Im in Texas ..

[dust1n]

So, maybe they should delay this until they get all the "bugs" worked out of the system? Gee at a price tag of somewhere around $360,000,000 to some estimate as much as $600,000,000 just to connect you to an insurance company you would have thunk they could have done a better job. It didn't cost Apple this much to design the iPhone (around $150 million)
Since I know you insist on source:
Developing Obamacare's Health Care Exchanges Has Cost More Than Apple's Original iPhone - Forbes

Wait, wait... wait... The design of the iPhone is suppose to cost (what is design by the way... what about the cost of implementation, production, distribution, marketing, etc.) more money than a system to provide the availability of affordable healthcare for over 300 million people?



Well, for one thing, I can't really suspect the healthcare plan to be squeezed out of lower classes of China while disregarding environmental externalities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've no argument against this.

Good that's all I was saying.

This remains to be seen. So far, no one I know has been able to even sign up for Obamacare.
We might need many months to begin to see the quantitative effects of the changes.

Yes, but let's not confuse two separate issues. Yes the effectiveness of HealthCare.gov remains to be seen.

But what I was talking about does not remain to be seen, it is already apparent. I was talking about the "healthy gamblers" whose cut-rate insurance premiums on the individual market went up, as described in esmith's article. Why did their premiums go up? Because their plans didn't cover "10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage", as required by the ACA. Now their plans do cover those things, and hence the premiums went up in order to pay for the increased coverage. That's why I said "they are not paying more for the same insurance". And that is accurate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good that's all I was saying.

Yes, but let's not confuse two separate issues. Yes the effectiveness of HealthCare.gov remains to be seen.

But what I was talking about does not remain to be seen, it is already apparent. I was talking about the "healthy gamblers" whose cut-rate insurance premiums on the individual market went up, as described in esmith's article. Why did their premiums go up? Because their plans didn't cover "10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage", as required by the ACA. Now their plans do cover those things, and hence the premiums went up in order to pay for the increased coverage. That's why I said "they are not paying more for the same insurance". And that is accurate.

We'll have to agree to agree then.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well what do you think of the idea of looking at every federal program and combine those that are basically the same and put them under one department, eliminate those that are not accomplishing the objective, eliminating departments that are not needed.

I've actually advocated that many many times here at RF.....

For instance the Dept of Education, just what benefit to the county does it accomplish?

If you don't know then keep your fingers off of it. This is the problem I have with the ill-informed. They like to kill a department without understanding what it it does. This reminds me of the many conservatives I've heard over the year wanting to kill the EPA....

Restructure the income tax, by closing loopholes and eliminating certain deductions like home mortgage interest (yes I have a home mortgage). Say even going to a flat tax.

I'm with you on part of this but a flat tax is horrible....

 

[Revoltingest]

Some interesting news....
Consumer Reports:

Consumer Reports, which publishes reviews of consumer products and services, advised its readers to avoid the federal health-care exchange “for at least another month if you can.” “Hopefully that will be long enough for its software vendors to clean up the mess they’ve made,” the magazine said, having tested the site themselves over the course of the past three weeks.
Noting that only 271,000 of the 9.47 million people who tried signing up in the first week managed to create an account, Consumer Reports then provided a few tips to those attempting to slog through the application process. From attempting successive logins because “error messages . . . may not always match reality” to checking one’s inbox frequently because missing an e-mail a user will be timed out of the site and forced to start from square one, none of the suggestions guaranteed success.

 

[esmith]

If you don't know then keep your fingers off of it. This is the problem I have with the ill-informed. They like to kill a department without understanding what it it does. This reminds me of the many conservatives I've heard over the year wanting to kill the EPA.....

So, please explain to me what good the Dept of Education is and the intent of Obama to use the EPA as his means of getting around Congress. You do realize that I did not advocate getting rid of the EPA all I said was that some of their polices are, how should I say, remind of jack booted storm troopers.

 

[esmith]

Another question I have is how is the IRS going to enforce this fine(whoops meant tax)if either you do not file or do not have a refund coming?

 

[Revoltingest]

Another question I have is how is the IRS going to enforce this fine(whoops meant tax)if either you do not file or do not have a refund coming?

I presume that far more people will be required to file. And even if you have no income, you might
be liable for taxes or fines, in which case....either pay up, have your assets seized, or go to jail.

 

[esmith]

I presume that far more people will be required to file. And even if you have no income, you might
be liable for taxes or fines, in which case....either pay up, have your assets seized, or go to jail.

Nope the IRS has no power to come after anyone who does not conform to the ACA law.
From : IRS enforcement of Obamacare fines is limited - KCTV5
However, the IRS is limited in the ways it can collect the fine. The Affordable Care Act stipulates that taxpayers are not subject to criminal prosecution or penalty for refusing to pay. The IRS cannot place a lien on property, either, as it can when collecting back taxes.
The only way the IRS can collect the mandate fine is by taking it out of withholding or deducting it from tax refunds of those who receive one. The IRS has no way to collect the fine from people who do not participate in withholding – however, making it more likely they will receive a return.

 

[esmith]

I presume that far more people will be required to file. And even if you have no income, you might
be liable for taxes or fines, in which case....either pay up, have your assets seized, or go to jail.

Nope the IRS has no power to come after anyone who does not conform to the ACA law.
The following is a fairly good explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ppens-if-you-dont-pay-obamacares-tax-penalty/

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope the IRS has no power to come after anyone who does not conform to the ACA law.
The following is a fairly good explanation.
Readers ask, we answer! What happens if you don’t pay Obamacare’s tax penalty?

This would seem to neuter the IRS in some extreme cases, but for the vast majority of us they would still have great power to collect. Still, the author expressed doubt about many avenues this program could take, eg, fed prioritization of taxpayer payment towards open receivable items could still result in extreme measures taken against Obamacare scofflaws. We will see.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So, please explain to me what good the Dept of Education is

United States Department of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I'll keep them...

and the intent of Obama to use the EPA as his means of getting around Congress.

:sarcastic

You do realize that I did not advocate getting rid of the EPA all I said was that some of their polices are, how should I say, remind of jack booted storm troopers.

You do realize I wasn't saying you in particular...right..?

 

[dust1n]

I was wondering how student loans and grants work with the DoED. I guess just another thing assumed to be privatized. I got a little curious and found this:

"A wide range of management improvements have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and only about 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students."

Federal Role in Education

So, I guess the idea is to cut that 99 percent that cycles right back into local economies and education systems and students so that various state school systems collapse.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I was wondering how student loans and grants work with the DoED. I guess just another thing assumed to be privatized. I got a little curious and found this:

"A wide range of management improvements have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and only about 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students."

Federal Role in Education

So, I guess the idea is to cut that 99 percent that cycles right back into local economies and education systems and students so that various state school systems collapse.

:clap.......

 

[esmith]

I was wondering how student loans and grants work with the DoED. I guess just another thing assumed to be privatized. I got a little curious and found this:

"A wide range of management improvements have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and only about 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students."

Federal Role in Education

So, I guess the idea is to cut that 99 percent that cycles right back into local economies and education systems and students so that various state school systems collapse.

From your link:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2011-2012, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 87.7 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 10.8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

From the above it appears that they do not do anything worthwhile.
So, what does the Dept of Education really do but spend tax payer money in bureaucratic hierarchy. You say student loans. Seems to me that program is the next big bubble to burst. Although this is not caused by the Dept but by students getting in over their head in debt with worthless majors and aggravated by private colleges and universities jacking up their prices with frivolous amenities to attract students with loans that will probably not be paid back except by the tax payer.

So your still going to stick by your premiss that the Dept of Education is worth keeping. I would say if you still do, I have some real prime real estate in Afghanistan for sale