You paying for health insurance will be the victory for all of us.

Good one

To lower costs, we need an economy of scale. Those currently out of the system because of their perceived lack of a need for coverage are those that are most needed to join in order to drop costs. The other argument has already been given. You're already covered, it's that should you need to use that coverage the cost is exponentially higher than if you had been paying a nominal fee the entire time.

kruker wrote:To lower costs, we need an economy of scale. Those currently out of the system because of their perceived lack of a need for coverage are those that are most needed to join in order to drop costs. The other argument has already been given. You're already covered, it's that should you need to use that coverage the cost is exponentially higher than if you had been paying a nominal fee the entire time.

Thank you.

This was the best idea I read about the individual mandate: let people opt out, but they can't opt back in for five years.

gpic, to add on to what kruker said, you're exactly the sort of person we need in the system to make the reform work for the full society: a healthy young guy. You do lose here, at least in the short term: you're subsidizing older workers who otherwise couldn't get coverage without enormous financial pain. The idea I think is that at some point, say in thirty years, the shoe might be on the other foot: the mandatory participation of late-20s Americans in good health might prove of value to you.

Basically the same concept as Social Security, if that helps.

what if you get hit by an SUV?

dajafi wrote:This was the best idea I read about the individual mandate: let people opt out, but they can't opt back in for five years.

gpic, to add on to what kruker said, you're exactly the sort of person we need in the system to make the reform work for the full society: a healthy young guy. You do lose here, at least in the short term: you're subsidizing older workers who otherwise couldn't get coverage without enormous financial pain. The idea I think is that at some point, say in thirty years, the shoe might be on the other foot: the mandatory participation of late-20s Americans in good health might prove of value to you.

Basically the same concept as Social Security, if that helps.

Yes, it does. Thanks. I suppose it does make sense in the long run. I just am not happy about it currently due to finances.

Sweet jesus this thread rules

uncle milt wrote:what if you get hit by an SUV?

LAExile.

Woody wrote:Sweet jesus this thread rules

It's better than the one that involves kalasfan.

Also, did you watch the youtubes I posted? They were gold.

gpicaro wrote:Man you guys must be zombies. I have been to the hospital due to an illness exactly 0 times in my 30 years. I easily would have spent $5000 on auto repairs if there was no insurance in only 13 years.

past performance does not necessarily predict future success

pacino wrote:

gpicaro wrote:Man you guys must be zombies. I have been to the hospital due to an illness exactly 0 times in my 30 years. I easily would have spent $5000 on auto repairs if there was no insurance in only 13 years.

past performance does not necessarily predict future success

I'll be the one to post it:

Figure 1 My classical metaphor: A Turkey is fed for a 1000 days—every days confirms to its statistical department that the human race cares about its welfare "with increased statistical significance". On the 1001st day, the turkey has a surprise.

IT PASSED 60-39

pacino wrote:IT PASSED 60-39

So in the conference committee can't they just put the public option back in the bill then just pass it through both chambers by simple majority vote? I'm sure that it must be more complex than that right?

My understanding is that the Senate could filibuster a conference report, so putting back a public option would likely be fatal.

They'll keep it pretty close to the Senate bill, I'm sure. This is where it helps to have Pelosi in (relatively) strong control of her caucus.

they need to get this filibuster business out of the congress asap.

Warszawa wrote:they need to get this filibuster business out of the congress asap.

not so paradoxically, you practically need a 2/3 party majority - maybe greater - to get rid of the blasted thing

otherwise idiots like lieberman - practically a creation of the oversimplification of filibuster rules - who are first to complain, and complain most bitterly (and hypocritically) about the decline of civility among senators will venally block change to the rule.

dajafi wrote:My understanding is that the Senate could filibuster a conference report, so putting back a public option would likely be fatal.

They'll keep it pretty close to the Senate bill, I'm sure. This is where it helps to have Pelosi in (relatively) strong control of her caucus.

totally agree the bill will, because it must, hew to the Senate bill; in my ideal world, it will if anything liberalize the standards for plan designs that qualify as sufficient coverage, to reduce the spread between the $750 penalty for not buying any coverage and the threshold for minimum qualifying coverage.

Call it the 'gpicaro proviso'.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:My understanding is that the Senate could filibuster a conference report, so putting back a public option would likely be fatal.

They'll keep it pretty close to the Senate bill, I'm sure. This is where it helps to have Pelosi in (relatively) strong control of her caucus.

totally agree the bill will, because it must, hew to the Senate bill; in my ideal world, it will if anything liberalize the standards for plan designs that qualify as sufficient coverage, to reduce the spread between the $750 penalty for not buying any coverage and the threshold for minimum qualifying coverage.

Call it the 'gpicaro proviso'.

They should keep the filibuster, but make it a real filibuster--stop all other senate business while some senator drones on about whatever. As things stand, the minority pays no political price for a filibuster.