Dave Ramsey on the ACA

[Deathcries]

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/637...-obamacare-for

He talks about Math. Simple Math. This is not a Republican or democrat thing.

I think what I've come to the conclusion is there are a lot of people that want two class of people. Poor and the people who take care of the poor. Middle Class annexed.

[Daelak]

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/637...-obamacare-for

He talks about Math. Simple Math. This is not a Republican or democrat thing.

I think what I've come to the conclusion is there are a lot of people that want two class of people. Poor and the people who take care of the poor. Middle Class annexed.

Any sources for your claim? Or are you just another doomsday conservative that proclaim another unspecified date of collapse for some unspecified reason because of your "gut" feeling that the national debt is too high?

[mvaliz]

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/637...-obamacare-for

He talks about Math. Simple Math. This is not a Republican or democrat thing.

I think what I've come to the conclusion is there are a lot of people that want two class of people. Poor and the people who take care of the poor. Middle Class annexed.

You say this is not a "Republican or Democrat thing"

And then the very next sentence you say "a lot of people that want two class of people. Poor and the people who take care of the poor. Middle Class annexed."

...tell me how that is not a Republican or Democrat thing?

EDIT: You want to know something? Lets say his math is correct, and (I presume) he's saying Obamacare is the Devil (He does tout religious investment apparently). The thing is... how is this worth throwing the entire government into shutdown and risking defaulting the entire country over?

You see... that's the very thing. The Tea Party message is this - the AHA is bad for the future. so we're going to destroy our current present so we don't destroy our future! You many not believe that - but that IS what the Tea Party is demonstrating and what people are seeing.

Second thing: What's his alternative? Free market? Corporate profit interests being the underlying motivation to cure people!? What profit is there in curing people? When they're cured, they're no longer buying.

I've tried explaining this to other Tea Party people... it's not just the ideals that people have a problem with, it's the methods - the fact that they're dispassionately throwing the entire country under the bus. It's literally like somebody setting another person on fire in order to "save their soul from damnation!"

[Nayelie]

Dave Ramsey is a smart man. I went to one of his talks a couple of years back.

[Pitkanen]

Math on politics:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...you-innumerate

Listening to it. His "it's not rocket science" is ignoring that part where healthy people have to get on the markets too. And his talk about the employers, the ones that cover their entire workplace already cover their whole workplace, so it's not a change.

Here is math in the world...
5x+6y+10z=???
Here is his math
5x+6y=???? ...where did 10z go, you ask? It doesn't favor his political bias.

[Aqua]

He talks about math but doesn't really do any. He just spouts alot of here-say. And actually isn't tackling what is ROOT PROBLEM, of your medical system which makes 'obamacare' or 'the affordable health care act' or whatever humdinggery you want to call it, fail to pan out in favor of the USA people. And sorry but this so called math is wrong. What math was done here? He just claimed over and over that he knew how to do math, and then spouted a bunch of 'well this is how it is'.
Why not go over 'why is it this way, and how should we change it'. Because I can do that too. No dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

This kind of talk comes from people far too blessed and lucky in their life. One day I want a meteor to just strike their house, decimating their lives, letting their friends abandon them because 'everyone for themselves, don't help anyone in misfortune, they're a drain on society'. And see what it's like having tragedy after tragedy, keep dragging their lives into a vortex of poverty of which there is no escape.



You wanna counterpoint to this, well let's go ahead:

(I will not claim everything in this video holds 100% weight, and some of his videos make me eyeroll, but this one was fairly on the nozzle)


Socalist Medicare is awesome. Yeah you read that loud and clear. Say it. Sounds dirty doesn't it. I hope it makes your skin crawl. And every other country has told you this over and over and like children you stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'lalalalalala'. Well fine. I really don't have any intention of living in the USA. I'm really appalled at the lack of foresight and selfcenteredness that seems to ooze from these types of people.

[BLCalliente]

Incoming Godwin: Hitler was a smart man.

Infracted.

[chrisberb]

His "math" is missing a big factor, and he's also making assumptions.
He ASSUMES that every new insured person is sick and or has a pre-existing condition.
His math is wrong in that he says that with more people enrolled, insurance companies will have to PAY out more money, BUT he refuses to acknowledge that the newly enrolled people will also PAY into the insurance company.
Then he starts talking about the 47% who pay no federal income tax..and his whole "not republican and not democratic" mantra got thrown out the window.

[Sunseeker]

How many threads do you really need to make about this?

Every time you get your "math" kicked in the teeth and send home crying, you make a new thread. You have LOST. People like you are the exact reason we have this ridiculous government shutdown, because you can't admit you were wrong, you have to keep pressing that your wrongness is right.

[Apexis]

Dave Ramsey is a very smart man. My wife and I went to one of his seminars about 5 years ago. We followed his plan pretty much to the letter and are debit free now, except for the house, which we plan to have paid off in the next few years. This man is neither a Republican or Democrat, he also does not offer the pie in the sky or talk about the doomsday scenario of the sky is falling. He simply give one the tools to become financially independent, it is up to you to put them to work. We have no credit cards, except for the one that is used in case of emergencies (weather related emergencies), we a have a 3 month rainy day fund and live well within our means. This is the kind of stuff he teaches at his seminars and they actually do work. So when talks about the good or bad in accordance about obamacare. I know he is telling people on either side of the issue what they need to know going forward.

[Pitkanen]

Dave Ramsey is a very smart man. My wife and I went to one of his seminars about 5 years ago. We followed his plan pretty much to the letter and are debit free now, except for the house, which we plan to have paid off in the next few years. This man is neither a Republican or Democrat, he also does not offer the pie in the sky or talk about the doomsday scenario of the sky is falling. He simply give one the tools to become financially independent, it is up to you to put them to work. We have no credit cards, except for the one that is used in case of emergencies (weather related emergencies), we a have a 3 month rainy day fund and live well within our means. This is the kind of stuff he teaches at his seminars and they actually do work. So when talks about the good or bad in accordance about obamacare. I know he is telling people on either side of the issue what they need to know going forward.

Personal debt isn't politicized however. (much) Debt advice is usually the same regardless of what political affiliation someone is.

None of what he displayed in his talking was math. He simply repeated the words "It's math" over and over, like how Rush Limbaugh repeats the words "It's common sense" or how a cult leader says "It's gods will". It's not math because he says it's math. It's not common sense because Rush says it's common sense. And it isn't god's will because charles manson says it is.

The only way to remove variables in an equation as a mathematician is by proving that they are divided by infinity, divided by themselves (or something equal to themselves), or subtract a variable from itself. There may be other methods I'm forgetting but it's been a while since I've had to do proofs. At no point did he prove that the variable "uninsured going into ER and passing on the cost" followed any of those mathematical cancellations therefore his elimination of that variable is not mathematically sound.
Therefore his math in not mathematically sound.

[Bakis]

Incoming Godwin: Hitler was a smart man.

Hehe, the thought struck me as well

[Xarkan]

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/637...-obamacare-for

He talks about Math. Simple Math. This is not a Republican or democrat thing.

I think what I've come to the conclusion is there are a lot of people that want two class of people. Poor and the people who take care of the poor. Middle Class annexed.

So i may have missed it. I believe the ACA caps profit/premiums from health insurance or rather mandates that a certain percentage of the premiums have to be spend on actual health care. If currently the insurance companies have a higher profit margin than that supposed cap would allow would not the increased health care cost of the supposedly near to death cancer ridden 500 lbs chain smokers previously without insurance be somewhat covered by that, would there not be some room to give before health care premiums would actually have to go up?

The real question is though, if the above paragraph is true, is the reason that he does not take it into account that he is oblivious to it or is it that he is (intellectually) dishonest?

He did say one thing that is absolutely true. Insurance Math is not rocket science. However it is worth noting that Rocket Science is a lot of math

[bayushisan]

If you want math here's some math for you (and I do not mean this to be hostile

The manufacturing cost of ingredients for a 20mg tablet of Prozac costs $.11, the consumer cost for a bottle of 100 20mg tablets of Prozac is $247.47 which constitutes a mark up of 224,973%.

How's that for math?

Or the cost of Gleevec, a medication I take btw. The monthly cost for what I take, which is a one month supply of 400mg tablets, is $6,000. The manufacturer has long ago made back their research investment and has been raking in profit after their first billion dollars.

Oh there is math alright and it sure doesn't add up at all.

Oh and just so people know where I got my Prozac numbers: http://www.anxiety-and-depression-so...ldrugcosts.php

Gleevec information is on wikipedia. Probably other places too.

[Jargan]

Respect to Dave Ramsey for his knowledge of personal finance and educating people about those things, but this video is entirely speculation. He is making a fundamental argument with generalizing statements. No analysis of the laws. I was paying attention until the last minute or two when he talked about how his right to choose insurance is being taken away and relating it to forcing everyone in the country to own a gun. It is a poor analogy and he seems bitter about the law because he feels it is removing one of his rights. If he wasn't well known for what he does (and does well), I would think he was another conservative trying to side step an intelligent discussion of the laws and focusing on the generalized fear of socialism and the assumptions that come with it.

[Pitkanen]

If you want math here's some math for you (and I do not mean this to be hostile

The manufacturing cost of ingredients for a 20mg tablet of Prozac costs $.11, the consumer cost for a bottle of 100 20mg tablets of Prozac is $247.47 which constitutes a mark up of 224,973%.

How's that for math?

It's bad. You forgot to divide the cost of the 100 tablets by 100 to get the cost per tablet. The cost per tablet is 2.475, so the "markup" is 2.365. 2.365/0.11 = 21.5x, or in percent, a 2150% markup.

[Jargan]

It's bad. You forgot to divide the cost of the 100 tablets by 100 to get the cost per tablet. The cost per tablet is 2.47, so the "markup" is 2.37. 2.37/0.11 = 21x, or in percent, a 2100% markup.

I think his point still stands. Plenty of people shame Apple for marking up their phones, but they don't mark them up 2100% and people aren't reliant on them to continue living a relatively normal life. A business' job is to make money, and if they can make more, they will. That's where regulations should come in and limit profit to a reasonable level. No one is going to feel bad for a company that only made a few billion in profits last year.

[Pitkanen]

I think his point still stands. Plenty of people shame Apple for marking up their phones, but they don't mark them up 2100% and people aren't reliant on them to continue living a relatively normal life. A business' job is to make money, and if they can make more, they will. That's where regulations should come in and limit profit to a reasonable level. No one is going to feel bad for a company that only made a few billion in profits last year.

Yeah. It is a markup. But the cost of manufactoring the materials that go into a product are only a portion of the cost. Here is a list of other cost:
R&D for future drugs
Marketing
Compounding of the Drug
Advertising
Transporting and Warehousing
Financing, Insurance and Leasing
Legal costs
Pharma Profit
Wholesalers Profit
Retailstore profit

In the end. The markup is only defined as being the last 3 sections which are all profit. But after all the other costs the markup isn't 2000% anymore.
A more complete analysis like the following (for cereal) is really needed to understand the drug industry:
http://breakfastbowl.blogspot.com/20...real-cost.html

[mahananaka]

Watched the video and I have to say like several others I saw several GOP talking points throughout his video and he kinda side tracked a bit but I'll tackle his point which is accurate if you neglect some of the facts like he did imo.

He says basically to insure x number of people an insurer needs to charge y total dollars per month which is divided as an individual's premium of z dollars per month. So for example If you're insuring 100,000 people and the total cost for those people when risk+profit is assessed is at $5mil per month. That means each person's premium needs to be about $50 a month. All accurate from my liberal math. Now what he says the ACA does is demands those insurers now cover sick people (also correct), this would mean now they cover an additional say 10,000 sick people. But being that they are sick the cost per month shoots up to $8mil. Meaning premiums per person are is now 8mil/110k people or $73. Which is quite a large cost increase and if this were the end of the math, it would be true, people would be rightly outraged. But now we get to the other fact, which is the reason for the insurance mandate.

Of the people signing up they need a certain amount to young and/or healthy people, aka low risk people. These people would have virtually no cost to the insurers minus the occasional check up. These people would only raise the total cost per month like $100k, but there would be like 52k of these people. So now we have $8.1mil over 162k people insured, which is right back to the original premium cost. Now to do this they obviously have to hit that 52k low risk people. These numbers are all just made up, to show you how the intent is to flood the market with more people that are not sick than those that are sick. The real number of low risk people has also been calculated by the people setting the ACA up; for the ACA to be successful it needs, iirc about 4.7 million low risk people to sign up in the first year. That is how the math is designed to work. The fact is that a lot of the uninsured market is young people that are rolling the dice hoping that they don't get sick or have an accident. Some are also just unable to get insurance because they are self employed or their employer is cheap like Wal-mart.

[Abysal]

but they don't mark them up 2100% and people aren't reliant on them to continue living a relatively normal life. A business' job is to make money, and if they can make more, they will. That's where regulations should come in and limit profit to a reasonable level. No one is going to feel bad for a company that only made a few billion in profits last year.

Yes well I think what this really points out is that health care patents are way out of hand. You can point out the "evil" of profit all you want, but imagine if there was competition to Prozac. Do you really think if people have the option to buy an equal medicine, they'd buy one marked up 2100% vs one say, marked up only 500%? If I ran a medicine producing business, I'd gladly produce my medicine for a 500% markup. Hell, I'd take 5 cents a pill profit and not bat an eyelash. But I can't make that business. And even if the patents go away, the need to have a doctor prescribe the medicine to you re-enforces the issue. If there's 100 competing pills that all do the same thing, but the law requires that I get a prescription and my Dr prescribes the ridiculously overpriced Prozac, I'm left with no other option.

Point is, all of you who point out the evils of capitalism when it comes to medicine seem to be neglecting just how regulated the health care market is. If we had true, market competition, weaker patents (or none at all), and the ability to truly shop around for a good deal instead of relying on Big Brother alone, 2100% markups wouldn't be close to sustainable.

So yes, our system is terrible. But that's not an indictment on capitalism or free market medicine. It's an indictment on monopolistic patents and the regulations that keep competition out which prevent consumers from being free to choose and getting good deals.

If we saw a truly free system we could compare it to the socialized systems and then a real discussion could be had about which works better.

But now we get to the other fact, which is the reason for the insurance mandate.

Of the people signing up they need a certain amount to young and/or healthy people, aka low risk people.

Ah yes, but that brings up the flip side issue: In an economy where young people are by and large, underpaid, underemployed, and buried in loan debt, you're forcing them to turn around and pay for a service that they can't afford and don't want or need. This is going to accelerate their economic woes which among other things is going to increase the rate of student loan defaults. In turn, the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for that and that's optimistically assuming that high levels of loan defaults don't cause bigger issues like the housing loan defaults caused in 07/08. So really, if the mandate keeps health care costs from inflating but has unintended consequences like causing economic hardship on young people that in turn causes other costs, has it really on net saved money for the economy?