Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLikelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.(including regulatory capture).[5]
Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.
Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.
Christ. On. Crutches.
That is exactly what it is saying. it didn't miss anything. You just have to belly up to the pretzel logic bar for another helping of The government did it's best Brandy.
Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.
Most of the reg agencies start off 'captured'. They're generally set up by the vested interests in a given industry to further entrench their dominance. Look at ACA for a primer.
$15,745 is the cost of the premium, not the cost to the employer. Today over half the cost of health insurance is now borne by the employee, not the employer. Further, the employer contribution is tax deductible and the $2,000 penalty which increases yearly is not.Employers began offering health insurance benefits to either satisfy union contracts or as a benefit to compete in labor market. Both reasons are valid today just as they have been in the past. For larger employers the penalty for not offering health insurance is $2,000/ full time employee. This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so.
I said "almost certainly mean..."
1) You are a board member working for a large corporation where you are under constant pressure to maintain/raise stock levels for investors...you can save the company $millions of dollars a year if you vote to pay the penalties instead of keeping employees insured. We all know who will win that one.
2) You are an owner of a mid size company that has been struggling like so many small-mid sized company. You can save $1000's a month by dropping company insurance. We all know what the owner will do.
It isn't hard to predict. And it is precisely why this administration put off the employer mandate until after next years election. Or was that just a convenient coincidence?
Will Your Employer Drop Coverage Under Obamacare? | PBS NewsHour
"This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so."
Your link says that this is the case for two years. And also that "47 percent [said] they 'anticipated significant or transformative change.'" And your link includes this: "So what's Buchmueller's prediction? When it comes to large firms, very little will change, he said. For smaller firms, all bets are off. To find out why, the NewsHour spoke with Buchmueller late last week."
$2000 per employee vs. $15,745 (a googled figure)? ... You think that won't force reconsideration of whether to keep offering insurance?
Higher deductible insurance with yearly maximums at or near the deductible is certainly not pretend insurance. It does what insurance should do, pay medical expenses that would be financial disastrous for the family while providing free preventive care and placing the responsibility of paying for routine medicare on the policy holder.
All other things being equal, you're better off financially buying high deductible insurance. If you compare the premiums of a high deductible plan with a low deductible plan with the same benefits, you will probably find that you will save a good bit of money by buying the high deductible plan and saving the difference in premiums to apply toward your deductible.
BTW Don't you mean co-insurance, not copy?
Before when you had this high of deductible, you could get lower premiums. Now they have high premiums and high deductibles at the same time.
Treatments which were covered before now have prohibitive deductibles associated with them so people will opt not to get the healthcare they would have chosen before. What kind of quality of life will people have who can no longer afford pain management therapy thanks to the ACA?
The kicker is that when people choose not to get healthcare because it's so expensive, Obama will probably get credit for lowering healthcare spending in the nation. Another example of spinning a failure as a win. Happens a lot these days.
This was not the case at all.
At least not in New York. Insurance has been trending toward higher Premiums and Deductibles for quite some time. The issue started when HMOs went public in the 90s. Since then we've seen a degradation in services at a higher cost. And with worse outcomes.
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
....
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.
One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.
Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?
If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.
Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?
Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges
Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.
If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?
Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges
Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.
I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.
....
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.
He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.
Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.
....
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.
He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.
Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.
Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.
And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.
Seriously..are we living in the same country?
If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?
Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges
Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.
I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.
President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.
He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.
Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.
Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.
And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.
Seriously..are we living in the same country?
Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?
Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.
And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.
Seriously..are we living in the same country?
Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?
Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.
The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.
....
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.
He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.
Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.
Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.
And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.
Seriously..are we living in the same country?
Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?
Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.
The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.
Obama's team had a different message for each demographic in each swing state. Obamacare wasn't the message. His campaign was a graduate course in negative campaigning. Pure manipulation. No substance. And the media facilitated it by not exposing the lies which were always on the record but which are now being discovered as if they were never knowable before.
A previous post said single payer was at odds with the constitution and I was just wondering what would make single payer different from Medicare in regard to constitutionality.If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges
Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.
I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.
Flopper, you asked and I answered.
The government taking over an entire industry being able to set premiums (taxes) and coverage without any competition should be very troubling to a person who gives it a thought.
But, you have every right to your own opinion.
....
President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.
President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.
He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.
Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.
Exit poll interviews with voters point to three big reasons for Obamas victory:
First, despite a slim majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, 54 percent approve of the way Obama is doing his job, and the electorate was almost exactly split on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
Among the four voters in 10 who said they think economic conditions in the country are getting better, a huge majority, nearly nine out of ten, said they voted for Obama.
Finally, a slight majority of voters voiced an unfavorable view of Romney personally, while a slight majority had a favorable view of Obama. On the attribute of whether the president or his GOP rival was a candidate who cares about people like me Obama had a massive lead over Romney.
