Perry Nullifies Obamacare in Texas!

[Ben Kenobi]

FACT: California's financial position is better off than most states.

California's debt to GDP ratio - 18.67 percent (13th highest) 10.56 percent deficit

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_debt_rank

States with higher debt to GDP -


New York - 26.55
Massachusetts - 25.77
Kentucky - 25.165
Rhode Island - 22.86
Pennsylvania - 22.54
South Carolina - 22.46
Alaska - 21.33
Michigan - 20.63
Illinois - 20.03
Washington - 19.96
New Jersey - 19.62
Colorado - 19.20

California is in terrible shape, but not as bad as some of these other dumps like Illinois, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Kerryland.

[Ben Kenobi]

Increasing the insurance pool (the number of people costs are divided between) may very well mean lower costs even with increases demand. It demands on the number of new people in the insurance pool, the amount of increased demand, and the relative health of the new people added. This is the basic facts which all insurance companies use to make a profit.

If insurance is forced to cover everyone while keeping their premiums low, it leads to death spirals when the coverage exceeds the premiums. Obamacare is doomed.

[Dinner]

Bull****. It means that they will be able to keep their current plans without getting dumped by their workplace.

Ben, you are literally a drooling idiot. It's going to mean higher prices for everyone because the whole purpose of the exchange is to do a reverse auction where individual companies must competitively bid for each buyer. At the very least not having reverse auctions will result in a less competitive market, fewer people directly getting the benefits of competition, and thus higher prices. More efficient markets = benefit to everyone, dumb ass.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's going to mean higher prices for everyone

States that reject the exchange and implementation of Obamacare are going to see lower insurance prices, rather than higher.

the whole purpose of the exchange is to do a reverse auction where individual companies must competitively bid for each buyer.

The purpose of the exchange is to force everyone to purchase coverage, and to transfer health care information to the federal government so that they can ensure compliance. It also gives the federal government power to regulate the insurance companies.

If people are forced to buy insurance, then premiums are going to go up. If Obama regulates it to set the price that insurance must cost, then we will see death spirals.

At the very least not having reverse auctions will result in a less competitive market

Leaving the entire market alone will result in lower prices. Forcing people to buy insurance isn't going to lower premiums, rather it will raise them. More people will also be left uninsured after their employers dump their employee coverage. The states that refuse to implement Obamacare are actually going to keep their uninsured rates about the same. Everywhere else it will rise.

More efficient markets

More government regulation = less efficient markets.

[regexcellent]

Increasing the insurance pool (the number of people costs are divided between) may very well mean lower costs even with increases demand. It demands on the number of new people in the insurance pool, the amount of increased demand, and the relative health of the new people added. This is the basic facts which all insurance companies use to make a profit.

This is complete fiction. We're talking about the macroeconomic scale. It's not like buying 500 balloons at Wal-Mart where they're inclined to give you a bulk discount. People who were previously not buying health care would suddenly be buying health care. That drives up prices for health care, and therefore "insurance" premiums.

[-Jrabbit]

It makes just as much sense as saying that 26 percent of Texans are without coverage because they cannot get it.

Just once, Ben, I'd like to see you man up and concede a lost point, rather than trying to deflect, misdirect, or move the goalposts.

[DaShi]

This is complete fiction. We're talking about the macroeconomic scale. It's not like buying 500 balloons at Wal-Mart where they're inclined to give you a bulk discount. People who were previously not buying health care would suddenly be buying health care. That drives up prices for health care, and therefore "insurance" premiums.

...the whole point of risk pooling is to reduce the costs of premiums from the increased demand.

[regexcellent]

Yes. It's like trying to make water run uphill. It's not going to work.

[DaShi]

OK, and what are you basing that belief on?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just once, Ben, I'd like to see you man up and concede a lost point, rather than trying to deflect, misdirect, or move the goalposts.

And my point was?

Asher's argument assumes that everyone without coverage wants coverage but cannot get it, which is far from true. Which is the point I was driving at. Did you not get this?

Your problem is the following.

1, Ben Kenobi is a moron
2, A moron would make this point

Ergo, I will refute the moron point that I believe Ben Kenobi made.

Then.

Ben Kenobi states that Asher argument 1 = Ben Kenobi argument 1. Neither are valid and both are invalid for the same reason. You look like a total dumbass.

Then.

Piss + Moan about how Ben Kenobi MUST have made this argument because, 1, Ben Kenobi is of course a moron. Diss Ben Kenobi for not sticking to the point that he never made that you erroneously believed he made to cover up looking like a total dumbass. Again.

You'd make more progress if you stopped and thought to yourself:

"What is the point that Ben Kenobi is trying to make here"?

[-Jrabbit]

1. I have no problem.
2. My statement had nothing to do with Asher or anyone else in this thread. I wasn't passing judgment on anything other than what was stated -- that your paired statements make no sense together in the context of health insurance.

You said:

25 percent of the population is also under 18. Odd that young and healthy people would choose to do without.

If it's your contention that you only typed that as some sort of bizarre rebuttal of a third party's argument (in this case, Asher's), then I can only advise that it failed.

[Ben Kenobi]

My statement had nothing to do with Asher or anyone else in this thread.

Given that my statement was a response to Asher's, maybe you ought to have considered that I was replying to his point, no?

that your paired statements make no sense together.

Sigh, look at Asher's argument. His argument assumes that everyone who doesn't have coverage in TX wants coverage. If there are a significant proportion of people who do not want to have health care insurance, then his assumption, and argument that this is tragic is wrong.

I did the exact same thing he did. I can understand you having trouble following an argument that you weren't a part of, but please, don't blame me when you fail to follow it. Your lack of comprehension of an argument that didn't even involve you is not my fault. If you want to partake in the conversation, read up first before getting all pissy.

[giblets]

Asher never claimed that 100% of people without insurance want it. His claim that such a high uninsured rate is "incredibly sad" only rests on the contention that a significant number of people want the insurance and can't get it. You are a moron.

[-Jrabbit]

I read the posts. It seems your contention is that you were trying to disprove (what you perceived to be) Asher's flawed logic, and your idea for how to do that is to construct deliberately flawed logic of your own?

OK.

My statement, taken for what it was, stands. If IYHO that indicts Asher, so be it. As I said I wasn't commenting on anything else but the juxtaposition of those two sentences. You seem to think that means I'm calling you moron. Which I neither did nor implied in my original post. In fact, I did not direct any statement to you per se; neither did I address the argument that you assume I was. It was a general statement.

But ultimately, my fault for engaging at all.

[SlowwHand]

When you reach the bottom-line, that's true. I already said that Texas does, and will do, as it wants. Other states need to butt out. It's not your concern.
Follow or not, but don't get in the way.