October 01, 2013
Washington's Health Insurance Exchange

"Connection refused." That's all the state will tell you if you're trying to buy insurance today, at http://www.wahealthplanfinder.org/. Compare this to yesterday's article claiming, Washington state health exchange ready to launch. They're ... not worried about being overwhelmed by consumer phone calls or Internet traffic ... when the exchange opens. ... "This is a long-awaited step forward for our country and our state," Gov. Jay Inslee said Monday during a news conference in Olympia. "Despite the shenanigans happening in Washington, D.C., today, we're ready to go in the state of Washington tomorrow."

"Connection refused." That seems like an apt metaphor to me, on multiple levels. Of course, like my web client's message not getting through to their servers, the Democrats are not getting the message that most people don't want this, or they want it delayed, or think it is unacceptable for them to shut down government just because most people will blame the Republicans. But it's also an apt metaphor regarding the fact that not enough doctors exist to handle the number of new patients: despite the lies told about how everyone is able to get health care, what is really happening is that you are forced to buy a product (perhaps subsidized by other taxpayers) that will pay for some of your health care, but cannot even guarantee you'll be able to see a doctor at all.

"Connection refused." indeed.

P.S. Why is the exchange a ".org" instead of a ".gov"? Are they trying to hide the fact that government is controlling this faux market?

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at October 01, 2013 09:06 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Although I have no intention of signing up, I did go online and get a estimate a few weeks back. I have catastrophic insurance for my wife and 2 kids. Two years back after a botched appendectomy, my wife and I had bill totaling $17,800 for her 10 day stay and 2 surgeries. I knew the risks and gladly paid my bill, without insurance it was nearly $100k.

Jump forward to last month, we get a rate increase from $470/month to $980/month with similar deductibles. Since I earn over $100k a year, I have to eat the whole thing. The WA State Exchange gave me a quote of $1060/month, what a cool deal. ACA is such a good thing for me, a 100% increase to cover our reproductive coverage when my wife is 47 years old and had her tubes tied.

I think I'll just drop the whole thing, pay the fine and buy insurance when we have something bad happen. They are gaming me, although I've never acted this way in my life, I'm going to game them back.

Posted by: Dik on October 1, 2013 10:32 AM
2. Obamacare is grea

SRVE0232E: Internal Server Error.
Exception Message: [null]

Posted by: Leftover on October 1, 2013 10:51 AM
3. Oh please Pudge, you denigrate a fabulous President incompetent success!

Today's headlines:

CNN Poll: Only 17% Think Obamacare Will Help Them Personally

Videos: ObamaCare rollout performance ... "lower than projected"
"Lower than projected" was, of course, the Orwellian description from HHS of skyrocketing premiums last week, approved for today's rollout of ObamaCare. It's also a good way to describe today's rollout of ObamaCare itself,

ObamaCare's Technology Mess
President Obama is bracing Americans for inevitable problems as the Affordable Care Act rolls out this week, but what he calls "glitches" are hardly routine. Information technology is ObamaCare's Achilles' heel. The faulty IT will expose Americans to lost data, attempts to enroll online that fail and the risk of fraud.
... As for medical care, the current ObamaCare software doesn't even try to take a serious stab at letting consumers match the health plans on the exchanges with their particular medical needs, or with their providers, at the point of enrollment. In some cases--but not necessarily all--they can click through to the plans to ferret out the information they need.
... On Friday, HHS finally awarded a $380 million, four-year contract to manage appeals from consumers fighting for benefits that the insurance plans have denied. If it was hard to appeal medical claims through your current insurance plan, wait until you have to call a remote federal contractor.
The technology and privacy problems presented by ObamaCare aren't likely to be mere rough patches that can be easily smoothed over. The provision of health care is an inherently local endeavor, and it increasingly appears that so is applying for health insurance. ObamaCare is an attempt to federalize the entire system, but the IT backbone appears unable to support this political ambition.

Crashed: Obamacare Exchange Sites Experience Nationwide Outages
"Looks like no one in Oklahoma is going to be getting obamacare today!"

Day one: ObamaCare website plagued with glitches

Obamacare Exchanges Crash Minutes After Launch

Widespread Glitches in 34 States...

First Day of Obamacare Exchanges: Crashapalooza
Gov says it's because everybody wants to sign up so badly.

Obamacare Online Chat: 'We're Having Technical Problems'

Expect months of 'glitches'...

Glitch-Filled Obamacare Launch Frustrates Americans, Spells Bad News for Democrats

More Government Incompetence: Obamacare Signup Forms Failing

Obamacare fail, No. 148
'I was met with error messages, unfinished security forms, and misspelled notices at every click'

Life's a glitch: ObamaCare websites plagued by bugs on launch day; Update: Feds apologize; Video: MSNBC reporter tries, fails to enroll

Congressman Shows Obamacare Exchanges Crash Minutes After Launch
Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) tweeted out a photo at 12:09 AM EST showing the Obamcare exchanges website was down, nine minutes after various federal government offices shut down and the Affordable Care Act exchanges went into effect. by Kerry Picket 1 Oct 2013, 3:37 AM PDT 914

Maryland Obamacare 'Experiencing Unexpected Connectivity Problems'

Obamacare's Minnesota, Connecticut, and Oregon Exchanges Filled With Glitches

Cover Oregon announces signup delay for #Obamacare exchange. *Despite* hipster songs.
But... but... but... this is impossible!

Kentucky Obamacare Exchange Down

Colorado Obamacare Exchange Goes Down In Flames
Anyone else beginning to see a pattern here?

CNN: Two-Thirds Of Obamacare Exchanges Are Experiencing Technical Difficulties
S-H-O-C-K-E-R!

Connecticut Obamacare Exchange Now Down Too
As of now you can't get anything but a timed out page:

New York State Obamacare Health Exchange Working Just Fine
JUST KIDDING Y'ALL !!

Obamacare Website Users Being "Sent To Pages With Nonsense Text"

Obamacare Facebook Flooded with Complaints
The government's official Obamacare Facebook page has been inundated with hundreds of questions and complaints from individuals experiencing myriad technical problems while trying to enroll in Obamacare online.

MSNBC Anchor Unable to Sign Up For Obamacare Health Exchange

MSNBC Tries To Enroll For Obamacare On Live TV... Fail Miserably After Site Keeps Crashing
Too funny.

Oh.

And it's not even noon!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on October 1, 2013 11:05 AM
4. And? Being hyperbolic and melodramatic is not a sign as to whether a policy is good or not.

Of course, like my web client's message not getting through to their servers, the Democrats are not getting the message that most people don't want this, or they want it delayed, or think it is unacceptable for them to shut down government just because most people will blame the Republicans.

But Republicans are certainly getting the message that if this policy is a success, they will have lost all of their credibility and traction with the American people. Hence why they moan and complain about every single minor thing that comes up. It's not reasoned policy debate -- it's complete whining with little point.

(Heck, I'm waiting for you to gripe about the color choice on their brochures.)

Furthermore, Democrats aren't the ones shutting down government here -- at least, directly. The position of Democrats is clear, and the Republicans can't slither out of the blame. All the 50+ attempts to derail Obamacare in the House were clearly refused by the Senate. The Tea Partiers tried to take the budget process hostage to get leverage, and are now blaming the Democrats after killing their hostage.

Posted by: demo kid on October 1, 2013 11:25 AM
5. @3: And it's not even noon!

Which explains why you only have a half-page of ideas that you've cribbed and copied from far-right-wing sources.

Posted by: demo kid on October 1, 2013 11:27 AM
6. RE 5: Which explains why you are so dumb - they are HEADLINES - not ideas. HEADLINES telling America the FACTS of Obamachaos.

RE 4: And? Being hyperbolic and melodramatic is not a sign as to whether a policy is good or not.

If they can't even get in to find out, how will they ever know?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on October 1, 2013 11:34 AM
7. demo kid: But Republicans are certainly getting the message that if this policy is a success, they will have lost all of their credibility and traction with the American people.

Um.

Please get this through your head.

IT IS A FAILURE BY DESIGN.

The view of many Americans, including most Republicans, and myself, is that even if it "works" according to some metric you create, that because it takes away liberty, because government is controlling it, because it was passed in the wrong way ... it is a failure. It doesn't matter what else happens: the ends don't justify the means. There is no possibility of it being a success by metrics that matter to many Americans.

That said, in "practical" terms, this is also no real possibility of success along many metrics: for example, it does not do anything serious to bring down the cost of health care. Everyone except for the hard socialists believe that the cost of health care was the biggest problem we faced, but for some reason, the Democrats -- instead of focusing on that problem -- decided to simply force more people to put more money into paying for health care. It's idiotic on its face, and there is no conceivable way to imagine it will reduce costs. The best they can hope for is that the costs do not exceed their projections, which are themselves increases over the current costs.

And the very fact that they projected costs were going to increase was itself an admission of failure.


It's not reasoned policy debate

Please stop lying. Thanks.

Posted by: pudge on October 1, 2013 11:44 AM
8. @6: HEADLINES telling America the FACTS of Obamachaos.

Can't even be bothered to post links anymore? I'm hurt.

@7: Please stop lying. Thanks.

That's your answer for everything. Broken friggin' record. Point out where I've lied, or shut the hell up.

Posted by: demo kid on October 1, 2013 12:04 PM
9. I love the fact that Pudge uses the term "many Americans". It means more than several, but doesn't mean a majority. Otherwise, the correct term is majority. So, if 20 or even 100 Americans believe what Pudge quoted, he is correct. Nevermind what is good for the majority, minority factions now rule (in Pudge's world).

Posted by: another_anon on October 1, 2013 12:04 PM
10. While ACA requires many many things that our low information society has no clue about, I find it amazing they are so willing to cede their individual freedom to choose for themselves what health insurance requirements are best for them. Instead they leave that up to 535 politicians in the surreal society that is Washington DC who first and foremost are focused on raising money and pandering to keep their political careers intact.

People just accept this loss of liberty without a whimper. The term "sheeple" becomes more and more applicable every day.

Posted by: RJK on October 1, 2013 12:17 PM
11. Can't even be bothered to post links anymore? I'm hurt. - Posted by demo kid at October 1, 2013 12:04 PM

So let's clarify this: You are whining about not getting informational welfare that you hate and about which you constantly complain.

Loud lefty's are so confused.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on October 1, 2013 12:55 PM
12. @8 "Not a reasoned policy debate"
This is what proceeded Pudge's use of the infamous Pudge retort. However, as demostrated in past posts, opinions can't be lies. Therefore, Pudge is blowing smoke again and not following standard decorum. Alas, will he never learn that opinions can't be lies?

Posted by: another_anon on October 1, 2013 02:03 PM
13. @11: So let's clarify this: You are whining about not getting informational welfare that you hate and about which you constantly complain.

So let's clarify this: conservatives cannot understand sarcasm? :)

Posted by: demo kid on October 1, 2013 03:19 PM
14. Instead of being so concerned about a few bumps in the road about a website for getting insurance. Why are we not more concerned with how one the the largest health care providers in Washington behaves. According to the Tacoma News Tribune, MultiCare has placed a series of liens against patients it treated as trauma victims - not because of a lack of insurance or payment by patients. Rather than bill medical insurance, the hospital system tried to collect higher payments from legal awards patients might receive as a result of their trauma. If true, this story is an audacious example of some of the most aggressive billing practices we've ever heard about -- skipping insurance altogether, filing liens for personal property first, and creating fake addresses for out-of-state corporations to handle the paperwork. http://www.multicareabuses.com

Posted by: jumapili on October 1, 2013 05:10 PM
15. demo kid: That's your answer for everything. Broken friggin' record. Point out where I've lied, or shut the hell up.

Um. I did. I quoted it. I'll quote it again: It's not reasoned policy debate

Pointing out actual problems with the law is, by definition, reasoned policy debate. And how completely hypocritical! When the right complains about the law on principle, your side says that we are ignoring practical concerns. When we talk about practical concerns, you say we're not addressing the policy. But we, in obvious defintional fact, are.


anonymous coward: [many] means more than several, but doesn't mean a majority. Otherwise, the correct term is majority.

You are completely, entirely, 100%, incorrect. "Many" can include a majority. You're just making up stupid things for no reason. There is not a dictionary or style guide on the planet that will back you up (and on the contrary, sometimes "many" can mean majority, although that was not my intended use here: rather, my intended use was a sufficient number that may or may not include a majority, and either way it doesn't matter, because ... see below).


Nevermind what is good for the majority, minority factions now rule (in Pudge's world).

Actually, in the context I used the word that you are referring to, minorities actually do rule, by design: we're talking about individual rights, and those do trump majorities. That's kinda the point of much of the American system.


However, as demostrated in past posts, opinions can't be lies.

You keep saying that as though it backs you up. Yes, opinions are not lies. He did not state an opinion, he made a false claim of fact, and one that is not only false, but definitionally false. In fact, you are lying by falsely saying I was referring to a mere opinion in the first place.

Posted by: pudge on October 1, 2013 06:48 PM
16. jumapili: Instead of being so concerned about a few bumps in the road about a website for getting insurance. Why are we not more concerned with how one the the largest health care providers in Washington behaves.

Two things.

First, look up the word "orthogonal." What you're talking about has nothing to do with this. It's unrelated.

Second, I am not "so concerned about a few bumps in the road." I am concerned about the greatest threat to American liberty since the Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. And I am not using hyperbole here. Not only is this an unprecedented grab of power in violation of individual rights, forcing people to buy a product they don't want and don't need, but it has now set a new precedent whereby the government can literally force anyone to do anything it wants to if it can just come up with a way to hide it under a "tax."

This matters a hell of a lot more than any problem with MultiCare. The authorities will figure out if there are abuses, and those abuses will stop, or people will stop using MultiCare. Its issues pale in comparison to the destruction of our freedoms represented by "ObamaCare."

Posted by: pudge on October 1, 2013 06:52 PM
17. RJK: I find it amazing they are so willing to cede their individual freedom to choose for themselves what health insurance requirements are best for them. Instead they leave that up to 535 politicians in the surreal society that is Washington DC who first and foremost are focused on raising money and pandering to keep their political careers intact.

That isn't actually what's happening. It's worse than that. Because the ACA leaves almost every regulation up to the executive branch, it's literally 1 person who gets to make all those requirements: President Obama. And the next President can just choose to undo them at his pleasure. It's a ridiculously stupid system, even if you are in favor of "ObamaCare."

Posted by: pudge on October 1, 2013 06:55 PM
18. I have not been able to get the wa healthfinder web site to work at all. Neither to preview plans nor to register.

Has anyone been able to enroll there? You'd think you'd hear stories on facebook, blogs, etc. Nothing. I'm betting not a single enrollee today via the web site. And I think also true of most states and fed site.

Posted by: Skynet on October 1, 2013 08:06 PM
19. Pudge@16 lies that Obamacare "has now set a new precedent whereby the government can literally force anyone to do anything it wants to if it can just come up with a way to hide it under a 'tax.'"

Can the government force you to jump off the Space Needle? No, and no sensible person would claim that any Supreme Court would uphold such a law. You said "literally". So you are, once again, literally, a liar.

There are rational reasons to require everyone to have health insurance, which you (and anyone who's paid any attention for the past 20 years) surely know, which do not apply to having most products or services, let alone to requiring that we all jump off the Space Needle. The distinction may not matter to you, but it matters to most Americans and to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: stillanon on October 1, 2013 11:08 PM
20. Pudge@17 writes, "ACA leaves almost every regulation up to the executive branch, it's literally 1 person who gets to make all those requirements: President Obama. And the next President can just choose to undo them at his pleasure. It's a ridiculously stupid system..."

Aren't all regulations made by the executive branch subject to legislative guidelines? Then, if the executive branch tries to flout the legislative guidelines, the judicial branch orders it not to. And of course the executive branch is headed by the president, so that's where the buck stops, but the president could never make every decision without the input of thousands of other people in that branch.

Posted by: stillanon on October 1, 2013 11:18 PM
21. Pudge@17 writes, "ACA leaves almost every regulation up to the executive branch, it's literally 1 person who gets to make all those requirements: President Obama. And the next President can just choose to undo them at his pleasure. It's a ridiculously stupid system..."

Aren't all regulations made by the executive branch subject to legislative guidelines? Then, if the executive branch tries to flout the legislative guidelines, the judicial branch orders it not to. And of course the executive branch is headed by the president, so that's where the buck stops, but the president could never make every decision without the input of thousands of other people in that branch.

Posted by: stillanon on October 1, 2013 11:34 PM
22. stillanon: You are very confused.

Can the government force you to jump off the Space Needle?

Actually, literally, yes. They can say that if you don't jump off the Space Needle, you will be levied a $1,000,000 tax. They absolutely can do that under this precedent.


There are rational reasons to require everyone to have health insurance

Actually, no, there aren't, in my view. But even if there were, that is beside the point, because government has no legitimate authority to require it, and the decision that upheld the ACA's individual mandate didn't rest on any notion that there are such rational reasons, only that it was a tax, so therefore it was acceptable. The legal reasoning in the decision -- in the argument -- apply to all products and services. You're the one lying when you say that there is any such legal distinction to the Supreme Court between the ACA and anything else.


Aren't all regulations made by the executive branch subject to legislative guidelines?

Yes, but often the guidelines are in the law are wide open. For example, take the bronze/silver/gold plans. The Secretary has very broad latitude for deciding what will be in each type of plan and what the premiums will be.


the president could never make every decision without the input of thousands of other people in that branch.

No, but the President makes ANY decision it wants to, under the executive branch, without any input from anyone else. The President can, for example, simply state what certain premiums will be.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2013 05:30 AM
23. Pudge
Your so called "problems with the law" is opinion. Therefore, it is an opinion also that calls those opinions wrong. You are arguing over opinion of what should be and not actual facts. The fact would be what the law states. An opinion is projecting the laws impact before the fact. You can't know the law's actual impact until measured after it has been in place. Any projection, by either side prior to implementation is opinion.

Posted by: another_anon on October 2, 2013 06:17 AM
24. anonymous coward: Your so called "problems with the law" is opinion.

Some of it yes, some of it now. It's a clear problem that the law was passed saying that we would lower premiums and everyone would get to keep their insurance and keep their doctors, yet premiums have increased and millions of people are being forced to change their insurance and thousands forced to change their doctors. It's a definitional problem that jobs are being lost or converted to part-time because of this law. None of that is opinion.


Therefore, it is an opinion also that calls those opinions wrong.

False. That is not the issue. The issue is whether bringing up these problems -- whether they are right or wrong -- is "reasoned policy debate." Clearly, it is. It is not a matter of opinion, it is definitionally true.


The fact would be what the law states. An opinion is projecting the laws impact before the fact.

We are talking about actual impacts of the law, not projecting those impacts. You're simply wrong.


You can't know the law's actual impact until measured after it has been in place.

False, obviously. We know what the premiums are, and we know that they have gone up from when the law was passed, and even over last year's premiums. We know that jobs have been lost and lessened in response to the law. These are actual impacts that have happened already.

But again, even if they were mere projections, it still falls under "reasoned policy debate," and the claim that it isn't is what I said was a lie. You're dishonestly claiming I said that it was a lie in that he disagreed with the facts or projections, when I said no such thing.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2013 06:28 AM
25. Pudge@23 lies, "They can say that if you don't jump off the Space Needle, you will be levied a $1,000,000 tax. They absolutely can do that under this precedent."

They can say you have to jump in the air and fly to Mars, and you could claim that a court should uphold it because of this precedent, but you'd be wrong. The ACA decision (which I've read carefully) explains in detail that there are limits to the government's taxing power and ACA falls within those limits. More simply, everyone reading this either (a) knows there's no way on earth that any court would uphold a tax on people who refuse to jump off the Space Needle or (b) is so utterly crazy that I'd might as well be typing the text of "Green Eggs and Ham" here instead of making a cogent argument. So I rest my case. Have a nice day.

Posted by: anotheranon on October 2, 2013 10:50 AM
26. Pudge,
You stated a couple times (as a statement of fact) in your response ths "premiums have gone up." You have a serious, and serial, problem with always going with absolute statements. You have demonstrated in the past and here again. This particular statement is false. The fact is some premiums have increased, some are similar, and others have shown to be a bit less. For the ones that increased the most, it is a combination of factors of which a major component is what the "package" includes. It would be like comparing the premium for liability only auto insurance with one that also includes collision and comprehensive coverage. To give you a concrete example, on a related SP post Rags complains about her new rate under Regence, but it has been pointed out that Premera, Group Health, and a third company have plans for around the same rate as her current coverage. So, your "absolute" statement that premiums will increase under ACA is false. It was a false opinion that is still being perpetuated. The fact is, under ACA, the packages will be standardized and we can finally compare insurance across companies and see who gives the best deal. In WA state, based on Rags' quotes, I am not sure why anyone would choose Regence when others are offerring the same "packages" for almost half the cost. Pre-ACA and pre-Exchanges this comparison was impossible because no two insurance companies really offerred the same "package".

Posted by: another_anon on October 2, 2013 11:44 AM
27. Pudge,
You stated a couple times (as a statement of fact) in your response ths "premiums have gone up." You have a serious, and serial, problem with always going with absolute statements. You have demonstrated in the past and here again. This particular statement is false. The fact is some premiums have increased, some are similar, and others have shown to be a bit less. For the ones that increased the most, it is a combination of factors of which a major component is what the "package" includes. It would be like comparing the premium for liability only auto insurance with one that also includes collision and comprehensive coverage. To give you a concrete example, on a related SP post Rags complains about her new rate under Regence, but it has been pointed out that Premera, Group Health, and a third company have plans for around the same rate as her current coverage. So, your "absolute" statement that premiums will increase under ACA is false. It was a false opinion that is still being perpetuated. The fact is, under ACA, the packages will be standardized and we can finally compare insurance across companies and see who gives the best deal. In WA state, based on Rags' quotes, I am not sure why anyone would choose Regence when others are offerring the same "packages" for almost half the cost. Pre-ACA and pre-Exchanges this comparison was impossible because no two insurance companies really offerred the same "package".

Posted by: another_anon on October 2, 2013 11:45 AM
28. anonymous coward: They can say you have to jump in the air and fly to Mars, and you could claim that a court should uphold it because of this precedent, but you'd be wrong.

I think my context and examples were clear that this would be about things that are theoretically possible. So if you changed this to "they can say you have to be on a rocket ship and participate in a manned mission to Mars," then actually, that is what the precedent says, yes.


The ACA decision (which I've read carefully) explains in detail that there are limits to the government's taxing power and ACA falls within those limits.

Yes, and so does pretty much everything else. That's the point.


More simply, everyone reading this either (a) knows there's no way on earth that any court would uphold a tax on people who refuse to jump off the Space Needle

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that the Court has already said they can. You're not making an argument against me, you're just saying that in certain extreme examples, the Court would modify its existing precedent. I don't disagree, but reject it as a non sequitur.


So I rest my case.

Smart of you.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2013 02:42 PM
29. anonymous coward: You stated a couple times (as a statement of fact) in your response ths "premiums have gone up."

Yes. It's true.


You have a serious, and serial, problem with always going with absolute statements.

It's not a problem if it is not used inappropriately. Feel free to demonstrate my statement is incorrect.


This particular statement is false. The fact is some premiums have increased, some are similar, and others have shown to be a bit less.

First, speaking literally, my statement is true as long as two or more premiums have gone up. I did not say "all premiums have gone up." I just said "premiums" which only implies more than one.

Second, most premiums have gone up, and the average price has gone up. That is a fact, and that was the idea I intended to convey.


For the ones that increased the most, it is a combination of factors of which a major component is what the "package" includes. It would be like comparing the premium for liability only auto insurance with one that also includes collision and comprehensive coverage.

Yes, but the problem is that I want liability only, but Obama is forcing me to buy comprehensive. So it does you no good to point out the plans are different when I am being forced into the new plan. My premium is going way up and it's your fault.


So, your "absolute" statement that premiums will increase under ACA is false.

I defy you to quote me saying something false and then show it is false. You've not done so. You've used words I didn't say (in this post, anyway), and then you didn't even show how those words were false, in any context, except for one that clearly is not indicated by the words you "quoted": you appear to be falsely claiming that my words implied "all" premiums are going up, which is simply patently false.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2013 02:50 PM
30. Pudge,
Backpeddle all you want, but you are not correct in your use of the English Language. The statement "Premiums will go up" is not qualified with an adjective. Therefore, the noun is "Premiums" and the action is "will go up"
." Without a qualifying adjective in front if Premiums, all is inferred. To infer some, most, nearly all, or even a few means one of those adjectives are needed. Otherwise, the noun, inclisive, is inferred.

Posted by: another_anon on October 2, 2013 06:14 PM
31. anonymous coward: Backpeddle all you want, but you are not correct in your use of the English Language. The statement "Premiums will go up" is not qualified with an adjective. Therefore, the noun is "Premiums" and the action is "will go up"
." Without a qualifying adjective in front if Premiums, all is inferred.

Wow. You are completely and totally wrong.

You have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just lying.

"People like me."

"Hockey players are tough."

"Stocks are slightly down today."

The use of plurals does not imply universally inclusiveness. You're just completely wrong. You really suck at this language thing, like you did the last time.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2013 09:32 PM
32. So, Pudge what you really are saying is your original line was ambiguous. What you meant to say was something like "The average for premiums is going up."

On your other examples:
"People like me" - Ambiguous unless the set of "people" is defined. Also, this is an opinion, not statement of fact.

"Hockey players are tough" -- This is an opinion due to lack of definition of what the person saying it means by tough.

"Stocks are slightly down today" -- This statement assumes a couple of conditions. One that in reference to "stocks" you are referring to financial mechanisms companies use for capital. Second, you assume you are talking about a measure and not "stocks" themselves. The correct phrase would be "stock averages (or prices) are slightly down today." The physical stock in a company can't be up or down. If referring to prices, however, you still run into the ambiguity of does one mean the average, some, most, or all.

This last example is closest to your original statement. It can be assumed from context that you were referring to health insurance premiums within the US, and that the term premiums relates to something that can me measured (i.e., the price of the premium).

This leads to a different discussion, I think the media is too focused on premiums and needs to focus on overall costs. When I pay for health insurance, the premium isn't my only concern. I am also concerned about total costs, including co-pays, deductibles, and life-time caps (the latter, I believe goes away under ACA). My dad had a heart bypass a few years back and I saw the final total bill and what his insurance paid. He was lucky to have insurance. The media should do a better job of reporting on the full costs instead of trying to grab headlines. The media is misleading people with their headlines. The congressman on both sides are also misleading people by cherry-picking data to support their argument.

Posted by: another_anon on October 4, 2013 08:11 AM
33. anonymous coward: For crying out loud. Just admit you were completely wrong.

Posted by: pudge on October 4, 2013 08:24 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?