Shame to see you go - based on the issue that I saw you last dealing with though I'd have to disagree with the stance that you're leaving over unless there's another I missed.
Debate gets pretty pointless when it devolves to "Nuh-uh, SAME THING AGAIN" and the stonewalling rule does make sense.
Moderation hiccups overall I'd agree with however.
From how the article reads they're doing both and using the exchange as their secondary insurance... Presumably secondary at least, its stating they'll have both.
.
Not sure if the article changed in the meantime or you missed the details..
'Just Harm' is a Catholic doctrine that you're missing on the earlier pages bLatch. Usually in regards to war but expandable toother types of harm, its an important one for doctors for it to exist since without 'just harm' surgery wouldn't exist. Nor would most medicines since they have known interactions and toxicities.
In a case where it wouldn't prevent further harm, you're absolutely right - when it comes to one to prevent further harm it gets murky.
I am being honest to my depth of knowledge on it, not aware of pre Contract with America roots on it, but I'll gladly delve further with your link when I'm off mobile.
Was meant more tongue in cheek at the absurdity of the analogy anyhow. Like saying what would Obama's Hiroshima be? Or Obama's
9/11 or whatever.
If 100m lose their coverage and 700m gain coverage I'd consider it a shame but progress myself.
And the CBO estimate was somewhere around that, wasn't it? And I will repeat it again for you, Medicaid quality as a state (not Federally) run program varies wildly per state - the states that are trying to undermine it, it ain't so hot but that's because of it being undermined. When the states administer it as expected (which often costs less, the most expensive states for it are the lousy ones - MD pays half what FL does per recipient yet customer satisfaction is 86% in MD but 35% in FL. Insuranceaverage overall is in the 60% range BTW) people are generally at least at the average for customer satisfaction, with the states that half do it intentionally bringing down the average to the 38% we end up seeing.
And yes, apparently in MD Medicaid is higher satisfaction than Medicare slightly even, I'm presuming that extra 4% comes from Medicaid here including children's dental these days though.
got a nice relevant article that really ties into your Forbes data amusingly...
Convenient how many of the 40%+ rate hike states are red after reading that article, no? States known to heavily negotiate (all blue) have a good number with rate reductions this year.
Unless your employer is very odd most REDUCED their contributions this year. Including your own IIRC (on mobile so I'm not dredging the thread for the comments I remember until later).
Reading their methodology they're not discussing EXISTING plan hikes as the only thing as my figure (which was from the CBO when I read it link to follow when I get home) its largely as you can tell by the 'fake insurance' states seeing the biggest hikes fueled by ineligible policies getting changed.
I'm talking about hikes to plans that continue to exist ONLY with my figure. You're taking something quoting more (although not that much really) which includes other things in the calculation.
Hate to double post but realized something ECP. I was still walking oddly then adapting to the degeneration in my legs, may have looked like I had something hidden in such places, never thought of that during with the invasion.
20% jump in premium AFTER employer contribution is not the same thing as a 20% hike.
If my employer is paying 80% and opts to start paying 40% instead while the actualized policy stays at the same rate the policy cost did not go up 40% - it went up 0%.
You've already stated your employer cut their contribution amount. You already know what I'm saying just still try to keep misrepresenting it. There's public numbers showing the average to be 13% as a whole for the past 3 years together (which most nonPEC people are seeing this year) vs 6% a year projected.
A few outliers are really getting close to 20% but even those outliers are barely paying over what they would've been projected to pay if the ACA never happened - 18% was the projected figure for them over the past 3 years!
Rate hikes were projected to be higher preACA anyhow. And both cases I've experienced are in the public list of things DHS is allowed to do for airline screening.
Your roommate was probably one of the types that flagged the Feebs that took over after I stated I had no ID. I also had a 45 min or so interrogation as well including my mothers birthday, birth address, and other nonsense.
Actually I take that back... TSA security start at $45k - why would they be renting a tiny shared apartment when they're clearing $4k a month?
And the jobs require a background check which recent homelessness would red flag anyone at your address. He might say that's his career, but its not - so many metrics he'd fail on.
I've personally lost $400 of luggage because of a bottle of soap. (Plus gifts for the family) I've also had a full cavity search because of forgetting my ID in my luggage and it already being on board.
I do find comparing a 17% or less rate hike (with some saving) as wore than cavity searches over a packed ID and 'stolen' luggage i never got back on top of already paying $1.2k for the 'service' quite hilarious, yes.
Most people probably have better TSA experiences but the outliers are absolutely horrendous. Versus the ACA outliers that are down a few dollars.
Debate gets pretty pointless when it devolves to "Nuh-uh, SAME THING AGAIN" and the stonewalling rule does make sense.
Moderation hiccups overall I'd agree with however.
.
Not sure if the article changed in the meantime or you missed the details..
In a case where it wouldn't prevent further harm, you're absolutely right - when it comes to one to prevent further harm it gets murky.
Was meant more tongue in cheek at the absurdity of the analogy anyhow. Like saying what would Obama's Hiroshima be? Or Obama's
9/11 or whatever.
And the CBO estimate was somewhere around that, wasn't it? And I will repeat it again for you, Medicaid quality as a state (not Federally) run program varies wildly per state - the states that are trying to undermine it, it ain't so hot but that's because of it being undermined. When the states administer it as expected (which often costs less, the most expensive states for it are the lousy ones - MD pays half what FL does per recipient yet customer satisfaction is 86% in MD but 35% in FL. Insuranceaverage overall is in the 60% range BTW) people are generally at least at the average for customer satisfaction, with the states that half do it intentionally bringing down the average to the 38% we end up seeing.
And yes, apparently in MD Medicaid is higher satisfaction than Medicare slightly even, I'm presuming that extra 4% comes from Medicaid here including children's dental these days though.
got a nice relevant article that really ties into your Forbes data amusingly...
Convenient how many of the 40%+ rate hike states are red after reading that article, no? States known to heavily negotiate (all blue) have a good number with rate reductions this year.
Reading their methodology they're not discussing EXISTING plan hikes as the only thing as my figure (which was from the CBO when I read it link to follow when I get home) its largely as you can tell by the 'fake insurance' states seeing the biggest hikes fueled by ineligible policies getting changed.
I'm talking about hikes to plans that continue to exist ONLY with my figure. You're taking something quoting more (although not that much really) which includes other things in the calculation.
If my employer is paying 80% and opts to start paying 40% instead while the actualized policy stays at the same rate the policy cost did not go up 40% - it went up 0%.
You've already stated your employer cut their contribution amount. You already know what I'm saying just still try to keep misrepresenting it. There's public numbers showing the average to be 13% as a whole for the past 3 years together (which most nonPEC people are seeing this year) vs 6% a year projected.
A few outliers are really getting close to 20% but even those outliers are barely paying over what they would've been projected to pay if the ACA never happened - 18% was the projected figure for them over the past 3 years!
Your roommate was probably one of the types that flagged the Feebs that took over after I stated I had no ID. I also had a 45 min or so interrogation as well including my mothers birthday, birth address, and other nonsense.
Actually I take that back... TSA security start at $45k - why would they be renting a tiny shared apartment when they're clearing $4k a month?
And the jobs require a background check which recent homelessness would red flag anyone at your address. He might say that's his career, but its not - so many metrics he'd fail on.
I do find comparing a 17% or less rate hike (with some saving) as wore than cavity searches over a packed ID and 'stolen' luggage i never got back on top of already paying $1.2k for the 'service' quite hilarious, yes.
Most people probably have better TSA experiences but the outliers are absolutely horrendous. Versus the ACA outliers that are down a few dollars.
Amusing.