Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 13, 2015, 10:34:59 PM
-
Interesting article. Apparently Cornell (ever heard of it?) University is requiring all students to sign onto their health care plan or else pay a $350 per year penalty. This includes students who already have health care coverage elsewhere. Students are (justifiably) protesting, but Cornell's president is telling them to get bent and that the penalty is necessary to the continued sustainability of the Cornell health care plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/13/cornell-student-body-furious-over-school-health-care-opt-out-fees/
-
Jenn Grover's tweet sums it up nicely.
-
I wonder how many of the mommies and daddies or self supporting students that will have to pony up the extra $350 voted for Obama?
-
Wasn't it one of the Obamacare provisions that increased the length of time a student 'had' to be covered by their parent's policies?
I think that if I was going to Cornell I'd be one of the ones picketing his office since I earned my lifetime medical coverage.
Thing is, I think that what gets people is that the $350 fee doesn't seem to have any good justification.
-
Wasn't it one of the Obamacare provisions that increased the length of time a student 'had' to be covered by their parent's policies?
I think that if I was going to Cornell I'd be one of the ones picketing his office since I earned my lifetime medical coverage.
Thing is, I think that what gets people is that the $350 fee doesn't seem to have any good justification.
The $350 fee is a *expletive deleted*ck you fee, just like the Obamacare penalty.
-
The $350 fee is a *expletive deleted*ck you fee, just like the Obamacare penalty.
I'm kinda surprised Obama hasn't sent any bent noses to Cornell to break heads for them stepping on his turf with the "penalty fee".
-
I think its a brilliant. Method of teaching.
-
I'm kinda surprised Obama hasn't sent any bent noses to Cornell to break heads for them stepping on his turf with the "penalty fee".
He should sue them for infringement
-
The $350 fee is a *expletive deleted*ck you fee, just like the Obamacare penalty.
Actually, I view them as distinctly different.
The Obamacare penalty is one I can avoid by having insurance, any insurance that meets certain standards. Matter of fact, unless they rather substantially amend it, I need NEVER worry about said penalty. It can even be justified given that those without insurance are more likely to end up on the government's dime if something happens.
The Cornell penalty I wouldn't be able to avoid by having insurance, only 'their' insurance. It seems to be a penalty for having the gall to have insurance through alternative means - parents, job, private market, no, it's a penalty for not buying the university's insurance, administered by one of the cohorts of the University.
edit: I actually DO pay a 'student health center' fee every semester, but the difference there is that it grants me access to the student health center, which means I still get the benefit. Plus, since it's not phrased as a 'penalty', various scholarships still pay for it.
-
I think its a brilliant. Method of teaching.
Amen.
Actually, I view them as distinctly different.
The Obamacare penalty is one I can avoid by having insurance, any insurance that meets certain standards. Matter of fact, unless they rather substantially amend it, I need NEVER worry about said penalty. It can even be justified given that those without insurance are more likely to end up on the government's dime if something happens.
The Cornell penalty I wouldn't be able to avoid by having insurance, only 'their' insurance. It seems to be a penalty for having the gall to have insurance through alternative means - parents, job, private market, no, it's a penalty for not buying the university's insurance, administered by one of the cohorts of the University.
edit: I actually DO pay a 'student health center' fee every semester, but the difference there is that it grants me access to the student health center, which means I still get the benefit. Plus, since it's not phrased as a 'penalty', various scholarships still pay for it.
Lucky you. Now how about "The Restofus?"
Terry
-
You know 99% of us would never be granted admission to Cornell, so who really cares?
-
Lucky you. Now how about "The Restofus?"
Join the military? Buy healthcare insurance?
Now, as for the cost of said insurance, well, that becomes complicated as we'd have to do a rather substantial slash&burn of current rules & regulations.
-
Join the military at 76 yo?
I'm paying both through private and Medicare now. Useta be just private. Might be an "out" for me somewhere, as I pore through the 1000+ pages of the law which nobody read. Thinking of engaging a professional "straightener-outer" to help, with (of course) another fee.
All insurance of almost any kind does is increase the costs of services because the providers think, "It's covered by insurance, so we can charge whatever we want since the customer won't care."
"Charging what the market will bear" comes into play here, but the "market" is the deep-pocketed insurance companies, not the actual customer.
And the companies recover their costs anyhow in the form of increased premiums for claimants, folks in high-risk areas, "outs" for "Acts of G-d," civil unrest, et-fluffing-cetera.
Policies are written by high-powered lawyers for the low-powered customers.
All insurance is a racket anyhow.
There, I said it, and I ain't takin' it back.
Terry
-
Actually, I view them as distinctly different.
The Obamacare penalty is one I can avoid by having insurance, any insurance that meets certain standards. Matter of fact, unless they rather substantially amend it, I need NEVER worry about said penalty. It can even be justified given that those without insurance are more likely to end up on the government's dime if something happens.
The Cornell penalty I wouldn't be able to avoid by having insurance, only 'their' insurance. It seems to be a penalty for having the gall to have insurance through alternative means - parents, job, private market, no, it's a penalty for not buying the university's insurance, administered by one of the cohorts of the University.
edit: I actually DO pay a 'student health center' fee every semester, but the difference there is that it grants me access to the student health center, which means I still get the benefit. Plus, since it's not phrased as a 'penalty', various scholarships still pay for it.
Yeah unless, you know, are young healthy and don't wish to purchase health insurance.
-
You know 99% of us would never be granted admission to Cornell, so who really cares?
Speak for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBUz4RnoWSM
-
Yeah unless, you know, are young healthy and don't wish to purchase health insurance.
IE you're an idiot. What do you do when you find out that you're one of the X in 100k who develops cancer, a heart condition, has a stroke, lupis, or whatever?
Okay, my 'ideal' policy is some sort of healthcare savings account, which covers day to day medical needs. IE insurance doesn't get involved when you go see the doctor for something simple. Even up to broken limbs, on average.
Insurance is saved for when medical costs really escalate - sucking chest wound, cancer, etc...
IE 'high deductible' plans that are actually insurance, not plans that start paying, sort of, from dollar 1.
-
You know 99% of us would never be granted admission to Cornell, so who really cares?
There don't want our types >:D
-
IE you're an idiot. What do you do when you find out that you're one of the X in 100k who develops cancer, a heart condition, has a stroke, lupis, or whatever?
Okay, my 'ideal' policy is some sort of healthcare savings account, which covers day to day medical needs. IE insurance doesn't get involved when you go see the doctor for something simple. Even up to broken limbs, on average.
Insurance is saved for when medical costs really escalate - sucking chest wound, cancer, etc...
IE 'high deductible' plans that are actually insurance, not plans that start paying, sort of, from dollar 1.
I never said not having health insurance was smart. You're talking to the guy whose wife just had a surgery that all told came in to almost 100k and our final bill for it was 1800 since thats all we had left on our yearly out of pocket max.
But what the *expletive deleted*ck does that have to do with someone choosing to take the calculated risk being fined because some ahole in DC wants to force him to buy a product, simply by virtue of breathing?
-
There don't want our types >:D
More like we don't want to be one of those ivy league type a-holes.
-
But what the *expletive deleted*ck does that have to do with someone choosing to take the calculated risk being fined because some *expletive deleted*hole in DC wants to force him to buy a product, simply by virtue of breathing?
Because, like I said before, said idiot ends up on the government's dime more often than not when the 'calculated risk' doesn't roll the person's way. So effectively the fine is for 'final resort' insurance.
It'd be different if we were willing to let them die from lack of medical care because they didn't have insurance, but the problem with that is that they tend to use an awful lot of resources in the 'dying' part anyways. It's often cheaper to just treat them.
-
Then let it be between them and the hospital. The government has no business forcing people to buy a service from a private company and imposing a fine if they opt not to do so.
-
Then let it be between them and the hospital. The government has no business forcing people to buy a service from a private company and imposing a fine if they opt not to do so.
So people shouldn't be forced to buy car insurance in order to drive? Because effectively most are required to. Plus, they aren't 'forcing' them to. They can pay the fine and move on if they really don't want to.
As for 'between them and the hospital', it doesn't remain there. While dying they often end up using government resources. We've already had several cases of people committing crimes in order to access the prison healthcare system, as lousy as that is.
-
So people shouldn't be forced to buy car insurance in order to drive? Because effectively most are required to. Plus, they aren't 'forcing' them to. They can pay the fine and move on if they really don't want to.
As for 'between them and the hospital', it doesn't remain there. While dying they often end up using government resources. We've already had several cases of people committing crimes in order to access the prison healthcare system, as lousy as that is.
Does not equate. I can opt out of car insurance in multiple ways- not owning a car and taking the bus/riding a bike/walking, self insure or don't insure if in a state that allows such, etc. Also I'm buying car insurance as a condition for using the publicly funded roads. I don't need to insure squat if it's not being used on a public road. There is no opting out of this, I either buy insurance, pay the fine, or stop breathing. The government has no right to do this.
As to remaining there or not, that is where it should remain and having the government further intrude does not help that. If I opt to not purchase health insurance and get cancer, how is my tiny little fine actually making up for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills I am racking up? It doesn't, and it still ends up between me and the hospital.
-
So people shouldn't be forced to buy car insurance in order to drive?
Not a valid argument.
-
Here in Michigan, we have "No Fault" "Read, My Fault" insurance, where if someone nails your legally parked car, your insurance (if you have that coverage) has to pay for the repairs to your car. A big boon to the insurance companies.
-
Here in Michigan, we have "No Fault" "Read, My Fault" insurance, where if someone nails your legally parked car, your insurance (if you have that coverage) has to pay for the repairs to your car. A big boon to the insurance companies.
And, I assume, that makes your insurance go up...
Whoever came up with that was smoking crack.
-
There is no opting out of this, I either buy insurance, pay the fine, or stop breathing. The government has no right to do this.
The supreme court said it could.
As to remaining there or not, that is where it should remain and having the government further intrude does not help that. If I opt to not purchase health insurance and get cancer, how is my tiny little fine actually making up for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills I am racking up? It doesn't, and it still ends up between me and the hospital.
You're still not thinking widely enough. It's not just your fine, it's the fines for the ~10k others who didn't get cancer. You know, the way insurance works.
It's also not supposed to compensate the hospital so much as miscellaneous government costs, like the chances you'll end up on medicare after you've lost your job due to your untreated cancer(because you didn't have the insurance or the credit rating for the hospital to treat you), etc...
As you say, it's insufficient for this purpose, but it's what they could get away with. The real idea with it is to make NOT getting insurance a little more expensive, making getting insurance look like a better deal so more people actually buy it.
-
I don't really care what the supreme court said. That maintains it is legal, despite the reasoning being contrary to the argument, not right.
And having insurance is no guarantee a person with a prolonged illness doesn't end up on medicare. Its a fine for breathing, and its bullshit.
-
I don't really care what the supreme court said. That maintains it is legal, despite the reasoning being contrary to the argument, not right.
The Supreme Court completely and thoroughly screwed the pooch on their judgment of Obamacare. And yet the pooch, I am sure, was left unsatisfied.
And having insurance is no guarantee a person with a prolonged illness doesn't end up on medicare. Its a fine for breathing, and its bullshit.
Breaking it down to its absolutely most basic level, yes it is. And I agree with your scatological analysis.
edited fer speeling
-
The supreme court said it could.
The Supreme Court also ruled very wrong in a little case called "Kelo v. New London", where they said eminent domain also meant that the government could seize your property and give it to another private owner to further economic development.
And years before that, they mangled the commerce clause with Wickard v. Filburn.
Or, US vs. Miller.
And then way back in the old days, how about Dred Scott v. Sanford?
Just because the Supreme Court rules and says something is "Constitutional" does not necessarily make it RIGHT. The SC was intended as a check on the power of the government and to protect the rights of the citizens but over the years they have gone rogue and ruled in favor of expanding government power or blatantly violating constitutional rights.
-
The Supreme Court also ruled very wrong in a little case called "Kelo v. New London", where they said eminent domain also meant that the government could seize your property and give it to another private owner to further economic development.
As I recall, in a particularly-karmically-appropriate fashion, Justice Souter (one of the majority Justices on Kelo) had some of his property seized for development under that finding.
-
As I recall, in a particularly-karmically-appropriate fashion, Justice Souter (one of the majority Justices on Kelo) had some of his property seized for development under that finding.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthaboutcars.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FSimpsons-Nelson-haha.jpg&hash=992e25fda1898d6ccca3e58fcfca7885e9aa83df)
-
The supreme court said it could.
I believe they said it was a tax. Can Cornell tax its students?
-
I believe they said it was a tax. Can Cornell tax its students?
Well, I suppose it can set up it's fee structure however it likes, but I already expressed why I disagree with the Cornell policy. With Obamacare, at least you can normally select from a number of plans with a number of companies(IE competition) to avoid the penalty. With the Cornell policy, they don't care if you already have health coverage, indeed browsing their site in order to 'merely' pay the penalty you have to prove that you have a qualifying healthcare plan. International students are out of luck even if they have the government of the UAE guaranteeing their healthcare. You're automatically signed up for the healthcare plan, at a cost of over a grand.
In short, the $350 seems to be a socialist scheme 'You're lucky enough to have healthcare coverage already? Then you can afford to subsidize the other students!'
-
It's all a socialist scheme
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
And, I assume, that makes your insurance go up...
Whoever came up with that was smoking crack and making money hand over fist
There ya go!
-
Boomhauer, you got that right:
Just because the Supreme Court rules and says something is "Constitutional" does not necessarily make it RIGHT. The SC was intended as a check on the power of the government and to protect the rights of the citizens but over the years they have gone rogue and ruled in favor of expanding government power or blatantly violating constitutional rights.
I had a signature line on some board for a while which said,
It's hard to have a checks-and-balances form of Government when all three branches are in cahoots.
Terry, 230RN
REF:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47278.msg964863#msg964863