• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I find it hilarious that the GOP keeps returning to this same campaign when over 70% of Americans wanted the Buffett rule.

Oh wait, I know why they're doing it again--they want as much money as they can for the election cycle this year.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Blearth said:
Only 24 African-Americans were polled.

Small sample shenanigans!
Click to expand...

So can we simply say that this poll is worthless? Or is that the percentage of African-Americans in Arizona who actually vote?
 
D

DasRaven

Member
Plinko said:
So can we simply say that this poll is worthless? Or is that the percentage of African-Americans in Arizona who actually vote?
Click to expand...

No, I can say from a boots-on-the-ground perspective, the poll is not far off. There are lots of blacks in Romney's constituency here.
Older, religious(Mormon & SBC), and suburban.

That said, we Blacks are only a small % of the population here, so we're not going to be the deciding factor. The "DREAM" kids will be, young Latinos.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Plinko said:
So can we simply say that this poll is worthless? Or is that the percentage of African-Americans in Arizona who actually vote?
Click to expand...
3% is congruous with previous rates for black voters in AZ. So, the poll isn't worthless, but the sub-sample for black voters certainly is worthless. It's prohibitively noisy.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
imagesizer
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
K

Kosmo

Banned
Oblivion said:
Republican Senator: I don't want insurance companies to deny coverage to people with cancer, I'm just saying they should be ALLOWED to, that's all!
Click to expand...

Oh shit, context:

Of particular interest to the candidate is a mandate that requires an employer to pay for certain services they may be morally opposed to — such as birth control — which Mourdock said he opposes.

But is that fair to the consumer, who may want their birth control covered?

Mourdock’s example was an employer who decided to cover everything but cancer.

“Does that employer have the right to do it? I would say yes they do if they want to keep their health care costs down but it also means it’s less likely you’re going to want to work here. If that employer wants to get the best employees coming in the door he’s going to offer the best insurance possible.”

So is there anything to like about Obamacare?

Mourdock concedes that he has heard support from people on the pre-existing condition coverage that the bill allows. Further, he said, health insurance companies are also embracing a provision in the law which allows parents to keep their children on their plans until they reach age 26.

“Those types of reforms are good ones that we need to continue to build on,” he said.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are willing to argue within our current system and not go "BAHHHH MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!" what do you think a small employer should be able to do? Say I employ 10 people in a modest $3M revenue a year business. I want to offer my employees full health insurance, but if one of them gets cancer and hits me with a $600K bill, the business is sunk.

Fortunately, this is all a moot point, since small businesses almost exclusively buy HMO products, not PPO.
 
H

Hobbestetrician

Member
Plinko said:
And given the opportunity absolutely zero insurance companies would give coverage to cancer patients.

Again, keep running on this platform, GOP. That'll go over REAL well with the general public.
Click to expand...

Nine months of cancer treatment/surgeries/tests/hospital stay last year would have cost me over $150,000 so of course insurance companies would not want to cover it. I had shitty emergency insurance and had to pay around $9,000 (deductibles/office visits) so the insurance company still had to pay quite a lot for my treatment.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Kosmo said:
Oh shit, context:
Click to expand...

Actually, that doesn't make it any better.

Assuming you are willing to argue within our current system and not go "BAHHHH MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!" what do you think a small employer should be able to do? Say I employ 10 people in a modest $3M revenue a year business. I want to offer my employees full health insurance, but if one of them gets cancer and hits me with a $600K bill, the business is sunk.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but how exactly does that work AFTER your employee (whom you presumably covered) gets sick?
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Kosmo said:
Assuming you are willing to argue within our current system and not go "BAHHHH MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!" what do you think a small employer should be able to do? Say I employ 10 people in a modest $3M revenue a year business. I want to offer my employees full health insurance, but if one of them gets cancer and hits me with a $600K bill, the business is sunk.

Fortunately, this is all a moot point, since small businesses almost exclusively buy HMO products, not PPO.
Click to expand...
It sounds like a good example of why our current system is terrible and unsustainable.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Kos with a brief comparison between Govs. O'Malley and Cuomo, with an eye on 2016
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...preparing-presidential-bids-O-Malley-vs-Cuomo

I'm not a fan of Cuomo and certainly not Gillibrand. I don't know enough about O'Malley to make any definitive statements, but I like the little I've heard.

But I think Mark Warner is going to be very potent, assuming Hillary doesn't run. Not a big fan of his either, but he seems to have a lot going for him primary wise (successful governor, senator, business man, swing state home, will appeal to Iowa, etc)
 
K

Kosmo

Banned
Oblivion said:
Actually, that doesn't make it any better.



Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but how exactly does that work AFTER your employee (whom you presumably covered) gets sick?
Click to expand...

Some employers self-fund, meaning they pay all the bills for their employees at the rates the insurer they are contracted with hospitals, physicians, etc. For companies over a certain size (200-300 employees), this makes it cheaper in the long run, but bears risk.

Smaller companies generally only buy HMO products, which are fully insured (i.e. they pay a premium to the insurer, who then bears the risk."
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
BotoxAgent said:
I can't believe this country has reached this level of stupid. It's staggering.
Click to expand...

The best/only response is that agreeing to a government contract (which is essentially what the Constitution is) implies agreeing that there are some things that individuals and businesses alone cannot do. Signing onto a government -- any government -- is agreeing that socialism is at least minimally required.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Kosmo said:
Oh shit, context:



Assuming you are willing to argue within our current system and not go "BAHHHH MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!" what do you think a small employer should be able to do? Say I employ 10 people in a modest $3M revenue a year business. I want to offer my employees full health insurance, but if one of them gets cancer and hits me with a $600K bill, the business is sunk.

Fortunately, this is all a moot point, since small businesses almost exclusively buy HMO products, not PPO.
Click to expand...

His point that you bolded was actually about how an employer not offering full health coverage acts as a disincentive for people to seek employment there under the idea that people not wanting to work for you will encourage you to offer said coverage. I still hold that health coverage as a factor in choosing your employer (hah) or choosing to leave them is a terrible idea in general, and in this case its monumentally stupid because what kind of employee is going to go "hm, these guys don't cover cancer on their benefits, I'll pick from one of the other half dozen offers I have because I think its very likely I'll get cancer"?
 
M

Manmademan

Member
The_Technomancer said:
His point that you bolded was actually about how an employer not offering full health coverage acts as a disincentive for people to seek employment there under the idea that people not wanting to work for you will encourage you to offer said coverage. I still hold that health coverage as a factor in choosing your employer (hah) or choosing to leave them is a terrible idea in general, and in this case its monumentally stupid because what kind of employee is going to go "hm, these guys don't cover cancer on their benefits, I'll pick from one of the other half dozen offers I have because I think its very likely I'll get cancer"?
Click to expand...

it's usually not that specific.

I recently left a job that gave full health and dental at $75 a month (for a single, unmarried man). If I wanted to add my daughter it would have been $130 or so.

when interviewing for new positions, I found that benefit costs could have gone as high as $400 a month out of pocket for an individual- for worse coverage. Some companies offered health but no dental benefits. some were straight Healthcare savings accounts with hefty out of pocket costs before the insurance company pays anything at all.

Healthcare benefits isn't just minutiae on what's covered and what isn't, it's a very tangible issue that's as important as salary.
 
D

Draft

Member
Kosmo said:
Some employers self-fund, meaning they pay all the bills for their employees at the rates the insurer they are contracted with hospitals, physicians, etc. For companies over a certain size (200-300 employees), this makes it cheaper in the long run, but bears risk.

Smaller companies generally only buy HMO products, which are fully insured (i.e. they pay a premium to the insurer, who then bears the risk."
Click to expand...
Almost any self funded plan would have reinsurance on large claims. Very few self funded policies would pay a $600k bill.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Manmademan said:
it's usually not that specific.

I recently left a job that gave full health and dental at $75 a month (for a single, unmarried man). If I wanted to add my daughter it would have been $130 or so.

when interviewing for new positions, I found that benefit costs could have gone as high as $400 a month out of pocket for an individual- for worse coverage. Some companies offered health but no dental benefits. some were straight Healthcare savings accounts with hefty out of pocket costs before the insurance company pays anything at all.

Healthcare benefits isn't just minutiae on what's covered and what isn't, it's a very tangible issue that's as important as salary.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the example was about a hypothetical employer who doesn't cover specific things such as cancer or birth control. Not very realistic but I was arguing within the parameters I was given.

And I don't think that health-care benefits being as or near as important as salary is a good thing.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Conservative humour is never ever funny. In fact it's lack of funny makes me feel awkward on behalf of the "joke"-maker.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
The_Technomancer said:
Sure, but the example was about a hypothetical employer who doesn't cover specific things such as cancer or birth control. Not very realistic but I was arguing within the parameters I was given.

And I don't think that health-care benefits being as or near as important as salary is a good thing.
Click to expand...

me neither. It SHOULD be an afterthought.

But bottom line is that not having coverage (especially if you have kids) isn't an option, and most employers don't have a buffet of health care options to pick and choose from- its simply "this is what we have." An otherwise great job that offers terrible benefits may simply not be an option, depending on what one's situation is.
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Manmademan said:
But bottom line is that not having coverage (especially if you have kids) isn't an option, and most employers don't have a buffet of health care options to pick and choose from- its simply "this is what we have." An otherwise great job that offers terrible benefits may simply not be an option, depending on what one's situation is.
Click to expand...
It's just a terrible system all around. Bad for employers, bad for employees, bad for the country. How anyone can advocate for it is mind-boggling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
7K
Dr.Morris79 replied
The Last of Us: Part II Remastered [Review Thread]
2 3 4
171
11K
Paulxo87 replied
Ancient Roman figures brought to life via AI
Science 2 3
100
7K
Dirk Benedict replied
The Thaumaturge | Review Thread
Community Analysis Review
15
2K
xrnzaaas replied
Top Bottom