Page 94 of 149 FirstFirst ... 44849293949596104144 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 940 of 1482

Thread: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

  1. #931
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Good for you that you have researched it, which is more than most on either side of the question can say. That said ... I think your interpretation is a bit off in some areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Masada View Post
    I have also read most of the bill, and I must say, that unless you are a lawyer, I highly doubt you are able to understand most of it. Having said that, let me address a few of your questions. First, it doesn't resemble the Reagan plan all that much really. How it does mimick the Reagan plan is by creating "Co-ops" for PRIVATE insurance companies, or "exchanges" of PRIVATE insurance companies, who compete for the business of the un or under insured. Problem is, the Obamacare plan creates an unfair advantage by punishing (taxing) companies who do not seek health insurance through the government exchanges, or individuals who do not purchase through the government exchanges. This isn't spelled out directly, it's more of an indirect consequence.

    Here's how that works. The government exchange will consist of companies who offer GOVERNMENT APPROVED plans, called "qualified plans". Who approves the plans? A regulatory board of politicians primarily, with a few ex-doctors as well. By utilizing tax dollars, and operating at a sure loss, the government will deeply discount the premiums.
    So, here's the first major error. The participants in the exchanges are private health insurers. The government, through a board of health care professionals, sets a floor for minimum coverage. Other than that, the government has no control over what the insurance companies can charge, EXCEPT that they must spend at least 85% of premium dollars on actual health care, as opposed to advertising and administrative costs. The government does not determine the premiums.

    So, the unspecified goal is to have private companies ditch their current insurance carriers and opt into the plans only offered through the government exchange. Reagan's plan did not do this. Also, if an individual cancels their private insurance, they are FORCED to buy from the government exchange. After 2014, they will not have the option to choose any other insurance plan OUTSIDE the plans offered through the exchange. That's specifically written into the bill, and Reagan's plan did not do this as well.
    Yes, but there is a very good reason for this; presently, individuals and small companies generally pay much higher rates than large corporations because the rates are determined on the basis of a very small pool: in effect a pool of one to 50, depending on the business size. With state-based exchanges, the premiums will be based on a much larger, state-wide pool, which should result in considerably lower premiums. Obviously this is also beneficial to insurance companies as they will only have to come up with underwriting standards for 50 states, as opposed to, e.g. 500,000 businesses and indivduals.

    Think of it in steps, not an "all-encompassing" swipe. First step the left is wanting to take, is to get as many people into the exchange as possible. They do this through manipulating the price of premiums that are subsidized by tax dollars (unfair advantage). Second step is to ensure that individuals who either lose coverage, or drop coverage, only have ONE place to purchase health insurance, which is through the exchange (eliminates competition and choice along with individual freedom).
    Again, "the left" can't do this as the premiums are set by the insurers. Further, this is essentially a plan that was developed by "the right."

    Now, it may take a decade, but once virtually ALL of insurance is regulated through the public exchange, it will be regulated by a GOVERNMENT board of politicians. In the meantime, it will put large private insurers out of business, because they will have lost a huge chunk of their clients to the cheaper offers through the government exchange (all of which was created by the unfair advantages of pooling tax dollars for plans offered through the exchange).
    Nonsense, for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, the insurance industry generally supports ACA. In fact, insurance industry lobbyists wrote most of it. Do you think they're suicidal? They will benefit tremendously from an influx of roughly 30 million new customers.

    Let me see if I have time to address the rest of your post later....
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #932
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    11-08-13 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Good for you that you have researched it, which is more than most on either side of the question can say. That said ... I think your interpretation is a bit off in some areas.



    So, here's the first major error. The participants in the exchanges are private health insurers. The government, through a board of health care professionals, sets a floor for minimum coverage. Other than that, the government has no control over what the insurance companies can charge, EXCEPT that they must spend at least 85% of premium dollars on actual health care, as opposed to advertising and administrative costs. The government does not determine the premiums.



    Yes, but there is a very good reason for this; presently, individuals and small companies generally pay much higher rates than large corporations because the rates are determined on the basis of a very small pool: in effect a pool of one to 50, depending on the business size. With state-based exchanges, the premiums will be based on a much larger, state-wide pool, which should result in considerably lower premiums. Obviously this is also beneficial to insurance companies as they will only have to come up with underwriting standards for 50 states, as opposed to, e.g. 500,000 businesses and indivduals.



    Again, "the left" can't do this as the premiums are set by the insurers. Further, this is essentially a plan that was developed by "the right."



    Nonsense, for the reasons mentioned above. In addition, the insurance industry generally supports ACA. In fact, insurance industry lobbyists wrote most of it. Do you think they're suicidal? They will benefit tremendously from an influx of roughly 30 million new customers.

    Let me see if I have time to address the rest of your post later....
    Most of what you said is inaccurate. These exchanges are private companies, I said that earlier. But you are wrong about them setting their premiums. What is stated in the bill, is that these private companies, who are part of the exchange, can set their own MINIMUM premiums, but they are capped on the top side. Meaning, the exchange will determine the maximum cost for the premiums, and the exchange will also have sole discretion on any future increases in premiums, and by what percentage. So, if a private company does a cost analysis of premiums vs. claims, and determines they need to raise premiums by 12%, they can't just do it, it has to be approved through the committee.

    So, who does the "committee" consist of? Mostly politicians, the director of health and human services (Sebelius), and appointees of the administration. In other words, it's controlled by the government, not the private sector.

    The only reason private companies support the ACA is because of the individual mandate. That's it. Nothing else. They are wrong to assume this is good business for them. If they thought it was truly good business for them, why are the majority of major medical providers cutting their agent's commissions by 50%? The nation's largest health insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has announced they have already cut agent's commissions by 30%, and will be cutting them an addition 20% over the next 5 years. Sounds to me like they are preparing to lose some money, not make more money. No, they aren't committing suicide, they are bargaining for a seat at the government table, because they see the inevitible, or what they deem to be inevitible, which is single payer.

    What they acknowledge, but have yet to accept, is that once the majority of people in this country are covered through the exchange, they will be losing money. Follow me here. The government is going to require these companies to cover pre-existing conditions. The penalty, or I should say "tax", for not purchasing health insurance is pretty low in comparison to a year's worth of insurance premiums. So, what people will do, is pay the "tax", up until the "tax" becomes higher than the premiums, which is estimated to be at about 5 years. But, if a person is diagnosed with cancer, they will be able to rush out and purchase the insurance. The government is also requiring these companies to cover dependents all the way to 26 years of age. They are already requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, and according to their loss ratios, companies are raising premiums on average by 18% nationally. And that's just because of the influx in claims paid to people who had been previously denied for coverage.

    The government is also requiring these companies to spend 85% of their premium dollars on claims and care instead of advertising, marketing, or investing. Remember, insurance companies don't make their money on selling insurance. None of them do. Premiums serve as a constant cash flow so that the company can make investments with those premium dollars. Investments that yield returns, and build their net worth. Government is limiting their ability to do that by forcing them to utilize 85% of their premiums be paid back in claims or for care. This dramatically reduces a company's ability to make profits, because now they are limited to 15% of their revenue stream as a means of investment. Bad for business.

    They will not benefit from the influx of 30 million additional customers. Almost half of those 30 million are illegal immigrants first of all, and over a 1/3 of them are people with pre-existing conditions. So, we are imposing all these taxes and regulations onto the entire nation for the sake of illegal immigrants, and approximately 9 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions which guarantees the company is going to pay substantial claims for that person. Do the math on a single person. Say the premium is $300 a month. That's $3600 per year. Now say that person has diabetes. You think the insurance company is "making money" on a diabetic who is only paying $3600 per year for the coverage? lol....not even close. They will lose money on those 9 million people.

    Keep in mind, because of the government exchange, that private company will not be allowed to offset those expenses by raising premiums on everyone else. Therefore, the company LOSES money. How long before their stock devalues, and the investors lose money? How many years can they sustain a loss? I want you to think AMTRACK. POST OFFICE.

    Private companies are going along with this bill because they are bargaining for their scraps, their seat at the table with Uncle Sam. This is true. Why else would they pre-emptively be cutting agent's commissions? Why else would they be raising premiums by 18-30%?? They are trying to make hay while the sun is shining. Believe me. They also think that the government is going to grandfather these high premiums in. They are going to flip when they dont. But by that time, it will be too late. The majority of those people in this country without insurance are either illegal immigrants, or they have a pre-existing condition. That's also a documented fact. 9 million uninsured because of a pre-ex. That's a guaranteed claim that company will have to pay. That's a loss. I've done the math for you already.

    Your other point about covering large pools is meaningless too, and only adds to the problem. According to the info I've received, there will be no more than 10 carriers that are offered through the government exchange. With a good possibility that the Department of Health and Human Services develops their own "government plan" to compete with private companies within the exchange (unfair advantage because it will be subsidized with tax money). Ten companies competing for an entire state's citizens is about what we have now. We need 30-40 companies competing in every state, otherwise, you are trading one for the other with no real affect on premium costs. But how can any private company compete with an insurance company that can print it's own money, levy taxes at will, and regulate all their other competitors????? THINK!!!! Yes, I'm talking about the federal government becoming an insurance company, and competing within the exchange. It's going to happen, I can assure you. They will unfairly be able to offer plans at lower premiums, which will steal business away from the private companies. They can operate at a loss and still exist. LOOK AT AMTRACK AND THE POST OFFICE. How long have they lost money, but still remain in business???? How can any private company compete with an insurance company that is subsidized by the entire nation of tax payers???? Simple answer, and one the far left is relying on......they cant.

  3. #933
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    It's all under the same umbrella of preserving life.
    I love how you have your beliefs and ran out of arguments as it's obvious it makes no sense any further, but instead of changing the view you stay right on course and pretend you are still right. Its a simple fact that if you ever both to read Mason on the statement you would know I'm exactly correct here, and furthermore Locke that was the origin of both statements by Mason and Jefferson you would know I'm exactly right here. Life in that statement has nothing to do with healthcare. Hell, ask Jefferson on it that did nothing but take inspiration from the prior two and he will say the same. The next time you speak of something like the DOI and a well known part of it be sure you are right. You were not, sorry.
    Last edited by Henrin; 07-23-12 at 08:06 PM.

  4. #934
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]



    *yawn* the full speech.

    OK fine, you did build those roads on your own, you're your own fire department, and you went to the moon by yourself. You are a special little snowflake.

    lol. 196 likes, 666 dislikes Obama's problem is that he didn't stroke your ego.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  5. #935
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by zeusomally View Post
    I don't think AASHTO is in charge of allocating billions of dollars to private contractors so....Also, government DOT reps make the decisions and call the final shots in this particular organization so I think, at best, we can call it a quasi-governmental agency. I don't think it is a particularly good example. But I do not necessarily disagree with your larger point that there may be some government programs that could be best implemented by the private sector. I just have have some serious qualms about most of them because I never like to see a system in which the needs of a private company(profits!, profits and more profits!) can become dyametrically opposed to the needs(service, service, service!) that the citizenry deserves.
    AASHTO or an organization like it could allocate contracts more efficiently than the way it is done now. The contract bidding process is already ripe with corruption. We should try something new...you know? Change! Besides, allocating contracts doesn't justify the massive federal bureaucracy we have now. Similar to way the NFPA exposes most of the bureaucracy regarding fire safety as irrelevant. And, it is state DOT reps "calling the shots" at AASHTO, then for billions of tax dollars bureaucrats rubber stamp their suggestions and pass them on to Congress. Time to cut out the middle man.

    Allow me to give you an example that I experienced first hand not all that long ago and, interestingly, it deals with roads.
    About 10 years ago I drove down into Mexico to do some surfing in some small communities to the south of the city of Manzanillo, Mexico. There was one of two routes to get to these cities:an old windy mountain road that wound through small towns and took forever, but eventually popped out NEAR the small beach towns and a newer road that the Mexican government permitted a private company to construct that went right across all the flatlands near the beach. But the whole thing was privately managed, which meant that the company put toll booths up along the way. And they were expensive(like 5-8 dollars a pop if I remember correctly), and that was SUPER expensive for the Mexicans(more than many of them make in a day just for ONE of the booths!). So why such super high prices? When you look at the math from the private company's perspective it probably looked like this:
    If we charge 2.50$ a car at each station, 2000 people will travel on the road each day, but if we charge $5 at each station only 1000 vehicles will make the journey. So what is the most logical decision for us? Obviously it is to charge the higher amount, make the same amount of money as we would have made at the lower rate, but we'll be way ahead because that will result in half the wear and tear on the roads which will just translate to more profit for us! Perfect business sense, and the company would be foolish not to make this decision.
    If it weren't for the private toll road you were able to take, there would be no road to where you wanted to go. Mexico is no bastion of free market capitalism, they just don't have the tax base to build the infrastructure seen in developed countries without capital investment. Also, businesses don't work like you described, they don't price themselves out of market share in order to save costs. Your favorite strip club would never double the price of drinks and admissions in order to save wear and tear to the carpet.

    The problem, of course, is that this business decision by the road company ran completely counter to the interests of the entire economy of that entire stretch of beach because it cost them gobs of money in the decrease of tourist traffic that came their way from the cities. In fact, I would bet my last dime that those higher toll rates(optimized for profit, not traffic) caused much more in economic loss to the communities than it resulted in economic gain for the private road company. It's just a classic example of how the interests of the economy at large can be harmed by the privatization of what, I believe, should be government run.
    Again, this assumes the people of Mexico could afford the increase in users fees needed for a toll free road. Or, assumes investors would trust the Mexican government enough to issue bonds to finance the road's construction. They obviously didn't or couldn't, so your anxiety over the toll price is silly considering you might of had to ride a donkey to your destination if not for the toll road.

  6. #936
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    have Republicans admitted yet that this accusation against Obama, is a fraud?

  7. #937
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,816

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    have Republicans admitted yet that this accusation against Obama, is a fraud?
    If you have to spin it after the fact to make it say something it did not, its probably the after the fact spin that is the fraud.


    Cool avatar bro, advocate violence much?
    Last edited by OpportunityCost; 07-23-12 at 10:10 PM.

  8. #938
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    If you have to spin it after the fact to make it say something it did not, its probably the after the fact spin that is the fraud.
    are you agreeing with me?

  9. #939
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,816

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Since the majority of people agree with the view that the President was saying small business owners didnt earn their success, you do the math.

  10. #940
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    have Republicans admitted yet that this accusation against Obama, is a fraud?
    No, but it is interesting that Romney seems to be basing his entire campaign on a fraud. lol
    Last edited by Moot; 07-23-12 at 10:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •