Bernie Sanders claims that

[WVUCOOPER]

Did I not read somewhere about people who received subsidies had tax refunds reduced to recoup tthat amount subsidized?. That would be a bummer.

People that lied about their income when signing up for insurance, or were clueless.

 

[mule_eer]

Sure, if you're subsidized you're going to be happy. But for the vast number of people in the middle class you're not going to get that subsidy. We could have also had a simple law to handle pre-existing condition.

That simple law would have a significant impact on insurance companies. Forcing them to keep sick folks and take on new folks who have pre-existing conditions would cause a huge spike in the cost of insurance. The theory behind the ACA is that you force those unhealthy people on the insurance companies, but you also force the healthy folks to buy in as well. It reduces their average cost, and that should be reflected in the rates. The problem right now is that the fines are not close in value to the cost of insurance. That means that a lot of folks are just opting to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That increases the burden on the insurance companies, and they raise rates accordingly. If you close that gap between the fines and the cost of insurance, the price increases should slack off - in theory.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

That simple law would have a significant impact on insurance companies. Forcing them to keep sick folks and take on new folks who have pre-existing conditions would cause a huge spike in the cost of insurance. The theory behind the ACA is that you force those unhealthy people on the insurance companies, but you also force the healthy folks to buy in as well. It reduces their average cost, and that should be reflected in the rates. The problem right now is that the fines are not close in value to the cost of insurance. That means that a lot of folks are just opting to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That increases the burden on the insurance companies, and they raise rates accordingly. If you close that gap between the fines and the cost of insurance, the price increases should slack off - in theory.

But they won't if the insurance companies aren't forced to back off the price increases. They are "for profit" entities afterall, and if they can keep income the same while lowering expenses to increase profits, they will.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

But they won't if the insurance companies aren't forced to back off the price increases. They are "for profit" entities afterall, and if they can keep income the same while lowering expenses to increase profits, they will.

Those "for profit" entities are capped on how much profits they can make. Once they hit that mark, prices should stabilize. The more people are insured, the quicker this will happen. Raise the penalty.

 

[mule_eer]

Those "for profit" entities are capped on how much profits they can make. Once they hit that mark, prices should stabilize. The more people are insured, the quicker this will happen. Raise the penalty.

Absolutely. Until the penalty is comparable to the cost of insurance, you'll have large numbers of hold outs.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Those "for profit" entities are capped on how much profits they can make. Once they hit that mark, prices should stabilize.

Do you think they will? I'm skeptical. I'm guessing that they will simply try to find ways to only insure those that are likely to keep their profits at maximum levels and find a way to refuse others.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Do you think they will? I'm skeptical. I'm guessing that they will simply try to find ways to only insure those that are likely to keep their profits at maximum levels and find a way to refuse others.

I'm sure they will try. I hope Congress tells them to go fly a kite.

 

[Airport]

Since the Federal gov't doesn't have to balance its budget, wasteful spending is almost guaranteed.

I guess 19 trillion in debt is a rounding error.

 

[Airport]

Do you think they will? I'm skeptical. I'm guessing that they will simply try to find ways to only insure those that are likely to keep their profits at maximum levels and find a way to refuse others.

There is only one way to get better costs and service at a lower price, competition for your dollar. Let insurance companies sell across state lines.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

There is only one way to get better costs and service at a lower price, competition for your dollar. Let insurance companies sell across state lines.

I agree with that. Do you know why they can't? I don't. I'm sure it's something that's horribly outdated that just never changed, but I don't know.

 

[robEERt]

It's what you get when, they pass Democrat idiocy in the middle of the night.

 

[Airport]

I agree with that. Do you know why they can't? I don't. I'm sure it's something that's horribly outdated that just never changed, but I don't know.

States would lose the ability to regulate a company that's not headquartered in it's own state. It is probably interstate commerce vs intrastate commerce. I sincerely believe that the aCA was written to fail and that the dems were so arrogant that they would be still be in power, they would rescue the ACA with single payer ins. Which is what I believe most wanted. If they control your health insurance they control you. Have no proof to this but it is looking more and more likely that the ACA will collapse due to the young enrollees not being there to offset the increased cost of health care that includes everything.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I agree with that. Do you know why they can't? I don't. I'm sure it's something that's horribly outdated that just never changed, but I don't know.

"The trouble is that varying or numerous state regulations aren’t the main reason insurance markets tend to be uncompetitive. Selling insurance in a new region or state takes more than just getting a license and including all the locally required benefits. It also involves setting up favorable contracts with doctors and hospitals so that customers will be able to get access to health care. Establishing those networks of health care providers can be hard for new market entrants.

“The barriers to entry are not truly regulatory, they are financial and they are network,” said Sabrina Corlette, the director of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

In 2012, Ms. Corlette and co-authors completed a study of a number of states that passed laws to allow out-of-state insurance sales. Not a single out-of-state insurer had taken them up on the offer. As Ms. Corlette’s paper highlighted, there is no federal impediment to across-state-lines arrangements. The main difficulty is that most states want to regulate local products themselves. The Affordable Care Act actually has a few provisions to encourage more regional and national sales of insurance, but they have not proved popular.

Insurers have been muted in their enthusiasm for G.O.P. across-state-lines plans. Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobbying group for most private insurers, nor the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association have endorsed such a plan when it has come before Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/u...health-insurance-across-state-lines.html?_r=0

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I will cede that point but one could argue that all branches of govt are poorly managed. Govt by nature wastes money because no one is held responsible. You can't fire incompetent people. You don't think the military wastes money? 500 million for a gas station in afghanistan that should have cost $400,000. Where did that money go? Cotracts are granted to aircraft manufactures and how many times do they come in under budget? Never. Bases need to close. I can go on but you know my point and you don't care how much money that our govt wastes. It's not just on welfare or senior citizens.

I can speak to your aircraft comment. They never come in under budget and there is a very good reason for that. The PM Offices responsible for them never stick to the original design. Some of it is because of walking in with a Champagne taste on a beer budget but often it's just simple obsolescence. Most of these programs are highly reliant on techware vs hardware. As we know, techware is almost obsolete from the point of delivery. Then you have the vendor who will stop supporting that rev of software or hardware. Simple example here, I haven't had an update to my iPad 1 in like 3 years. Also, most of these programs are in SDD for 5-10 years or more before you hit the LRIPs. Back to the Techware, it goes obsolete and you want the new hotness and new capability sets. Then factor in most of these programs being in high demand that we field with a knowingly 80% solution because it's something that will impact the warfighter that 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The idea is to get it in action, work out bugs and hardware issue on the fly, mod through ECPs and ESMs while in your different phases of LRIP and then hopefully by FRP, you are somewhat locked down. At least that's the reality of the current defense world.

If we were building simplistic purely mechanical machines, things would go much much faster. Of course I couldn't park a hellfire through a window from a 10 miles standoff hanging out at 20k ft either. I would have to drop a 500 lb dumb bomb and he'll with the collateral damage.

 

[Airport]

I can speak to your aircraft comment. They never come in under budget and there is a very good reason for that. The PM Offices responsible for them never stick to the original design. Some of it is because of walking in with a Champagne taste on a beer budget but often it's just simple obsolescence. Most of these programs are highly reliant on techware vs hardware. As we know, techware is almost obsolete from the point of delivery. Then you have the vendor who will stop supporting that rev of software or hardware. Simple example here, I haven't had an update to my iPad 1 in like 3 years. Also, most of these programs are in SDD for 5-10 years or more before you hit the LRIPs. Back to the Techware, it goes obsolete and you want the new hotness and new capability sets. Then factor in most of these programs being in high demand that we field with a knowingly 80% solution because it's something that will impact the warfighter that 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The idea is to get it in action, work out bugs and hardware issue on the fly, mod through ECPs and ESMs while in your different phases of LRIP and then hopefully by FRP, you are somewhat locked down. At least that's the reality of the current defense world.

If we were building simplistic purely mechanical machines, things would go much much faster. Of course I couldn't park a hellfire through a window from a 10 miles standoff hanging out at 20k ft either. I would have to drop a 500 lb dumb bomb and he'll with the collateral damage.

trust me, if they were going to be fined for being off by more than 5-8%, they would be a lot closer to the real cost in the bid. That's the problem, no accountability anywhere in govt. These companies bid on projects knowing full well that they can't meet them at that cost. For the cost of one F18 you could build and train 5-8 simple fighters and they would overwhelm the F-18 by just numbers.

 

[mneilmont]

People that lied about their income when signing up for insurance, or were clueless.

Probably all clueless. Was that included in the 2700 pages? Some people still live hand to mouth. If they were not clueless, maybe they could break out of that.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

trust me, if they were going to be fined for being off by more than 5-8%, they would be a lot closer to the real cost in the bid. That's the problem, no accountability anywhere in govt. These companies bid on projects knowing full well that they can't meet them at that cost. For the cost of one F18 you could build and train 5-8 simple fighters and they would overwhelm the F-18 by just numbers.

But then you lose the cost savings in Pilot training for 5 v 1, spares, repairs, consumables etc. for 5 v 1. Not to mention, less simple means less capable and more body count. I can play this game with you all day.

We do have penalty clauses in our costing. My point is that it isn't just one big contract. There are 500 little ones into the big one. The cost growth is on all of the little ones, and that isn't on the Defense Contractor, that is on the Gov't PM Office wanting what we are selling.

 

[Airport]

But then you lose the cost savings in Pilot training for 5 v 1, spares, repairs, consumables etc. for 5 v 1. Not to mention, less simple means less capable and more body count. I can play this game with you all day.

We do have penalty clauses in our costing. My point is that it isn't just one big contract. There are 500 little ones into the big one. The cost growth is on all of the little ones, and that isn't on the Defense Contractor, that is on the Gov't PM Office wanting what we are selling.

Just so you know, I'm pro military but I don't think our country can afford to build every piece of equipment that every branch wants. We are sacrificing readyness for special toys. I also think we need to rethink how many bases we maintain in every state. We need to make sure that we are allocating our resources to maintain proper training

 

[mule_eer]

Just so you know, I'm pro military but I don't think our country can afford to build every piece of equipment that every branch wants. We are sacrificing readyness for special toys. I also think we need to rethink how many bases we maintain in every state. We need to make sure that we are allocating our resources to maintain proper training

Part of the problem with the toys is that the production is split among so many states and districts that Congress won't vote against the funding of some of the toys. And in some cases, the military didn't want the toy, but Congress wouldn't defund it. The example that comes to mind is a second engine option for the F35. The military repeatedly asked for that program to be scrapped. It didn't happen until sequestration.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Part of the problem with the toys is that the production is split among so many states and districts that Congress won't vote against the funding of some of the toys. And in some cases, the military didn't want the toy, but Congress wouldn't defund it. The example that comes to mind is a second engine option for the F35. The military repeatedly asked for that program to be scrapped. It didn't happen until sequestration.

There's not a pilot in the world who doesn't want a second engine. That's interesting though.

 

[Airport]

There's not a pilot in the world who doesn't want a second engine. That's interesting though.

You will always have a second engine option for Navy pilots.:airplane:

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You will always have a second engine option for Navy pilots.:airplane:

JSF, even the Navy/Marine Corps version is still a single engine or at least it was when I was tracking that program somewhat closely. Anyone familiar with Carrier Ops knew that **** wasn't going to fly within the community.

 

[Airport]

JSF, even the Navy/Marine Corps version is still a single engine or at least it was when I was tracking that program somewhat closely. Anyone familiar with Carrier Ops knew that **** wasn't going to fly within the community.

JSF?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

JSF?

Joint Strike Fighter (F-35)

 

[mule_eer]

JSF, even the Navy/Marine Corps version is still a single engine or at least it was when I was tracking that program somewhat closely. Anyone familiar with Carrier Ops knew that **** wasn't going to fly within the community.

I don't think the second engine made a 2 engine fighter. I believe it was a different engine to serve as the single engine in some iterations of the aircraft. I could be wrong.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't think the second engine made a 2 engine fighter. I believe it was a different engine to serve as the single engine in some iterations of the aircraft. I could be wrong.

Ok, gotcha. A newer and better engine. Hope so, I talked to some of the Test guys flying it and they were less than enthused with the initial performance in the VTOL phase. That was a while ago though. Greater than 7 years.