Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Oct 8th 2013, 5:30 am
#91
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,169
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Forgive my ignorance; could you give me a quick overview of what 'Medicaid expansion' is? I would appreciate it!
Oct 8th 2013, 5:37 am
#92
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,169
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
I would fundamentally support that approach and it SHOULD appeal to the 'Rand Paul' or possibly the 'Paul Ryan' element of the Republican party because it relieves 'private enterprise' from a huge burden they currently bear.
Just to elaborate, if it was my plan, I'd go to a single payer system, forbid employers from providing health insurance, everybody gets health insurance equivalent to Medicare coverage (100% hospital coverage and 80% outpatient coverage except the poor which get 100% Medicaid coverage), limits would be placed on end of life treatments unless the person pays extra for that coverage through private insurance, the government would use it's bargaining power to drive costs down, and taxes on corporations and individuals would be increased to pay for the coverage.
If all of that was put in place, health care costs as a percentage of gdp would likely fall below the health care costs as a percentage of gdp of Switzerland within a year.
However maybe only 20% of congress would vote for such a proposal. Actually part of my plan would satisfy conservatives since it reduces the burden on corporations of providing health insurance since they believe that corporations are carrying too large of a burden. If corporations didn't provide health insurance, either pay would rise so increased taxes on individuals wouldn't hurt that much or corporations would pay increased taxes but they would have savings by not providing health coverage.
So what is your plan?
If all of that was put in place, health care costs as a percentage of gdp would likely fall below the health care costs as a percentage of gdp of Switzerland within a year.
However maybe only 20% of congress would vote for such a proposal. Actually part of my plan would satisfy conservatives since it reduces the burden on corporations of providing health insurance since they believe that corporations are carrying too large of a burden. If corporations didn't provide health insurance, either pay would rise so increased taxes on individuals wouldn't hurt that much or corporations would pay increased taxes but they would have savings by not providing health coverage.
So what is your plan?
Oct 8th 2013, 5:44 am
#93
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
The federal government mandates minimum eligibility requirements for Medicaid that states must cover. These are pretty low:- 40% (?) of the federal poverty level and only adults with minor children in their household. Most states already cover more people than this, typically in terms of income (often up to 100% of federal poverty levels). Four states cover adults without minor age children in their household. The ACA increases eligibility to 133% of federal poverty levels and covers virtually all adults up to Medicare age. In exchange the federal government initially will cover 90% of additional costs to states. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the expansion couldn't be forced on states, so many states have refused (all or almost all those with Republican governors). Poorer people in those states are likely going to remain without health coverage.
Oct 8th 2013, 5:55 am
#94
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
John Stewart tonight put it very succinctly.
I am rather surprised about the lack of understanding about the principals of insurance.
I am rather surprised about the lack of understanding about the principals of insurance.
Oct 8th 2013, 6:13 am
#95
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 10,678
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
The federal government mandates minimum eligibility requirements for Medicaid that states must cover. These are pretty low:- 40% (?) of the federal poverty level and only adults with minor children in their household. Most states already cover more people than this, typically in terms of income (often up to 100% of federal poverty levels). Four states cover adults without minor age children in their household. The ACA increases eligibility to 133% of federal poverty levels and covers virtually all adults up to Medicare age. In exchange the federal government initially will cover 90% of additional costs to states. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the expansion couldn't be forced on states, so many states have refused (all or almost all those with Republican governors). Poorer people in those states are likely going to remain without health coverage.
In Mississippi, the state would be eligible for about $460 million in the first year but the governor opted out saying that the state couldn't afford the estimated $8.5 million administrative cost (about $2.80 per resident for 2014). Instead country and private hospitals will likely get stuck with about $400 million of unpaid services costing taxpayers and insurance premiums an additional $133 per resident in 2014.
Ideology + $2.80 per resident = too expensive.
Ideology + $133 per resident = affordable.
Now you can see why the poor states are poor. Their math skills at the executive level are third world.
Last edited by Michael; Oct 8th 2013 at 6:25 am.
Oct 8th 2013, 6:59 am
#96
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,169
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
This is my current 'glaringly obvious' observation. I've spent 30 years in 'corporate America', receiving 'top of the line' healthcare without paying much for it thanks to group healthcare. But I'm finally at a point where I have the money in the bank to really start thinking about starting my own business, and taking risk (and hopefully paying even more in taxes than I currently do) ... and the biggest single fear I have is, how will I get health insurance now that I'm in my 50s! I'm hopeful ACA will provide that and allow me to do what I want. But realistically, if ACA doesn't 'take hold', I'm going to be forced back into corporate America simply because of the need for health insurance. How ironic.
Oct 8th 2013, 7:11 am
#97
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,169
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
The principles of insurance are, surely -
1) spread the risk over as wide a population as possible
2) analyze the risk to the n'th degree so you know what you are dealing with
3) set the premium appropriately so you can make money while providing a service.
Item #3 may change if it is Govt. insurance; they may say, 'set the premium appropriately so we can control overall costs while supporting the goals of a successful society' - which may translate to, some Govt. subsidy of the rates IF it is necessary to grease the wheels of commerce.
Last edited by Steerpike; Oct 8th 2013 at 7:14 am.
Oct 8th 2013, 8:25 am
#98
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,169
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
...
You have (had) several options, apart from bellyaching about the choice you made. (Get a job with health insurance, take a high deductible plan, leave the country....).
So? Get a job with health coverage.
...
Well now my taxes are going to start subsidize your health insurance, so I guess that makes it fair then.
That's just silly, argumentative, or you have a major chip on your shoulder.
.... Any of which would explain your usual belligerent and hate-filled posts! 
You have (had) several options, apart from bellyaching about the choice you made. (Get a job with health insurance, take a high deductible plan, leave the country....).
So? Get a job with health coverage.
...
Well now my taxes are going to start subsidize your health insurance, so I guess that makes it fair then.
That's just silly, argumentative, or you have a major chip on your shoulder.
.... Any of which would explain your usual belligerent and hate-filled posts! ETA ... you both make intelligent posts; what I'm saying is, this kind of bickering is beneath you both ... there are bigger idiots out there to spend your time on ...
Last edited by Steerpike; Oct 8th 2013 at 8:36 am.
Oct 8th 2013, 1:59 pm
#99
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Oct 8th 2013, 3:01 pm
#101
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,043
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Come on ... you can rise above this. You are using poor arguments to justify what seem to be a petty vendetta ... This guy does NOT have 'belligerent and hate-filled posts ...
ETA ... you both make intelligent posts; what I'm saying is, this kind of bickering is beneath you both ... there are bigger idiots out there to spend your time on ...
ETA ... you both make intelligent posts; what I'm saying is, this kind of bickering is beneath you both ... there are bigger idiots out there to spend your time on ...
Oct 8th 2013, 3:07 pm
#102
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
2. That is not possible, you need to determine the point at which you have confidence in the risk that is being contributed.
3. No needed either, many risk pools have no need to make money, see Mutuals for example.
Oct 8th 2013, 4:43 pm
#103
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Oct 8th 2013, 4:58 pm
#104
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
Why would you want it second hand, but just the headlines and I would strongly recommend watching it than critique.
I guess if John Stewart was in the UK he would read the Guardian, just to give a quick view on his political slant.
Most of the time he has fun at the Repubs expense, but is not blinded by his views enough not to have a go at the Dems when they deserve it.
In no particular order:
He covered the failure of the launch of Obamacare.
Wondered why when the Obama is the most IT savy of any Politician so far (please stop sending me Emails) they scored an own goal when they have had 3 years an untold millions spent on it.
Wondered also why the Repubs have not focussed more heavily on this.
The Dave reference was comparing with if Lincoln had not proof read the Emancipation speech and instead freed the Daves.
Interviewed Kathleen 'Obamacare' Sebelius, he was actually I thought a bit soft on her, I can just imagine how she would have been roasted by any half decent interviewer in the UK, but made enough comments to make the point.
Pointed out what a pigs ear the whole thing was.
His conclusion was good and to the point.
I guess if John Stewart was in the UK he would read the Guardian, just to give a quick view on his political slant.
Most of the time he has fun at the Repubs expense, but is not blinded by his views enough not to have a go at the Dems when they deserve it.
In no particular order:
He covered the failure of the launch of Obamacare.
Wondered why when the Obama is the most IT savy of any Politician so far (please stop sending me Emails) they scored an own goal when they have had 3 years an untold millions spent on it.
Wondered also why the Repubs have not focussed more heavily on this.
The Dave reference was comparing with if Lincoln had not proof read the Emancipation speech and instead freed the Daves.
Interviewed Kathleen 'Obamacare' Sebelius, he was actually I thought a bit soft on her, I can just imagine how she would have been roasted by any half decent interviewer in the UK, but made enough comments to make the point.
Pointed out what a pigs ear the whole thing was.
His conclusion was good and to the point.
Oct 8th 2013, 5:12 pm
#105
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Compulsory Photo ID for Voting
I guess if John Stewart was in the UK he would read the Guardian, just to give a quick view on his political slant.
Most of the time he has fun at the Repubs expense, but is not blinded by his views enough not to have a go at the Dems when they deserve it.
In no particular order:
He covered the failure of the launch of Obamacare.
Wondered why when the Obama is the most IT savy of any Politician so far (please stop sending me Emails) they scored an own goal when they have had 3 years an untold millions spent on it.
Wondered also why the Repubs have not focussed more heavily on this.
Most of the time he has fun at the Repubs expense, but is not blinded by his views enough not to have a go at the Dems when they deserve it.
In no particular order:
He covered the failure of the launch of Obamacare.
Wondered why when the Obama is the most IT savy of any Politician so far (please stop sending me Emails) they scored an own goal when they have had 3 years an untold millions spent on it.
Wondered also why the Repubs have not focussed more heavily on this.
The Dave reference was comparing with if Lincoln had not proof read the Emancipation speech and instead freed the Daves.
Interviewed Kathleen 'Obamacare' Sebelius, he was actually I thought a bit soft on her, I can just imagine how she would have been roasted by any half decent interviewer in the UK, but made enough comments to make the point.
Pointed out what a pigs ear the whole thing was.
Interviewed Kathleen 'Obamacare' Sebelius, he was actually I thought a bit soft on her, I can just imagine how she would have been roasted by any half decent interviewer in the UK, but made enough comments to make the point.
Pointed out what a pigs ear the whole thing was.
What was his conclusion and why do you think it was to the point?