Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Awe, you said you were done.

The problem is that my is that my figures are accurate.

If you would like to use your nice little chart to refute what I have said, I'd be glad to see it. (I've asked repeatedly and you have not done so)

Just for fun, here are retail gas prices over the last decade

FWIW - Thats about a 300% increase. Although, I'll admit these other commodities aren't really relevant as I have been discussing the employee contribution %.

[Fair&Balanced]

Percentage increase of employees share of premium costs is meaningless. It is the increase costs coming out of workers pockets and paychecks that matter.

Gas is the only exception to the average CPI index increase of 2.5% annual because it is traded on the international market and subject to external supply and demand factors.

Even then, the value for many consumers has risen as a result of having cars with better gas mileage.

As opposed to health care premiums rising 127% while at the same time, other health care costs have also risen -- deductables, co-pays, etc.

And Syrian lives are still not worth less.

Now be a good boy and eat your pie, ace.

added:
See the last column of the CPI index, average percent increase.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Huh? Employee contributions have more than doubled since 2000.

Originally Posted by classicman

Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Employee contributions increased by 128%

Originally Posted by classicman

for 2000 compared to 2010
Employee contribution as a percentage has only increased 6% in a decade.

or for 1999 compared to 2009
Employee contribution % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost
My point is that the employee contribution as a % is relatively static/moderately increasing.
Your lil chart has no relevance other than to disprove or distract from the actual problem.
The real issue is the FUCKING OVERALL COST!

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I give up.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Percentage increase of employees share of premium costs is meaningless. It is the increase costs coming out of workers pockets and paychecks that matter.

You agree that my math is correct. Finally, thank you.
Oh wait - now 20 whatever posts later what you are saying is that it doesn't matter... got it.

Now be a good boy and eat your pie, ace.

Awe - more snark? Really? Hey at least I moved up from simple to ace.

[BigV]

dude, it doesn't matter nearly as much as how much money is coming out of my pocket.
you can make the statistics say anything anything you want.

Imagine, for example healthcare cost you 1000/yr in 2000 and the employer's share was 100,000. Then each year your cost increased by 10,000 per year, but the employer's share increased by 1,000,000 per year. At the end of ten years insurance would cost 901,000 for you and 9,100,000 for the employer for a total of 10,001,000. Your increase over the period could be characterized a number of ways

1,000/100,000 or 1% in year 2000

901,000/10,001,000 or .9% in year 2010

a decrease *of overall cost*. Do you want that deal?

or

1,000 a year in 2000

changing to

901,000 a year in 2010

for an increase of 9000% increase. do you want that deal?

SAME NUMBERS BOTH TIMES.

percentages rely on comparisons, and depending on what you're comparing it to, you can get very different "percentages".

Now let me ask you this. could you take a 1% increase over the decade? how about a tenth of a percent decrease in costs? you see, just naked percentages like that are actually meaningless. context free == meaning free. I'll tell you what *does* have meaning to me, how many dollars are comign out of my pocket. and if it goes up 10,000 in a year, I'll have to drop it, even though it represents a "decrease" when compared to some whothehellcares value.

I don't agree with your analysis here.

If you're playin games, what the fuck ever. If you're trying to have a serious open discussion, then I respectfully submit that you're wrong.

[Fair&Balanced]

He clearly just doesnt get it.

Evidently, he must imagine a working couple sitting at the kitchen table saying how lucky they are that their health care costs havent risen that much given that their percentage share of premiums decreased or only increased a few percent in 10 years.

The fact that the FUCKING OVERALL COST in dollars out of their pockets and paycheck for their share of the premiums has more than doubled (127%) in those 10 years is no big deal. No big deal either that their percentage share of premiums was kept low by also reducing benefits.

"What the fuck ever" covers it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

you can make the statistics say anything anything you want.

You could have stopped here. And I will submit that my statistics are correct.

If you're trying to have a serious open discussion

Oh wait - its been a long time since we've done any of that.
Wait - lemme check - yup, this is the politics forum.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

You could have stopped here. And I will submit that my statistics are correct.


Oh wait - its been a long time since we've done any of that.
Wait - lemme check - yup, this is the politics forum.

Classic signs of obstinate behavior. Insist you are right, despite the lack of analytical thinking on your part and the more relevant facts presented by others and then dismiss the discussion on other terms. When it is repeated in several discussions (see Libya/Syria), a pattern emerges.

You succeeded in proving it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?

FWIW, your observation was correct. But it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, IMHO. It's like saying "I bought a $14,000 car in 1999 at 6% interest. In 2009, I bought a $25,000 car, but since I'm still paying 6% interest, my cost hasn't gone up."

[BigV]

I could have stopped there, but it would have been incomplete.

Just as you could have stopped when you said the costs decreased over the period.

In both cases, such a statement would have been "true", but misleading. And I don't find that useful when I'm trying to have a serious open discussion.

[classicman]

I have given up having a "serious open discussion" with some people.

Sorry.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

I have given up having a "serious open discussion" with some people.

Sorry.

I try to start every discussion off on a serious note until I run into a brick wall and a BOLD DEMAND that I accept illogical and irrelevant conclusions, at which point it becomes fruitless and the only thing left is to have a little fun with it.

Some people? How about all three people who contributed to this discussion recently trying to explain the fallacy of your position or the five people in the Libya discussion trying to do the same.

Right. Its not you, it those other people.

[classicman]

Yeh. Even spexx was able to admit that my my figures are accurate.
Irrelevant, but correct. That's more than you could muster.

What you are too ignorant to realize is that I was merely displaying how worthless you lil chart was from the gitgo. Way to play catch up. Good on you - you are the sharp tack.

I must admit that you are good for one thing though. If I ever want to know what the Obama's position is on anything, I'll just ask you. Your head is so far up his ass, you know what he had for lunch by 3:00.

[Fair&Balanced]

A valued member of the community asked me to “ease up on you” because it is well know how overly sensitive you are to constructive criticism or negative critiques of your posts.

And, I agreed I would.

[classicman]

lol - Love that. "Valued member"

Bwahahahaha - That would be a first! It's always been just the opposite.


ETA: you still haven't been abler to admit that my figures are accurate.

[infinite monkey]

You have to HAVE a member to BE a member.