The Goat Pen

But that's the beauty of Obamacare, You can wait until you are sick to enroll.

true, if you willing to pay the penalty which increases each year

$80k combined in California is not doing well. I'm sure she is hurting paying an extra $200/mo.

I'm breaking my general "IB is making an argument, let it be" rule...but I find it funny that the gaming of the system always occurs when the government gets involved, thereby inferring the counter argument that gaming does not occur in the private sector. Heh.

Generally true AA. Fullerton isn't one of the more high scale parts of California but it does have a median income is $65,000 and the poverty line for 2 people is $15,500. Still, for her, as a businesswoman in her own practice, her health insurance would be deductible. $298 is low no matter how one cuts it.

Owlman wrote:Generally true AA. Fullerton isn't one of the more high scale parts of California but it does have a median income is $65,000 and the poverty line for 2 people is $15,500. Still, for her, as a businesswoman in her own practice, her health insurance would be deductible. $298 is low no matter how one cuts it.

so its ok she getting a rate increase because its business deductible.

No. It's okay that a minimum level of insurance is required. That I have no issue with.

I am sure the attorney in California gets solace from the fact you have no issue with her premium increase.

Maybe they should update that middle paragraph...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/ ... e-overview

No. It's okay that a minimum level of insurance is required. That I have no issue with.

I agree, as long as I get to determine what my minimum is.

Stu has a colonoscopy and none of you made the joke about getting Hedge getting out of the way first or what it felt like for Stu's eyes to see daylight in quite some time?

NOTHING?

You guys need to quit on IB and focus on this stuff!!

Old age has hurt everyone's sass factor, it seems. CMAC is rolling in his grave.

Old age certainly hurt Stu's ass factor!

Bklyn wrote:I'm breaking my general "IB is making an argument, let it be" rule...but I find it funny that the gaming of the system always occurs when the government gets involved, thereby inferring the counter argument that gaming does not occur in the private sector. Heh.

I never said that.

In the private sector, everyone games. Everyone. But that is the private sector and you are only participating in gaming it because that sector (unlike government) demands results from you before you can game it.

I'll give you a perfect example that effects about 500,000 people: the airline industry. Just about the entire half million of employees for all the airlines in this country are gaming the system. The "game" they are playing is they get to FLY FOR FREE. And that is a HUGE part of their lifestyle. It is such a big part, many people work for an airline (earning $10 K to $15 K less per year than they would working a similary job in any other industry) just to game the system for free flight benefits for their family and for their parents.

Thats the game. But in order to play YOU MUST WORK or have a child that WORKS. Pretty much every job in this country has some kind of unique benefit for which people game, but you have to participate to play. (Work for a university, your kids go to school for free. GAME. Work for restaurant, quite often you get to eat all your meals there for free. GAME. Work for an auto dealership, you get to buy a car from the dealer at cost. GAME. Work in a warehouse, all the product that is perfectly good but out of code, can't be sold, and can't be returned to the manufacturer you might be able to take home to your family for free. GAME. etc...)

With government, you don't have to do shit. We are all playing. There are no spectators. So for those who game that system, they are doing do at the expense of another because they lack moral integrity.

If you can't get this, cant make this very simple distinction in system gaming, then, maybe its best that return to shunning me and my posts, eh Bklyn?

apparently me railing on the Tea Party isn't very unique among Libertarians

Most American libertarians do not consider themselves part of the conservative Tea Party movement despite a public perception that the two political groups are linked, according to a national survey released on Tuesday.

Libertarians, who generally support maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of government, differ sharply with the Tea Party and religious conservatives on issues such as abortion and decriminalization of marijuana, according to the survey by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute.

Sixty-one percent of libertarians do not identify themselves as part of the Tea Party, the survey showed. About 7 percent of the adult population is consistently libertarian and that includes 12 percent of those who describe themselves as Republicans.

"There's largely agreement on economic issues - the gap is in how libertarians approach social issues, " said Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI, which conducts an annual "American Values Survey" on political and social issues.

While the survey showed that libertarians tend to favor Republicans, they are a swing group that can turn away from the party if it starts to favor too much government spending or interference with individual liberties, said Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

"Libertarians are not part of the Democratic Party's base, that's for sure, but they're not a reliable part of the Republican Party's vote," said Lindsey, who saw the survey. "Republicans can scare away libertarian voters."

He noted that the libertarian vote swung against Republicans in the 1992 presidential election, which included third party candidate Ross Perot, a businessman who favored a balanced budget and abortion rights. Both Perot and Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush lost to Democrat Bill Clinton.

In the current Virginia governor's race, Robert Sarvis, a libertarian who supports gun rights and same-sex unions, has the support of 11 percent of Republicans and 2 percent of Democrats, taking potential votes from front-running Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, according to a Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters released last week.

The PRRI survey identified libertarians through questions about their views on taxes and other policies, and by self-identification. A total of 13 percent of those surveyed called themselves libertarians - while 7 percent were inferred as consistent libertarians by how they answered certain questions. An additional 15 percent were seen as leaning libertarian.

Jones said it was crucial to understand libertarians since they will be an important part of conservative coalitions going forward. Most are under 50 and slightly more likely to vote in primaries than Republicans overall. More than two-thirds are men and nearly all are non-Hispanic whites.

Libertarians are more opposed to government involvement in economic policies than those affiliated with the Tea Party and Republicans overall, the survey found. For instance, 65 percent of libertarians were opposed to increasing the minimum wage, while 57 percent of Republicans overall supported it, the survey found.

Ninety-six percent of libertarians oppose President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare restructuring compared to 89 percent of Republicans.

But nearly 60 percent of libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, while 58 percent of Republicans and those affiliated with the Tea Party favor such restrictions, according to the survey.

More than 70 percent of libertarians favored legalizing marijuana, while about 60 percent of Republicans and Tea Party members opposed such a move, the survey found.

Among libertarian voters who favor Republicans, U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the favorite potential presidential candidate with 26 percent support, while 18 percent preferred Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Among Tea Party voters, Cruz was the favored candidate at 22 percent, with Paul at 13 percent.

The survey interviewed 2,317 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Jesus. Participating in a benefit provided by your job is not "gaming" anything. It's not gaming to accept a company car. It's not gaming if your job buys you lunch every day or stocks the office fridge with beverages for everyone's use. It's not gaming to fly standby on a commercial airline at no cost (where you may find yourself spending the whole day in the airport trying to land a seat or working out some convoluted connecting flight plan to be able to reach your destination). You have a totally warped dictionary. It would be almost excusable if you were humble.

Shame on me.

Bklyn wrote:Jesus. Participating in a benefit provided by your job is not "gaming" anything. It's not gaming to accept a company car. It's not gaming if your job buys you lunch every day or stocks the office fridge with beverages for everyone's use. It's not gaming to fly standby on a commercial airline at no cost (where you may find yourself spending the whole day in the airport trying to land a seat or working out some convoluted connecting flight plan to be able to reach your destination). You have a totally warped dictionary. It would be almost excusable if you were humble.

Shame on me.

Alright.

Then YOU give ME and example of gaming the private sector. Don't tell me what it isn't. Tell me what it is. Be specific.

Remember, you brought it up.

Gaming in the private sector would be using your corporate card for personal use and passing the expense off as a client activity. Gaming in the private sector is taking the decommissioned laptops from your office and personally selling them on eBay. Gaming in the private sector would be using free parking that accompanies your condo and having your company cover the "$300 expense" in your monthly paycheck.

People game. They look for angles to get over on the institution, more times than not. The way you stop gaming is via rigorous compliance and policy oversight. It's not a public sector monopoly.

Bklyn wrote:Gaming in the private sector would be using your corporate card for personal use and passing the expense off as a client activity.

Okay, but that is stealing from your employer. It's probably criminal behavior, (we'll need to consult an attorney to be sure) but that type of activity doesn't cost ME anything personally. It costs his company. And he or she can only do this if they work there. You can't be a spectator and game in this manner. And no spectators will be financially harmed.

Bklyn wrote:Gaming in the private sector is taking the decommissioned laptops from your office and personally selling them on eBay.

So? I have no problem with this. I assume you have no problem with it either because nothing of value (to the company) has been stolen. To the company, their value is $0. You have taken nothing from anyone. This is just like my comment earlier about warehousemen gaming the system taking out of code product home with them if they can't be returned to the manufacturer. If you want to personally profit by doing this, go for it. You have to put in the effort to list them on eBay and deal with selling them, not your employer. But as I said earlier, you can't be a spectator and game here, you have to work in that office. And no spectators will be financially harmed.

Bklyn wrote:Gaming in the private sector would be using free parking that accompanies your condo and having your company cover the "$300 expense" in your monthly paycheck.

Once again, this a problem for the company. If you can get away with getting reimbursed $300 a month for parking you don't use, you are just taking from the company, not from me. No spectators will be financially harmed.

Bklyn wrote:People game. They look for angles to get over on the institution, more times than not.

Yes, that's right.

Bklyn wrote:The way you stop gaming is via rigorous compliance and policy oversight. It's not a public sector monopoly.

Rigorous compliance and policy oversight just makes the most clever and the most calculating able to game. You wind up excluding from the game, those who are not deep thinkers. The fact that there is a benefit somewhere (anywhere) and the clever and calculating individual can see that, creates an opportunity to game. But in your 3 examples it doesn't cost you or I money out of our pockets (per se) when they Game in the private sector. We are simply spectators of their (sometimes) immoral and perhaps, criminal behavior. They victims are their employers.

Rigorous compliance may still allow people to take advantage in th epublic system. If baby mama lives with baby daddy (but doesn't marry him or put his name on the child's birth certificate) in section-8 apartment paid for by government and collects EBT paid for by government, she is gaming and stealing money from you and I. We both lose, she gains. We are the victims. That can ONLY happen in the public sector as we (we = taxpayers) are ALL players in that game (the only spectators are those who pay no tax.)

OK. Who the fuck let IB know we were here? Fess up you spineless bastard.