PDA

View Full Version : It is the small details that cause the big con to unravel



Too Little Time
09-25-2015, 11:06 AM
Looking at my postings and the replies I understand why many might think I am an incomplete idiot.

In another thread I was having a discussion with TomF and johnw. In the past I thought they were both smart guys. Certainly smarter than I. I could disagree with and not dislike them. But that changed. It was all over a little insignificant detail - the date capitalism began.

I did not know or care about the date. In fact, it was not important in the discussion. But I looked it up. I found out the truth. Just a small error on johnw's part.

There big con was based on health insurance and preexisting conditions. As usual for me I had babbled on about the availability of insurance prior to the ACA and let other babble on on the unavailability of insurance. After all individuals have different experiences. (and my memory might not be the best.) Both TomF and johnw told stories of employers who were unable to get preexisting conditions.

Because of the little error - the beginning of capitalism, on johnw's part, I investigated my belief about insurance and preexisting conditions.

I found out so much. Employers could get group policies. Those were regulated by the federal government under the 1996 HIPAA law. HIPAA had provisions for preexisting conditions. One might have needed to be a bit creative to make a business owner's cost of his insurance deductible, but he could have been part of the group - even with his preexisting condition.

Individual polices were a bit different. States had their own rules about preexisting conditions. Some states had high risk pools for those who could not get policies. The federal government even had Medicaid if health care cost was too much of a burden. But insurance was available.

Several times I had complained about both of their confusion between health care and health insurance. They claimed they were not confused. I guess it was all part of the big con.


When you run the big con, you need to stick with the con.

John of Phoenix
09-25-2015, 11:14 AM
Looking at my postings and the replies I understand why many might think I am an incomplete idiot.You've proven your point. Well done.

Canoez
09-25-2015, 11:19 AM
You've proven your point. Well done.

. :d .

Phillip Allen
09-25-2015, 11:42 AM
here comes the group attack! :) (no dissension will be tolerated)

Chip-skiff
09-25-2015, 11:50 AM
Looking at my postings and the replies I understand why many might think I am an incomplete idiot.

Best wishes on finishing your project. :)

ljb5
09-25-2015, 11:51 AM
The OP contains too much gibberish and moaning to tell what's going on.

Prior to the ACA, there was substantial difficulty in getting coverage if you had a pre-existing condition.

Many people who thought they had coverage were surprised to find their coverage canceled just when they needed it, sometimes because of unrelated pre-existing conditions that happened years before.

Many, many more people were at risk of losing their coverage, but remained unaware of this risk only because they were fortunate enough to never need it.

That was the reality of the situation.

It is difficult to imagine what type of small error on johnw might have made about the date of capitalism that could possibly negate this reality.

Indeed, even if johnw had made a very, very large error, it would not negate these facts.

LeeG
09-25-2015, 11:58 AM
Is there a date for pesto?

Norman Bernstein
09-25-2015, 12:34 PM
Prior to the ACA, there was substantial difficulty in getting coverage if you had a pre-existing condition.


You're right, the gibberish is nearly incomprehensible, but I thought I spotted some sort of claim or accusation that the HIPAA Act of 1996 supposedly provided for coverage from pre-existing conditions.

What it actually did, regarding pre-existing conditions, was essentially next to nothing:


Title I requires the coverage of and also limits restrictions that a group health plan can place on benefits for preexisting conditions. Group health plans may refuse to provide benefits relating to preexisting conditions for a period of 12 months after enrollment in the plan or 18 months in the case of late enrollment.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Ac t#cite_note-4)

A 12 month delay, or an 18 month delay, is NOT 'coverage for pre-existing conditions'.


Title I allows individuals to reduce the exclusion period by the amount of time that they had "creditable coverage" prior to enrolling in the plan and after any "significant breaks" in coverage.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Ac t#cite_note-5) "Creditable coverage" is defined quite broadly and includes nearly all group and individual health plans, Medicare, and Medicaid.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Ac t#cite_note-6) A "significant break" in coverage is defined as any 63 day period without any creditable coverage.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Ac t#cite_note-7)

So, if you lost your insurance for more than 63 days, you could forget coverage of pre-existing conditions.

S.V. Airlie
09-25-2015, 01:02 PM
here comes the group attack! :) (no dissension will be tolerated) Can you define your version of what "discussion" means? When someone posts something that is 70% wrong, what is there to discuss, that the poster is an idiot?

David G
09-25-2015, 01:09 PM
Is there a date for pesto?

I'd rather have a date for cannoli & coffee. Or for canoodling & chianti.

OK... I'll be serious for just a moment.

TLT - I'm glad you have your health care costs all take care of. And I'm going to make a serious suggestion.
I'm not teasing you, or poking you, or trying at all to insult you. But let me suggest - based only upon your writings here - that you might want to consider using that buttoned-up health care plan to investigate the state of your cognitive functioning. Ask your medico for a full range of tests. At least you'll know where you stand.

From the outside - it seems at times that you appear intelligent, reasonable, and coherent. At other times, your reasoning seems dramatically less so. Maybe they can offer some strategies for improvement. Drugs. Brain exercises. Physical therapy. Who knows what-all they use these days. Now... maybe you've already done this. If so... you know where you stand, and my advice is redundant. In that case - I'd make one request. Please quit inflicting your diminished capacity upon the rest of us. Maybe have someone who can still recognize careful reasoning, or its lack, proofread your stuff?

Again, no insult intended. I do seriously wonder if there's a medical issue that you might not be aware of yet, and for which early intervention might be helpful. So consider this a snippet of feedback from a disinterested outsider.

TomF
09-25-2015, 01:13 PM
... Both TomF and johnw told stories of employers who were unable to get preexisting conditions.
...
Several times I had complained about both of their confusion between health care and health insurance. They claimed they were not confused. I guess it was all part of the big con.


When you run the big con, you need to stick with the con.TLT, you're mistaken again. I never talked about employers, employees, or pre-existing conditions - I talked about bankruptcy rates. I mentioned how they demonstrated a market failure in America's pre-ACA health insurance system, as well as a separate market failure in America's provision of health care to the poor.

You have complained about my confusion of health care and health insurance. Got a good chuckle at that - half my career's been spent doing single-payer health insurance policy, but I've never once provided health care. I'm really not confused about the difference between the two. ;)

OTOH, you seem quite confused about the factors insurance programs must balance stay solvent, and how in particular single-payer initiatives in all OECD nations are funded. Tax-funded single payer insurance programs spread financial risk very broadly across age groups, time, and risk-categories, to ensure that funding is available to provide equivalent access to care if/when needed. Because not everyone's gonna need a pacemaker, 3 operations to correct club feet, or chemotherapy, eh? So far I've needed none of the above - others are less lucky. Canada's single payer insurance program means that folks who need that care can get it, while paying the same premiums as everyone else in their tax bracket.

TLT, you're confused about what "the big con" is, and who's conducting it.

Nicholas Scheuer
09-25-2015, 01:23 PM
Why on Earth would one waste so much time on a debate point raised in the Bilge? I enjoy reading posts by TomF and Keith, Ian, and Norman (speed reading his), but would never write anything so extensive.

Norman Bernstein
09-25-2015, 01:31 PM
Why on Earth would one waste so much time on a debate point raised in the Bilge? I enjoy reading posts by TomF and Keith, Ian, and Norman (speed reading his)...

Sorry for my tendency to be verbose.... I like to write, even when nobody is interested in reading it :)

L.W. Baxter
09-25-2015, 01:36 PM
What did I just read?

oznabrag
09-25-2015, 01:53 PM
...

I found out so much. Employers could get group policies. Those were regulated by the federal government under the 1996 HIPAA law. HIPAA had provisions for preexisting conditions. One might have needed to be a bit creative to make a business owner's cost of his insurance deductible, but he could have been part of the group - even with his preexisting condition.
...

That's great.

If I go to the Kubota dealer and get him to agree to sell me a 92 HP skid-steer with all the implements I want, the cost would be tax-deductible, but I still couldn't afford it.

John of Phoenix
09-25-2015, 02:22 PM
TLT, you're mistaken again.<gasp!>

johnw
09-25-2015, 03:24 PM
Little, I believe you owe some people an apology. You called me a liar on the thread you refer to because you disagree with me. You've made a series of claims that proved to be untrue, but I have not called you a liar because I believe you are simply mistaken.

I don't know why you insist on saying foul things about people who just don't agree with you, but it is not a good way to get people to treat you with respect.

Vince Brennan
09-25-2015, 04:23 PM
TLT, like so many "debaters", when caught out in a blatant inconsistency will ALWAYS cry that the "other guy" is a liar. Not an ad hominum attack, mind, just a simple infantile proclamation akin to "did not neither".

Alas, another addition to the oubliette. (it's getting crowded in there.)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-25-2015, 09:10 PM
Come on Too little, tell us about how much money you have..... one more time.

BrianY
09-25-2015, 09:22 PM
Hey, enough about health care and insurance. That 's so boring.

I want to know the date capitalism began ! The exact date. Because if we know the exact date that capitalism began, then we can all celebrate Happy Capitalism Day every year! Won't that be fun?! Please tell us, TLT!

Tom Hunter
09-26-2015, 08:40 AM
@BrianY I looked it up, the first use of the word was in a Thackeray novel in 1855, but I think Feb 21, 1848 is the real date, that is the publication date of the communist manifesto. Too Little, the numbers speak for themselves, more people are insured now than ever before, by definition that is more availability.