Fuck its silent in here.......

[Chuck to Chuck]

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

So long as your insurance company is for profit, you'll also see this.  I, for one, don't understand why insurance companies have to be for profit enterprises.  Do I really want the people deciding if I get a treatment having to choose between my treatment and their shareholders?  Talk about a death panel.

Why can't insurance companies simply have metrics that decide if a payment is made or not made.  And set prices to fund said payments.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[morpheus]

The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

[R-V]

The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

I bet Mike Fontenot is.

[Brownie]

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

So long as your insurance company is for profit, you'll also see this.  I, for one, don't understand why insurance companies have to be for profit enterprises.  Do I really want the people deciding if I get a treatment having to choose between my treatment and their shareholders?  Talk about a death panel.

Why can't insurance companies simply have metrics that decide if a payment is made or not made.  And set prices to fund said payments.

Chuck, there are no perfect solutions. Only tradeoffs. But why should grocery stores be for profit enterprises? Or banks?

If you allowed true consumer choice in the market, insurance companies would be a lot more responsive to the consumer.

Besides, a number of insurance companies -- even BCBS franchises -- are non-profit.

[morpheus]

Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this?  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

The bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this?  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

The bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

Obama has said he will not sign this.

The veto pen works.

[morpheus]

Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this?  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

The bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

Obama has said he will not sign this.

The veto pen works.

Good for Obama.  Credit where credit's due and all that.

[Yeti]

The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

Really, I hadn't given it too much thought. What I would like to see is an opt-out and the company increases my compensation by the amount of the health insurance they're saving (and that amount can be reduced by the appropriate 6.85% for their portion of payroll taxes). For some reason, I'm thinking I could come out a little better than where I currently sit. From what I heard, I had some friends paying less a month for health insurance than what my company pays.  I know that if someone is paying less than me for insurance, then the insurance is probably shittier than mine. However, even though I'm an obese fucker, I'm pretty "healthy". I don't get sick often and I visit the doctor maybe once every 2 years.

[R-V]

The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

Really, I hadn't given it too much thought. What I would like to see is an opt-out and the company increases my compensation by the amount of the health insurance they're saving (and that amount can be reduced by the appropriate 6.85% for their portion of payroll taxes). For some reason, I'm thinking I could come out a little better than where I currently sit. From what I heard, I had some friends paying less a month for health insurance than what my company pays.  I know that if someone is paying less than me for insurance, then the insurance is probably shittier than mine. However, even though I'm an obese fucker, I'm pretty "healthy". I don't get sick often and I visit the doctor maybe once every 2 years.

I doubt it. Considering how expensive the individual market is right now, I'm guessing the cheaper policies your friends have are piece of shit policies with huge deductibles and low lifetime caps. Meaning, if anything happens to you beyond the common cold you could be in deep shit with medical debt for the rest of your life. The lower premiums aren't worth the risk of being properfucked financially for the rest of your life due to one unforeseen medical problem.

The individual market sucks right now because the consumer has basically no purchasing power. The exchanges should help somewhat (pooling together consumers to increase their leverage), but not nearly as much as completely decoupling insurance from employment would.

[R-V]

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.

[Bort]

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.

Yeah. That's...troubling.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.

Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

[Bort]

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.

Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

Well, I'm just glad to live in a country where we have the chance to continually elect saps who vote against our interests. I'd sure hate to lose that right.

[Quality Start Machine]

Votes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.

Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

Well, I'm just glad to live in a country where we have the chance to continually elect saps who vote against our interests. I'd sure hate to lose that right.

It's your own fault for not living in 4th - N.C.