I'm pretty sure they are not lying

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by reckless

I am not jealous that NJ Stinks is a retired ex-government employee who has fed off and drained off the taxpayer his entire career.

In that regard, while I am no-where jealous at all, I do admit to being pissed off because all I ever hear from these lifelong free-loaders such as government employees is how little taxes I pay, and how mean spirited I am when all I want is that the government stop wasting taxpayers money. We're told to have 'skin in the game', told to us by the biggest skinflint of all times, dopey Joe Biden.

And now you tell me I am jealous and naive because NJ Stinks pays a fraction of his health insurance costs while taxpayers pay 70% of those costs for him! Somehow that's justified because Google, Exxon or Apple executives make millions in salary.

Since you're probably a retired government moocher as well, Mosty, I expect neither sympathy nor understanding from you, much less common sense.

Agree or not, NJ Stinks, yourself, and others that have safe and secure cadillac health care insurance policies and ever increasing and equally safe monthly pension checks each guaranteed by a feckless and selfish like-minded political class... it is you who are the real naive people in this discussion.

Agree or not, again, I bet your big heart wouldn't be so generous if you had to foot the entire cost of your own insurance coverage and not only a piddling 30% or less. Same with funding your own retirement through a 401(k) or IRA -- at full-cost after taxes out of pocket contributions, made solely by you, you, you! Just like the rest of us must do for ourselves and family.

It is you and your fellow government worker class that would have the agita bubbling and rumbling in your fat bellies if you didn't have the secure government guaranteed retirement pensions -- which taxpayers mostly paid for -- those same generous pensions that most taxpaying citizens don't have at all.

Thats a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Are retired military, police and firefighters government moochers too?

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Yeah, but the private sector guys get all the hot accounting groupies.

Funny you should mention that. In the early 90's, I had a residency case involving a guy who happens to be a fairly well-known horse owner/breeder. I never met him, but he was represented by Ernst & Young, and the tax accountants on his case were two really hot young numbers who took me out to lunch at some midtown deli (we were allowed to accept gratuities like this up to $25). Oddly enough, the taxpayer got a "no change."

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Funny you should mention that. In the early 90's, I had a residency case involving a guy who happens to be a fairly well-known horse owner/breeder. I never met him, but he was represented by Ernst & Young, and the tax accountants on his case were two really hot young numbers who took me out to lunch at some midtown deli (we were allowed to accept gratuities like this up to $25). Oddly enough, the taxpayer got a "no change."

Did you get a "charge" out if it?

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Did you get a "charge" out if it?

See the post above about lead in the pencil! That was one audit I didn't mind traveling into the city for (my office was on Long Island).

[johnhannibalsmith]

Glad to chip in on NJStinks' insurance. He's a damn good guy and I suspect a hard worker that earned every penny he made and deserved more. Beyond that, he's actually committed to his profession and didn't just "clock in" like some kind of government stereotype. I know firsthand about his passion, knowledge, and selflessness - an actual public servant in the best sense of the word. I hate the IRS as much as anyone, but we'd be damn lucky if the whole crew was NJStinks clones. I don't mind the criticisms of government or even stereotypes (lord knows I don't), but it's a little hard to read NJStinks called out by name as the example and face of all that is wrong with government employees.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I worked for NY State for 25 years, during which time I earned maybe 2/3 of what I could have earned at a private tax accounting firm. As far as "sucking" taxpayers' money, I did it in spades by being tasked with auditing tax cheats and bringing in probably $15 million in income tax revenue to the state of NY.

My small pension and "Buick" healthcare plan (I'm told it doesn't rate "Cadillac" status) was earned, and my conscience is clear.

I'm sure the 15 million went to a good cause


Prepared Remarks of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara
Public Corruption in New York: More than a Prosecutor’s Problem
Citizens Crime Commission

April 22, 2013

Why am I here this morning and why am I talking about this? Because public corruption in New York, from all the available evidence, appears pervasive and because it is more than a prosecutor’s problem. Recent and not-so-recent events paint a fairly dismal portrait of the state of government in the State of New York. It is a portrait of a show-me-the-money culture, as I have said before. It increasingly seems that the best way to find Albany on a map is to look for the intersection of greed and ambition. So is corruption in New York rampant and is it worse than elsewhere? All the available evidence says that the answer, sadly, is yes.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by clocker

Originally Posted by mostpost
The question should be, "What were the problems?"
1. Thirty million or more people were uninsured.
The CBO says more than that will be uninsured after full implementation.

2. People could be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.
There were high risk pools and other government programs to cover those people.

3. People could be dropped when they got sick.
People could be dropped for exceeding the benefits they opted for and paid for. It's called personal responsibility.

4. There was no limit on out of pocket expenses, either annual or lifetime.
People got the benefits they opted for and paid for. It's called personal responsibility.

5. Women paid twice as much as men in many cases.
And they generally got twice as much in benefits.

6. The elderly paid many times what the young paid.
And they received many times the benefits.


I'm sure I will think of more as time goes by, but that is a start.


Just check the DNC talking points, same place you got these.

1. My bad. 55 million uninsured pre ACA. 31 million in ten years. Drop of 24 million.
2. People could be dropped for preexisting conditions and would have to join High Risk, very high cost pools.
3. No! People could be dropped when they got sick, regardless of what they paid. My insurance policy tells me they will pay 80% of certain thinks and a percentage of other thinks. They ought to have to pay that as long as I pay my premiums. I fulfill my personal responsibility by paying the premiums.
4. See 3.
5. Over the course of a lifetime, women incur one third more expenses than men. But that is irrelevant. Women are people just as much as men and the idea of insurance is that people share the cost.
6. Perhaps they do, but they have also been paying for their policies for much longer than those young people. Unless, of course, they are conservatives in which case they will pay nothing for years or decades, then hop on the bandwagon and complain about how high their premiums are.

[NJ Stinks]

I appreciate the kind words, John.

[newtothegame]

Here's my problem with liberal minded ex government workers.....
(and before I do, I agree with JHS...NJ is an alright guy in my book).

Both NJ and Ocala are ex government workers.....one fed level and one state level. Both CLAIM to have been able to make more in the private sector versus the public sectors they worked in. I agree that maybe the private sector paid more but I call BS on THEIR claims that THEY were able to and here's why.....

If they were able to and DECIDED not to, then they would say it wasn't about the money for themselves. If it wasn't about the money and money wasn't a driving cause, why are they so concerned with how much money someone else makes? You know the whole filthy rick bastards haven't paid their fair share theory??? I don't see how on one hand they can say money isn't important and on the other hand be envious of someone who made more......it doesn't make sense.....

NJ...Ocala....Care to elaborate????

[pandy]

I don't have any problem with anyone who did well working for the government, or any union. Good for them if they got a good deal. The problem with the system is that the pensions got out of hand and tax payers can't pay retired workers pensions. Some of these pensions are as high as $70,000 a year.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Women are people just as much as men and the idea of insurance is that people share the cost.

No, the idea of insurance is a hedge against risk. It's a business arrangement, not a charity. I don't buy insurance to help other people or in the expectation that other people will help me. I buy insurance to hedge against a large financial problem if I get sick. When you hedge against risk, the hedge has to reflect the risk. And the idea that a person should be able to hedge against a risk after the fact is mind boggling.

I find it incredible that people think that a health insurance company has some moral obligation different than any other kind of insurance company. Why not apply the same thought process to life insurance? If health is a moral issue, then certainly life must be even more so.

How can life insurance companies get away with charging different people different rates? How can they value one life more than another? That is certainly more immoral than charging women more for health insurance. We need to pass a law that everyone has to buy life insurance, and that everyone pays the same rate and gets the same coverage. That's only fair. And mandatory life insurance is necessary to prevent widows and orphans from becoming a burden on society. And life insurance needs to cover preexisting conditions too. Just because Aunt Tessie was too forgetful or too cheap to buy life insurance for Uncle Fred before he died is no reason she should suffer. I think that making life insurance coverage available for up to 30 days after the demise of the late unfortunate is reasonable.

The purpose of an insurance company is not to help people who are too needy or too stupid to help themselves. If society deems that a worthy goal, then it should be done by society, through charity or the government. And the small the unit of government, the better. Once again, the federal government has demonstrated its total incompetence in managing problems that are best left to others.

[pandy]

There are a lot of parts of this that are unfair. There is a marriage penalty, for instance. I saw a couple on TV last week that are going divorced so they can save $3,000 a year on their health insurance.

But our entire tax code is absurd. One of our President's biggest fund raisers is G.E. He has said that more companies should be like G.E., a company that hardly pays any income tax and is a huge outsourcing company.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Clocker

No, the idea of insurance is a hedge against risk. It's a business arrangement, not a charity. I don't buy insurance to help other people or in the expectation that other people will help me. I buy insurance to hedge against a large financial problem if I get sick. When you hedge against risk, the hedge has to reflect the risk. And the idea that a person should be able to hedge against a risk after the fact is mind boggling.

I find it incredible that people think that a health insurance company has some moral obligation different than any other kind of insurance company. Why not apply the same thought process to life insurance? If health is a moral issue, then certainly life must be even more so.

How can life insurance companies get away with charging different people different rates? How can they value one life more than another? That is certainly more immoral than charging women more for health insurance. We need to pass a law that everyone has to buy life insurance, and that everyone pays the same rate and gets the same coverage. That's only fair. And mandatory life insurance is necessary to prevent widows and orphans from becoming a burden on society. And life insurance needs to cover preexisting conditions too. Just because Aunt Tessie was too forgetful or too cheap to buy life insurance for Uncle Fred before he died is no reason she should suffer. I think that making life insurance coverage available for up to 30 days after the demise of the late unfortunate is reasonable.

The purpose of an insurance company is not to help people who are too needy or too stupid to help themselves. If society deems that a worthy goal, then it should be done by society, through charity or the government. And the small the unit of government, the better. Once again, the federal government has demonstrated its total incompetence in managing problems that are best left to others.

I find this post to be well written and it addresses what I believe to be the heart of the matter in this debate about the ACA and the current mess we're in.

What is woven through the response is an important issue: freedom. Or, more correctly stated, the loss of freedom.

I believe I should able to choose whether or not I buy insurance, and, I should be able to choose a plan not be forced into the only option available.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Thats a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Are retired military, police and firefighters government moochers too?

hi Quagmire,

Of course, they are not all moochers.

Just the ones that cry and moan and complain how rotten their life is.

Add in those that whine on how hard it is to survive on a fully taxpayer funded and ever escalating fat pension and a cadillac health care benefit all the while berating people like myself who just want freedom of choice for my own health insurance and not be mandated to purchase crappy insurance from the fascist left wing government we currently are under.

Did that answer your question?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by mostpost

1. My bad. 55 million uninsured pre ACA. 31 million in ten years. Drop of 24 million.

6. Perhaps they do, but they have also been paying for their policies for much longer than those young people. Unless, of course, they are conservatives in which case they will pay nothing for years or decades, then hop on the bandwagon and complain about how high their premiums are.

1) First, I don't agree with the CBO estimate of 55 mm. Most industry experts put the number between 45 mm and 50 mm. Of course the CBO estimate includes illegal immigrants. But none of this is overly important.

Here's the important point: The CBO projects a reduction of approximately 25 mm by 2023. From your post, you seem to have complete confidence in that number. Why? The CBO projects the number will decline by 11 mm in 2014. How much do you want to bet on the 11 mm number? I'll take the under all day long. So if they can't get the number right one year out, why would I have confidence in a projection 10 yrs out?

Also, if you don't realize how wrong CBO projections (especially in the out years) have been over time, I will chronicle their mistakes for you.

6) Conservatives carry insurance at a lower rate than liberals? Is that what you're saying?