And now there will be peace in our time.

A nice summary.

I'm not an expert but if inspectors will truly have unlimited (?) access, why not.

20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal - CNN.com

Pardons by President Obama:

Drug Offenders: 11

Thanksgiving Turkeys: 10

What about thanksgiving turkeys that deal drugs?

Counted on both lists, naturally

SI

I'm not really sure what the solution for this is outside of higher fines. The entire theory of this new system is based upon premiums from younger, healthier people helping to offset the cost of pre-existing condition/higher risk groups.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these fines weren't set higher from the start. I'm guessing the idea was that lower fines might cause companies to kick people to exchanges and benefit the system long term (of course, hurting people short term). At this rate, though, there might not be a "long term" with this system to worry about.

Young invincibles spurn O-Care | TheHill

I'd have thought that a fair proportion of those wouldn't be actually paying for their own care as they're still be under their parents policies?

(my daughter is covered under mine despite being 19)

I think up to age 26 can be covered as long as they don't have access to employer coverage. If they have a fulltime job, my impression is that they can't be covered by their parents. Maybe someone else has more info.

I think it's common for kids still in college, but I'm not sure how many working 22-26 year olds are still covered by their parents. Still, the point is that many of the 22-29 year old people were expected to be "free money" in the Obamacare plan and it just doesn't seem like those people are signing up in the numbers expected. Perhaps the fault lies in the projections run by the Obamacare camp at the start when planning on the total cost. Either way, the system needs these people paying premiums to remain solvent long term.

The question really is, how many of these 18-29 year olds fall outside of coverage, since they can stay on parents until 26, or have coverage if employed. Perhaps the issue is they mis-judged the number that would need to buy coverage now, or is there some sudden rate increase hidden in kids being covered by their parents until age 26?

Yeah that was my thought - that and whether the lower age range of that scale was used to heighten the level of percentage who aren't signing up .... as all they're implying is that there is a low take up from that age, not whether the kids have cover (it could be that take up is reasonable for those who don't have cover - its not at all clear and most statistics I've seen reported on such things seem to have a clear agenda, hence my cynicism).

I think any long-term change like this has to be judged several years after its inception - the micro analysis of things at present isn't helping anyone at all and instead just feeding hysteria (which I'm sure is half of the intended cause of such things).

I seriously hope I can continue on my wife's insurance (one of the scant few awesome benefits to her being a teacher). There's already been noises about them dropping spouses from coverage.

My company's rates will increase $100 / month for 2014, with a "few benefit changes" coming, to be discussed next week. Awesome.

To amend. Interestingly, the (already expensive here) rates are the same for employee only. If you want your spouse or kids, you're getting raped.

Wow, the House actually stopped slap-fighting long enough to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation. The "Innovation Act" (HR 3309), keeps patent holders (or trolls) from suing end users of an alleged infringing product, not allow a maze of shell companies to bring suits, and forces the the patent holder to pay the legal costs of the defense if the patent holder loses.

The Senate has signaled that it should face no opposition, and Obama said he will sign it. Here is a link to the text of the bill:

Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) - GovTrack.us

Or you know offer something people actually want rather than what you think they should have.

The problem with that is that if you ask people what they want and provide only that then a lot of the time it'd be the wrong decision.

For instance healthcare isn't MEANT to be an investment opportunity etc. - its meant to be a failsafe to help people who need it and you hope like heck you aren't one of them.

Most young people think they're invincible and while at that age most will be lucky and healthy some will need help and at present those (as with all the uninsured) have to be treated somehow ...

Or to look at things another way - I see healthcare the same way I do car insurance, its a requirement in case shit happens.

I've made that parallel myself, though it just occurred to me - driving is an optional activity. ;)

In much of Florida I'd say thats debatable - I didn't drive before I emigrated* and after 3-4 months cycling around I finally gave in and learnt to drive, this region simply has no public transport and cycling outside of 'homestead' areas is downright dodgy because drivers simply don't expect to see people doing it (that and many of the roads are in an atrocious state).

*When I was younger I did the whole motorbike thing, but gave it up when I had kids because I really didn't want them to follow along that route ... I didn't bother learning to drive because public transport was a far better option than driving when I lived in the London area, even in the 'burbs' I commuted in and out of London by train and walked everywhere in my local town - England is just setup to encourage shanks' pony.

The problem with the healthcare vs auto coverage is that healthcare you will need at some point. For auto coverage you have people like me with high useage rates with no claims which helps the lot.

That's not necessarily true, especially with younger healthier people. Knock on wood, I've not had medical expenses outside of check ups and shots for 20 years.

Healthcare - Home

Conservative and Obamacare critic states why the ACA won't be repealed:

I think this is what will really be the best thing to come from the mess -- somebody will have to think of something better and we will get something better.

But someday you WILL need it. It's almost as certain as death and taxes.

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

I had to laugh at this response. It makes far too much sense.

Out of interest - what restrictions are in place to prevent health care organisations participating state to state at present?

(I ask because I work remotely from my employer and they sporadically leap me through different US corporations at their random whim (i.e. which corporation is paying me) ... none of these corporations are based in the same state as me, but each put me under their health coverage and I use the same policies etc. that the main company provide, ie. its not changed because I'm in Florida)

BUT THEY'LL BE CANCELLATION NOTICES!!!

Seriously, the millions kicked off Medicaid will clearly be worse off and those with preexisting conditions and the 22-26 age group on their parent's plans will probably be worse off.

Not to mention everyone who will only be able to afford a "catastrophe plan" that doesn't really provide jack-shit as the rates will rise back up thanks to the fragmentation of the risk pool.

I'll be more worried about this part if they ever head back down first.

Yeah, because deregulation + interstate commerce worked well for banking and credit card companies.

Oh, wait...

Obama shook hands with Raul Castro at Mandela's funeral.

You know who else shook hands?

Hitler.

So I guess then that McCain wouldn't shake anyone's hand that is in government at any level, if the standard is "don't shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison".

The whole Cuban thing is total BS at this point. The only thing keeping those guys in power is our own policy. Open up travel and relations with that country and that regime will come crumbling down.

To be fair, I doubt McCain is aware of that internet game.

How many Americans are in Cuban prisons right now?

//Honestly curious, I have no idea. I wouldn't expect it to be very many though.

fixed that for you

Eh, his daughter is all over the internet, I think. And McCain was "hip" enough to be on Parks & Rec. And that's not even a CBS show!

Agreed, I didn't know there were any.


touché.

I know - was just joking around.

I'd honestly be curious if there are any.

I see news stories about 1

The only one I can think of was the guy who was arrested a couple of years back as a suspected spy, who made several trips to install computers and internet access on the island.

Here's an interesting visual representation to show how partisan the Senate has become over the past 20 or so years.

Political polarisation: United States of Amoeba | The Economist

I agree. And from a selfish point of view it'll help our businesses in a time when we need it. Silly that we can't ship cars, food, and other American made products to them that they need/want. We trade with far worse regimes.

A) Good to see that there's a bipartisan budget deal from the "Super-Super Committee" and B ) after the beating the R's took after the last shutdown, I'm sure that the R's will whip in favor of this... and by that I mean an actual whip will be involved.

There's a Tom DeLay joke here somewhere

SI

Love that they managed to increase discretionary spending as part of this. The long-term mandatory cuts may be good, but they managed to stick more pork in it anyway...

From The Guardian, but I didn't realize this was the case (emphasis added):


I didn't realize it had been so long since the two parties had actually worked together to pass an actual budget. Unreal.

Once they realized it was just money and our debt is so out of control that nobody gives a shit anymore, it was easy! Everybody likes free money.

No shit. What's another trillion to either party? Bi-partisan support! The system is working again!

It's easier to learn to fiddle than to argue about which brand of fiddle to purchase.

You do realize this deal reduces the deficit, right?

No, it doesn't. Unless you count relatively small cuts in proposed scheduled increases to be a reduction. It's a serious violation of the promises made only recently.

Budget deal a step backward: Opposing view