A Complete Waste of Space

Happy Birthday

Get Lucky...don't get caught...Enjoy yer day.

Oh, and what IBM is doing, most other large corporations already did over the past 10 years. DuPont did so in 2012. And it really has nothing to do with the ACA, as we are talking retirees, and the insurance is merely supplemental to Medicare, not under the ACA provenance, really. But, like all coverage, the cost has been skyrocketing for over 20 years or more, and companies have to draw a cost line someplace.

Seems to me....the boat market is gonna be "booming"...

seems Kaiser's study refutes your guesswork, so far, Pud. "Every state reporting thus far has average rates BELOW prior expectations". They do note that rates will go up a bit for young healthy persons(who previously didn't participate as frequently anyway) and for policies with high out of pocket costs and rock-bottom premiums, but for real, practical purposes, the rates are looking good, and that is WITHOUT calculating the tax rebates to every family making under $120K.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... z2eLbadKcZ

what you might see already from this, and in the weeks to come, is the disparity in public benefit between states who cooperate fully with the law, and work with it, and those that have dug in their heels and fought it for ideological reasons. And, if that gap remains glaringly obvious, it WILL be a campaign issue in the next election cycle, especially at the Gubanatorial level.

Ok...I don't agree with that. Here's why:

Look at Florida...over the last ten or so years....they did something very similar with their "property" insurance to "make it more affordable". Every major insurer...left the state. Florida, caught with their pants down, then decided to let the "state" insure folks at a reduced rate. They, "collectively", pun intended, lost their ass the following year. Claims made, far exceeded the premiums paid in. The end result? Folks abandoned their mortgages/property and left.

Yeah, I know...what yer gonna say? That ain't health insurance. Here's a kicker for ya, bottom line, all insurance is based upon assessed risk, premium to cover that risk, claims that are made/paid and profit.
It don't matter if it's yer house, car or your ass.

Why should the "diminishing" majority of this country pay more for less. Hell our/my tax dollars don't cover our countries expenses. Yet, you say I/We should pay more for others, who don't pay at all.
The old, tired...argument of: "Feed yer neighbor first and what's leftover, if any....feed yer family".
That don't work...never has, historically and never will.

The "fact" that you believe? You can mandate/pass a law to the contrary? Just "baffles" common sense. In another thread, you mentioned, "stepping back". Seems appropriate here. "When ya walk into a store...you see something you like...the dilemma is that you don't have enough cash or credit to BUY it? It does not make it ok to STEAL it...with the excuse of...."It wasn't for me....it was for some one else".

Pudfark wrote:Ok...I don't agree with that. Here's why:

Look at Florida...over the last ten or so years....they did something very similar with their "property" insurance to "make it more affordable". Every major insurer...left the state. Florida, caught with their pants down, then decided to let the "state" insure folks at a reduced rate. They, "collectively", pun intended, lost their ass the following year. Claims made, far exceeded the premiums paid in. The end result? Folks abandoned their mortgages/property and left.

Yeah, I know...what yer gonna say? That ain't health insurance. Here's a kicker for ya, bottom line, all insurance is based upon assessed risk, premium to cover that risk, claims that are made/paid and profit.
It don't matter if it's yer house, car or your ass.

Why should the "diminishing" majority of this country pay more for less. Hell our/my tax dollars don't cover our countries expenses. Yet, you say I/We should pay more for others, who don't pay at all.
The old, tired...argument of: "Feed yer neighbor first and what's leftover, if any....feed yer family".
That don't work...never has, historically and never will.

The "fact" that you believe? You can mandate/pass a law to the contrary? Just "baffles" common sense. In another thread, you mentioned, "stepping back". Seems appropriate here. "When ya walk into a store...you see something you like...the dilemma is that you don't have enough cash or credit to BUY it? It does not make it ok to STEAL it...with the excuse of...."It wasn't for me....it was for some one else".

the problem Pud, with your argument is this: you already WERE paying for a ton of other people with both your premiums and your taxes, and if thie ACA works even partially, that total will actually be less over the next few years. You see, indigent or just plain uninsured folks now show up at a hospital when the really expensive shit hits(or sometimes just to use the Emergency Room as a primary care center), and the hospital, by law, has to pay for the cost of care. That cost gets passed along, in the form of elevated billing and higher premiums for those of us who do purchase comprehensive insurance. That is far different than the dynamic with property insurance, in your example.