY those like us. Their motive was profit, God bless 'em. The ACA merely makes steps toward opening access to more people, with an eye toward us all being healthier, and saving ALL of us money in the long-term. A single-payer system would have been the most efficient (for those of us not just ideologically but truly anal about fiscal efficiency), but then the lies about "gov't takeover" might have actually had some lean meat.
That's the kicker. The vast majority have a problem seeing the long-term. I'm told by allegedly non-partisan sources that it will. The opposition have only made scary predictions and misleading "reports". Both sides allegedly "lie". When I have to depend on outside sources to help decide, naturally I'm going to lean toward the one that has been caught lying the least, and examine their respective apparent motives.
I just don't think we can afford obamacare. Scratch that, I know for a fact we can't afford it. This is going to run into the $trillions$ between the Feds and states in subsidies alone, and that's the last thing we've got. Add to that the monies that will be lost from disposable income by any increase in policy costs and bow-out fines, and it's a double whammy. I'm afraid the handle has been pulled, and this country is circling the bowl. obamacare just ensures we can't cling to the rim. Which, maybe, is better. Let's get it over with. But the people we're trying to help are going to get hurt the worst. That's how it always goes.
Lost In Transition

United States

#171442 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>In fact that is exactly what I'm asking.
I'm reading instance after instance of people who were able to get better plans, and oftentimes cheaper up-front. I can show you ObamaCare opponents who converted precisely due to finally seeing their savings. with better coverage, on the exchanges. Besides the up-front costs, they also save in the bigger picture (which almost no one takes into account) in terms of coverages they didn't have before, ie, out-of-pocket caps, prescriptions, preventive care, etc.
If you, like me, happen to be among the healthier component that rarely use insurance (yet), then yes, any viable fiscally-responsible system needs us too. That is exactly why insurance providers did everything in their power pre-ACA to insure as much as possible ONLY those like us. Their motive was profit, God bless 'em. The ACA merely makes steps toward opening access to more people, with an eye toward us all being healthier, and saving ALL of us money in the long-term. A single-payer system would have been the most efficient (for those of us not just ideologically but truly anal about fiscal efficiency), but then the lies about "gov't takeover" might have actually had some lean meat.
That's the kicker. The vast majority have a problem seeing the long-term. I'm told by allegedly non-partisan sources that it will. The opposition have only made scary predictions and misleading "reports". Both sides allegedly "lie". When I have to depend on outside sources to help decide, naturally I'm going to lean toward the one that has been caught lying the least, and examine their respective apparent motives.
One other thing, Hip. Talking about lying, I think obama is as big a liar as ever sat on the throne. Either that, or the most dis-connected, inept boss we've ever had. But that's neither here nor there. Fact is, the NSA lies, the State Dept lies, the Attorney General lies, the IRS lies, the House lies, the Senate lies. They all lie. And yet we vote to extend their powers.
Insane.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#171443 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No Hip I believe if you were doing better you'd have a whole different take on those evil corporations that happen to employee a bunch of people at liveable wages and provide health insurance too. You said you want anecdotal evidence but whenever someone gives that you say it's no good. You are so sour about our life in America I wonder what you are still doing here.
Your accusation of getting personal means nothing to me as when it comes to you it's okay to get personal. You are one mixed up guy.
I'm doing rather well, and agree with Hip's comments.

I don't see the need to insult him.
rollo

Prairie Village, KS

#171444 Nov 6, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
One other thing, Hip. Talking about lying, I think obama is as big a liar as ever sat on the throne. Either that, or the most dis-connected, inept boss we've ever had. But that's neither here nor there. Fact is, the NSA lies, the State Dept lies, the Attorney General lies, the IRS lies, the House lies, the Senate lies. They all lie. And yet we vote to extend their powers.
Insane.
Like the patriot act.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#171445 Nov 6, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Profits make the world go 'round. Unless you're the government, in which case confiscation makes the world go 'round.
Just a few profit margins of companies whose products are basic neccessities these days:
Pfizer pharma..........46%
Nova Nordisk pharma....30%
Microsoft..........29%
Amgen pharma..........27%
Apple..........22%
Google..........22%
Monsanto..........17%
Procter and Gamble.....14%
Colgate-Palmolive......14%
NextEra power..........14%
Nike..........11%
United Health..........4.5%
Aetna..........3.9%
Conoco refining........2.1%
Valero refining........1.9%
Et tu Brutus?

Why is it we're gettinga seminar on profits? Did I say I had a problem with profits in and of themselves?

I don't think I did.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#171446 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No Hip I believe if you were doing better you'd have a whole different take on those evil corporations that happen to employee a bunch of people at liveable wages and provide health insurance too. You said you want anecdotal evidence but whenever someone gives that you say it's no good. You are so sour about our life in America I wonder what you are still doing here.
Your accusation of getting personal means nothing to me as when it comes to you it's okay to get personal. You are one mixed up guy.
You still pretending you don't know the difference between "getting personal" and personalizing a discussion?

Here's the difference.

"Personalizing a discussion" is when a person with inferior debate skills derails a discussion away from the topic and onto personal ramblings about the other's character and lifestyle. Anybody that flatters themselves they can draw such distinctions thru the pitifully narrow window of an anonymous discussion forum would be a self-absorbed moron.

"Getting Personal": Saying, "You're a self-absorbed moron."

Just for example.
lisw

Delaware, OH

#171447 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>You still pretending you don't know the difference between "getting personal" and personalizing a discussion?
Here's the difference.
"Personalizing a discussion" is when a person with inferior debate skills derails a discussion away from the topic and onto personal ramblings about the other's character and lifestyle. Anybody that flatters themselves they can draw such distinctions thru the pitifully narrow window of an anonymous discussion forum would be a self-absorbed moron.
"Getting Personal": Saying, "You're a self-absorbed moron."
Just for example.
I did get personal when I said maybe you weren't doing well and for that I apologize. I'm still befuddled by the absolute untruth that insurance companies are monsters. I've told you stories of great empathy from insurance companies but you poo-poo them as anecdotal, yet the only proof you've ever offered that there is anything wrong with insurance companies is also anecdotal. For me it's a no-no, for you...not so much. I am tired of anyone who tries to make it big in this country being villified. They are not selfish victimizers and often give back more than they ever get. But you've bought into the legend lock, stock and barrel and in your zeal to get rid of them don't even think of all the people employed by and enjoying a retirement from these companies. I'm not buying, and even if I believed it of a small segment I'd much rather pay my money to these companies then to a bloated, incompetent government that will take my money and misuse it. I am okay with being taxed to help those who need it but leave those of us who don't alone.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#171448 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
A simple search, for those who like >true< information as opposed to being glutted with "high information", turns out most of these anecdotes being foisted on Fox News are misleading and hooidly incomplete for an alleged "fair and balanced news organization.
Hannity has on a "small business" owner who claims they have to cut employee hours due to the ACA.
Turns out they employ four people. The ACA threshold is 49. There is no provision in the ACA that affects them.
Then there's the gal with a pre-existing condition who claims her former policy was canceled and her new one (same company) would be over $20,000/year.
Contacted by the author, she admits she hadn't looked at an exchange. Author helps her find a policy with better benefits AND cheaper than her pre-ACA policy.
Then there was the self-employed Christian motivational speaker, who was paying $800/mo. Insurance agent said, due to the ACA, that plan was canceled, and the new plan would be 50-75% higher, AND was required (the agent said) to contain many items they didn't need.
Again, they hadn't shopped on the exchange. Author finds them a better policy, AND 63% cheaper. "No thanks", they said, they didn't want anything to do with Obamacare. A classic case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
I found case after case of people with poor information, and "news organizations" selectively "reporting" on their alleged "troubles with ACA". As lisw has said, there have always been options out there, it is up to the individual to do the shopping, AND (she added) it is "elitist" to think they can't do so.
Yes, I know they can, but do they? Pre-ACA, the insurance market was a quagmire, purposely confusing by an industry that profited by the confusion. The exchanges are one step toward empowering the individual to make rational choices from a single information source. People STILL have to do the legwork, but at least it will be gathered in one convenient location.
You post a lot of long posts with a lot of Hip approved 'facts.' What you don't ever seem to post are your sources. Humor those of us us who don't see eye to eye with you on some of these issues once in a while and let us see where you're getting all this magically conflicting data.
==
And since you're such a hound dog in spiriting out the truth which according to you is pure from the bias which has pretty much flooded the media these days, maybe you could find something for me which still piques my curiosity. You may recall big labor unions throwing fits when they suddenly realized what exactly was in the ACA and how that would negatively effect them and they went stomping into the White House demanding for all sorts of waivers, exemptions and what have you as a thank you because they'd been such big contributors to the King Barry. Now, I know a little something about where that nasty little underhanded situation stands today. How about you give me what you have in your collection of always correct data you seem privy to.
==

And while I have you on the phone, maybe you could share with us why the dems in DC are starting to cluck louder than usual. Rumor has it they they're getting a little testy with Barry because they don't like the way Obamacare is coming off the assembly line, they don't like the calls they're getting from constituents back home and some are getting a little sweaty about 2014. My question is this. If the ACA is all that and a bag of chips according to you, why are they getting a little sweaty?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#171449 Nov 6, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really not get it? Nah, you get it your just being >obtuse< again. Hows that for one of your $10 words..........
I have to start paying that 200% increase from now on. The affordable care act has increased the cost and really made it unaffordable (but if were honest that was its intent all along). I delayed insurance because I'm building a business. It was a calculated risk. Guess what, it was a good bet on my part. Millions of others have made the same bet and the majority have had the results I have.
I'm pissed because of the increase I have to now pay, all because of a bad law that really fixes little. I'm glad for preexisting conditions and no caps, but for a 41% average increase in everyones payments it seems a steep price.
In other words, you are going to have to start paying. Period. You haven't had insurance up to now,'calculated risk' notwithstanding, so your payments have been ZERO.

200% of nothing, is still nothing, hon.

You were being disingenuous. You're pissed, alright - and frankly, I don't blame you for being pissed - I am too. But don't try to tell me that clarifying what you said, is obtuseness.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#171450 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to think that God and country are mutually exclusive. Just because there is a separation of church and state doesn't mean that they are at odds. I believe God is all in favor of us loving our country. Why you belittle people who love God is beyond me. It's not hurting you at all. Let it go. We all support your right to be an atheist.
Well said, my friend :)
Lost In Transition

United States

#171451 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Et tu Brutus?
Why is it we're gettinga seminar on profits? Did I say I had a problem with profits in and of themselves?
I don't think I did.
Not at all, Hip. Just a comparative exercise. The insurance companies are rapidly becoming the administration's fall guys in this game, and I just wanted to point out how slim the margins are that they regularly operate under. Thinner than any other branch of our healthcare system. From what I've been reading, I think the insurance companies are very worried that obamacare is going to take them down. I think that would be just fine with obama, one step closer to nationalized healthcare at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs. And if it turns out their profits do expand, we've got a ready made goat for obama when the working man can't afford a happy meal. Either way, he wins at the cost of.......who cares. Not him.
I included the margins for the refiners just because I've always had a soft spot for the oilers. No other industry works harder, under worse conditions, for tighter margins than they do.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#171452 Nov 6, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Et tu Brutus?
Why is it we're gettinga seminar on profits? Did I say I had a problem with profits in and of themselves?
I don't think I did.
It Depends Hip , i don't need to explain, as you well educate . But right wingers don't care.

Note not a leftie nor rightie! bahahahaa
lisw

Delaware, OH

#171453 Nov 6, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, you are going to have to start paying. Period. You haven't had insurance up to now,'calculated risk' notwithstanding, so your payments have been ZERO.
200% of nothing, is still nothing, hon.
You were being disingenuous. You're pissed, alright - and frankly, I don't blame you for being pissed - I am too. But don't try to tell me that clarifying what you said, is obtuseness.
Yes you are being obtuse. Let me be plain I hope on his behalf. he opted not to have insurance, calculated risk. If he had opted for insurance it would have been __. Now he is being forced to take it at 200% of what his option was. I don't think he's feeling so lucky. Those big words will trip you up sometimes.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#171454 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I did get personal when I said maybe you weren't doing well and for that I apologize. I'm still befuddled by the absolute untruth that insurance companies are monsters. I've told you stories of great empathy from insurance companies but you poo-poo them as anecdotal, yet the only proof you've ever offered that there is anything wrong with insurance companies is also anecdotal. For me it's a no-no, for you...not so much. I am tired of anyone who tries to make it big in this country being villified. They are not selfish victimizers and often give back more than they ever get. But you've bought into the legend lock, stock and barrel and in your zeal to get rid of them don't even think of all the people employed by and enjoying a retirement from these companies. I'm not buying, and even if I believed it of a small segment I'd much rather pay my money to these companies then to a bloated, incompetent government that will take my money and misuse it. I am okay with being taxed to help those who need it but leave those of us who don't alone.
Generally speaking, insurance companies are monsters.

There are exceptions--usually when a compassionate human being works for an insurance company.

I have seen the evidence; repeatedly. It's funny, I had a case in which the insurance company defendant was the "Stonewall Insurance Company."

Fit name.

And no way they could win.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#171455 Nov 6, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you are being obtuse. Let me be plain I hope on his behalf. he opted not to have insurance, calculated risk. If he had opted for insurance it would have been __. Now he is being forced to take it at 200% of what his option was. I don't think he's feeling so lucky. Those big words will trip you up sometimes.
Lis, he said his premiums were going up 200%. He didn't have premiums.

His option was to not carry insurance, or carry it. He chose the former option, and his 'calculated risk' backfired. Now he has to carry it, and what it WOULD have cost him is 4 times less than what it will cost him now. And he's pissed about that.

As I said, so am I - but that doesn't mean his premiums are going up 200 percent. One can't claim to be paying premiums on insurance one DOESN'T HAVE.

It was an interesting diversion, though.
Thanks for your hobnailed opinion, dear.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 22 min Buck Crick 64,619
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 40 min truth 654,406
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min gundee123 106,601
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 42 min Gabriel 973,941
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 49 min onemale 281,948
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 1 hr RichieBoi 165
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr WasteWater 2,599
More from around the web