Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 243270 times)

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4419
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3050 on: June 29, 2017, 12:59:12 PM »
Every dual income family lives with this insurance penalty.  I'd much rather have the money, thanks.

My wife's employer does just that; because she elects not to take medical insurance (because mine is better and less expensive), she gets an extra $700/paycheck in lieu of medical insurance - 90% of the employer contribution to medical insurance.  I wouldn't say this perk is common, but it is definitely appreciated and makes you realize how expensive the total (employer+employee) cost of medical insurance can be even by "larger" employer standards.
Hm.  I've thought of it that way.  I guess a few years ago, when my second kid was born, we elected double coverage.

My husband's HSA and HDHP covered everyone fully (no premiums, and the company provided half of the HSA amount).  When I found out I was pregnant (in Oct), I elected to join my company's HMO for me and the kids.

That embarked on a few years of almost zero medical costs, aside from my $100 a month premiums.   Kids and I were primarily covered by my HMO (I did not cover my husband).  Husband's insurance covered the co-pays.  That $20,000+ surgery my baby had?  Cost us $125 from the HSA.   It wasn't until this year that I opted to give myself a raise and drop the kids from my insurance, because our costs went up (company reclassified from medium sized to small).  So nobody is double covered anymore.

Of course I've had exactly one raise in 5.5 years, but that's another story.

Hubby's company does not provide vision or dental, so I cover the family for those.

Moustaches

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: DC
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3051 on: June 29, 2017, 01:06:22 PM »
Every dual income family lives with this insurance penalty.  I'd much rather have the money, thanks.

My wife's employer does just that; because she elects not to take medical insurance (because mine is better and less expensive), she gets an extra $700/paycheck in lieu of medical insurance - 90% of the employer contribution to medical insurance.  I wouldn't say this perk is common, but it is definitely appreciated and makes you realize how expensive the total (employer+employee) cost of medical insurance can be even by "larger" employer standards.
I had a previous employer (2013-2014 ish) who did something similar, but bad. If you accepted their insurance, they would add a very stiff surcharge to your premium if your spouse was employed by a company who also offered insurance. So if I was on my company's insurance, but my husband's company offered crappy insurance, I'd have to pay something like an additional $150/mo on my premiums (whether or not he was actually on my insurance).

That is bizarre, I've never heard of something like that.  How would they enforce something like that?  You would need to report to your employer your spouses health insurance availability?  What if they gained/lost insurance availability mid-stream?
Live like a badass, so that later you can live like a badass.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3052 on: June 29, 2017, 01:24:02 PM »
Every dual income family lives with this insurance penalty.  I'd much rather have the money, thanks.

My wife's employer does just that; because she elects not to take medical insurance (because mine is better and less expensive), she gets an extra $700/paycheck in lieu of medical insurance - 90% of the employer contribution to medical insurance.  I wouldn't say this perk is common, but it is definitely appreciated and makes you realize how expensive the total (employer+employee) cost of medical insurance can be even by "larger" employer standards.
I had a previous employer (2013-2014 ish) who did something similar, but bad. If you accepted their insurance, they would add a very stiff surcharge to your premium if your spouse was employed by a company who also offered insurance. So if I was on my company's insurance, but my husband's company offered crappy insurance, I'd have to pay something like an additional $150/mo on my premiums (whether or not he was actually on my insurance).

That is bizarre, I've never heard of something like that.  How would they enforce something like that?  You would need to report to your employer your spouses health insurance availability?  What if they gained/lost insurance availability mid-stream?
I don't remember the details, since I wasn't married at the time. But from my recollection, it was self-reported. So you could probably lie about it, but there was always the chance they would catch you. And maybe I remember a huge penalty if they did catch you? I only remember it at all because I was horrified by it.

So glad to be gone from that company. When I gave notice, my boss begged me not to go. One month after I left, my whole (former) team was laid off. Yeah dodged that bullet.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 01:26:20 PM by Inaya »
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Ting referral ($25 credit!): https://zds8505smfe.ting.com/
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3053 on: June 29, 2017, 02:59:57 PM »
There has been a lot of talk here, 62 pages thus far, about how insurance needs to work, and could work better.  A few comments in there as well about single payer coverage.   Has any one stopped to think that the whole issue may be a "for profit" system.  If health care is to look out to line their own profits, is it a wonder that the costs for the system in the US is more per person then anywhere else in the world?

The Canadian health system has its problems for sure, but at least I never have to worry about not being able to afford getting the healthcare I need.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3054 on: June 29, 2017, 03:43:05 PM »
It takes time to arrive at a single payer system.    Most of the posts I read sound discouraged that the US will not get to single payer any time soon.   I'm not sure if they think insurance is a long term solution, or only a short term solution until single payer eventually comes about.

It took us something like 40 years & we still have issues around drug and dental coverage.  The US will also take time.   Obama's ACA was the thin edge of the wedge.   I wonder if the republicans will be able to get rid of these advances, or if they are already too entrenched.   I think it would be a great legacy for Obama if he was the person who started the process that lead to health care for everyone in the US.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3055 on: June 29, 2017, 09:30:11 PM »
I thought you might find this interesting. According to real clear politics about half the US population wants the ACA repealed and the other half doesn't. Not that these polls are supper accurate considering the Trump victory, but still interesting.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html

Personally I am not in favor of the republican alternative.

I believe that's 1 year ago not 3. And it still represented some of the views of the people. About 50/50 on repealing the ACA.
:sigh:  Those data are from more than three years ago.

Right, but we all know that. It's been endlessly reported on and it's been the same since the ACA was passed all those years ago.  It's been about a 45/55 split against the ACA more or less since its inception.  Most big legislation since ~2000 that has strong partisan support in congress ends up in a split of approx 50:50 support along party lines. Almost no conservatives supported the ACA; most liberals did; and there was a notable fraction of liberals that did not support the ACA because they only want public option or single payer. (As slightly left of center type, I support the ACA ONLY over GOP alternatives, but NOT over offering a public option...so I'm wishy washy in support).  And the independents split as well. So the final polling consistently has run very slightly underwater.

The only thing of interest about the ACA's popularity is that once the GOP took power in January and talking about alternatives, ACA's popularity suddenly jumped radically for the first time since its passage, and now is consistently running about 5-10 points above water in approval.  Also of interest is that the GOP's proposed alternatives (so far) are shockingly unpopular for major legislation, which means even a fair number of conservatives aren't supporting them.

Here is the problem with the GOP plan.  Currently people judge how good a plan is by how many people it insures.  The GOP plan insures less and therefor it is a worse plan in the eyes of most Americans. If the GOP came up with the best plan in the word making amazing strides, unless it insures the same or more people it will look poor in the eyes of the people. The only way the GOP can make more people like their plan is to insure more people or insure the same amount of people but have it cost less for middle America. That will be practically impossible to do for the GOP.  The only way they can make that happen is to push forward measures of cost reduction.  Cut costs enough so that we don't need the extra tax and people who don't get subsidies can pay less for their insurance and care.

BTW, I just received a letter from my health insurance provider. it is the same letter I receive every year since the ACA.  They will not be providing my insurance and I will need to find an alternative for 2018.  Yeah....I wonder how much shittier my options will be next year.  The thing is, I would accept it, if we were doing something to make healthcare more affordable instead of this bullshit.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 09:34:44 PM by EnjoyIt »

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3056 on: June 30, 2017, 12:18:02 AM »

If the GOP came up with the best plan in the word making amazing strides, unless it insures the same or more people it will look poor in the eyes of the people. The only way the GOP can make more people like their plan is to insure more people or insure the same amount of people but have it cost less for middle America.

These 2 points just seem like commence sense to me. In that regard, "the best plan" MUST do both.



Moustaches

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: DC
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3057 on: June 30, 2017, 07:07:36 AM »

If the GOP came up with the best plan in the word making amazing strides, unless it insures the same or more people it will look poor in the eyes of the people. The only way the GOP can make more people like their plan is to insure more people or insure the same amount of people but have it cost less for middle America.

These 2 points just seem like commence sense to me. In that regard, "the best plan" MUST do both.

I did some thinking last night and came to the conclusion that the GOP is putting the american people as the last priority in this situation.  Think about who really controls Washington - lobbyists and special interests.  Who benefits from this bill the most?  What the bill does is cut taxes for the wealthy, health insurance companies, medical device companies, and pharma.  Guess who has lobbyists and millions to spend in Washington?  Coincidence?  No.


Live like a badass, so that later you can live like a badass.

Moustaches

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: DC
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3058 on: June 30, 2017, 07:09:10 AM »

If the GOP came up with the best plan in the word making amazing strides, unless it insures the same or more people it will look poor in the eyes of the people. The only way the GOP can make more people like their plan is to insure more people or insure the same amount of people but have it cost less for middle America.

These 2 points just seem like commence sense to me. In that regard, "the best plan" MUST do both.

I did some thinking last night and came to the conclusion that the GOP is putting the american people as the last priority in this situation.  Think about who really controls Washington - lobbyists and special interests.  Who benefits from this bill the most?  What the bill does is cut taxes for the wealthy, health insurance companies, medical device companies, and pharma.  Guess who has lobbyists and millions to spend in Washington?  Coincidence?  No.

Forgot another group - major employers (elimination of employer mandate)
Live like a badass, so that later you can live like a badass.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3059 on: June 30, 2017, 09:17:28 AM »

If the GOP came up with the best plan in the word making amazing strides, unless it insures the same or more people it will look poor in the eyes of the people. The only way the GOP can make more people like their plan is to insure more people or insure the same amount of people but have it cost less for middle America.

These 2 points just seem like commence sense to me. In that regard, "the best plan" MUST do both.

I did some thinking last night and came to the conclusion that the GOP is putting the american people as the last priority in this situation.  Think about who really controls Washington - lobbyists and special interests.  Who benefits from this bill the most?  What the bill does is cut taxes for the wealthy, health insurance companies, medical device companies, and pharma.  Guess who has lobbyists and millions to spend in Washington?  Coincidence?  No.

All three of these comments are correct.  Also, the Democrats (mostly) do care about making sure decent health care is available for everyone.  It's a long standing concern of the party.  The GOP (mostly ) does NOT care about this topic. I don't mean they wish people ill health...I just mean the party is not philosophically concerned with health care as a function of governing. 

But the American people ARE concerned with it, so even a lot of conservative constituents put pressure on the GOP to grapple with something that they don't care about and are not even all that knowledgeable about (legislatively speaking).  So they promise to 'do something' when they get in power.  And then we end up with their offered monstrosities as proposed 'health care bills', which barely address the things voters care about. 

It's like the voters keep explaining their 3 primary concerns over and over: "We want cheaper health care, cheaper insurance premiums and deductibles, and better insurance coverage" and "We want to be able to get coverage for our preexisting conditions" and "We don't want to be forced to buy insurance, but we want lots of options if we buy". 

But the GOP keeps interpreting these (usually wrongly) to mean: "We want a free market, deregulation of the insurance industry, and more trickle down economics" and "We understand the trade-off for access to insurance with preexisting conditions is we probably won't be able to afford it" and "We want freedom to keep our money and to make choices that might bankrupt or kill us".

BFGirl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3060 on: June 30, 2017, 09:20:16 AM »
Every dual income family lives with this insurance penalty.  I'd much rather have the money, thanks.

My wife's employer does just that; because she elects not to take medical insurance (because mine is better and less expensive), she gets an extra $700/paycheck in lieu of medical insurance - 90% of the employer contribution to medical insurance.  I wouldn't say this perk is common, but it is definitely appreciated and makes you realize how expensive the total (employer+employee) cost of medical insurance can be even by "larger" employer standards.
I had a previous employer (2013-2014 ish) who did something similar, but bad. If you accepted their insurance, they would add a very stiff surcharge to your premium if your spouse was employed by a company who also offered insurance. So if I was on my company's insurance, but my husband's company offered crappy insurance, I'd have to pay something like an additional $150/mo on my premiums (whether or not he was actually on my insurance).

That is bizarre, I've never heard of something like that.  How would they enforce something like that?  You would need to report to your employer your spouses health insurance availability?  What if they gained/lost insurance availability mid-stream?

There is a $200/month surcharge for spouses on my insurance if the spouse chooses not to enroll in healthcare offered at their job.  See below:

"Spouse surcharge (medical plans only)
A Spouse Medical Plan Surcharge Affidavit is required
every year. Regardless of the medical plan you select,
if you enroll your spouse in your 2017 medical plan,
your premium cost could be higher. The spouse
surcharge does not apply to dental or vision coverage.
The spouse surcharge will apply if:
1. Your spouse’s employer offers a medical plan and
your spouse did not enroll in that plan; and
2. You cover your spouse in your employer PPO
medical plan or HDP; then
3. A $200 per month spouse surcharge will apply
to the cost of covering your spouse on your
employer medical plan (deducted from payroll).
4. The surcharge will also apply if you fail to turn
in the required Spouse Medical Plan Surcharge
Affidavit or if you were late turning it in.
For purposes of the spouse surcharge, the spouse’s
employer plan must be an affordable medical plan
with minimum essential coverage (MEC) as defined by
the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The spouse surcharge will not apply if:
1. Your spouse is enrolled in both his/her employer
medical plan (proof of enrollment required) and
your PPO plan or HDP; or
2. Your spouse does not work outside the home and
has no access to employer coverage; or
3. Your spouse’s employer does not offer medical
coverage or your spouse is not eligible for that
coverage; or
4. Your spouse’s other coverage is Medicare,
Medicaid, TRICARE or care received at a VA
facility; and
5. You turned in the required Spouse Medical Plan
Surcharge Affidavit on time.
Required time-sensitive enrollment action
During annual enrollment, any employee who covers
his/her spouse must sign a Spouse Medical Plan
Surcharge Affidavit attesting to the spouse’s access
to employer medical plan coverage through his/
her employer, regardless if he/she enrolled in that
coverage. Your employer may allow you to sign the
Affidavit online when you enroll in coverage. Other
employers require a paper form. More information
and a copy of the form will be in the Annual
Enrollment Packet."

Moustaches

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: DC
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3061 on: June 30, 2017, 11:04:01 AM »
Every dual income family lives with this insurance penalty.  I'd much rather have the money, thanks.

My wife's employer does just that; because she elects not to take medical insurance (because mine is better and less expensive), she gets an extra $700/paycheck in lieu of medical insurance - 90% of the employer contribution to medical insurance.  I wouldn't say this perk is common, but it is definitely appreciated and makes you realize how expensive the total (employer+employee) cost of medical insurance can be even by "larger" employer standards.
I had a previous employer (2013-2014 ish) who did something similar, but bad. If you accepted their insurance, they would add a very stiff surcharge to your premium if your spouse was employed by a company who also offered insurance. So if I was on my company's insurance, but my husband's company offered crappy insurance, I'd have to pay something like an additional $150/mo on my premiums (whether or not he was actually on my insurance).

That is bizarre, I've never heard of something like that.  How would they enforce something like that?  You would need to report to your employer your spouses health insurance availability?  What if they gained/lost insurance availability mid-stream?

There is a $200/month surcharge for spouses on my insurance if the spouse chooses not to enroll in healthcare offered at their job.  See below:

"Spouse surcharge (medical plans only)
A Spouse Medical Plan Surcharge Affidavit is required
every year. Regardless of the medical plan you select,
if you enroll your spouse in your 2017 medical plan,
your premium cost could be higher. The spouse
surcharge does not apply to dental or vision coverage.
The spouse surcharge will apply if:
1. Your spouse’s employer offers a medical plan and
your spouse did not enroll in that plan; and
2. You cover your spouse in your employer PPO
medical plan or HDP; then
3. A $200 per month spouse surcharge will apply
to the cost of covering your spouse on your
employer medical plan (deducted from payroll).
4. The surcharge will also apply if you fail to turn
in the required Spouse Medical Plan Surcharge
Affidavit or if you were late turning it in.
For purposes of the spouse surcharge, the spouse’s
employer plan must be an affordable medical plan
with minimum essential coverage (MEC) as defined by
the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The spouse surcharge will not apply if:
1. Your spouse is enrolled in both his/her employer
medical plan (proof of enrollment required) and
your PPO plan or HDP; or
2. Your spouse does not work outside the home and
has no access to employer coverage; or
3. Your spouse’s employer does not offer medical
coverage or your spouse is not eligible for that
coverage; or
4. Your spouse’s other coverage is Medicare,
Medicaid, TRICARE or care received at a VA
facility; and
5. You turned in the required Spouse Medical Plan
Surcharge Affidavit on time.
Required time-sensitive enrollment action
During annual enrollment, any employee who covers
his/her spouse must sign a Spouse Medical Plan
Surcharge Affidavit attesting to the spouse’s access
to employer medical plan coverage through his/
her employer, regardless if he/she enrolled in that
coverage. Your employer may allow you to sign the
Affidavit online when you enroll in coverage. Other
employers require a paper form. More information
and a copy of the form will be in the Annual
Enrollment Packet."

I love this country.

"Effective immediately, all spouses must undergo drug testing.  If evidence of illegal drug usage is found, a surcharge of $200 per paycheck will  be deducted."

"Effective immediately, all spouses must eat broccoli.  If not, a surcharge of $200 per paycheck will  be deducted."
Live like a badass, so that later you can live like a badass.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3062 on: June 30, 2017, 11:50:14 AM »
There has been a lot of talk here, 62 pages thus far, about how insurance needs to work, and could work better.  A few comments in there as well about single payer coverage.   Has any one stopped to think that the whole issue may be a "for profit" system.  If health care is to look out to line their own profits, is it a wonder that the costs for the system in the US is more per person then anywhere else in the world?

The Canadian health system has its problems for sure, but at least I never have to worry about not being able to afford getting the healthcare I need.

Many countries who have single payer actually higher private insurance to manage it.  There still exists the for profit motive for them as well.

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3063 on: June 30, 2017, 11:50:31 PM »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5213
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3064 on: July 01, 2017, 12:58:36 AM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or anyone?) supports the Republican plan to strip health insurance from millions of poor Americans in order to fund a tax break for billionaires? 

We're not talking about speed limits or alcohol prohibition here, this is literally medical care for sick people.  We're talking about taking away medical care from sick people.  Yes, some sick people will die if you take away their medical care.  No joke.

You could equally make the case that Americans are fat and need to eat less, but that doesn't mean we should end the WIC program that provides subsidized food to malnourished babies.  See the exact parallel?

Frankly I'm more than a little bit disgusted that anyone would find that kind of "joke" funny.  Americans are fat, but that doesn't mean we want babies to starve to death.  Healthcare costs too much, but that doesn't mean we want sick people to die.  You can make a logical case for why healthcare costs are too high without playing the part of super-villain caricature.  "And after I steal from these nuns, I'll burn down the orphanage too!  Muwahahahahah!"

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3065 on: July 01, 2017, 01:24:58 AM »
+1 Sol.

Like I said before in this thread, way too many Republicans are sociopaths and really don't give a shit about people dying and would rather have a tax cut and upset liberals than save people's lives.   There's really no other way to put it. 

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3066 on: July 01, 2017, 02:34:49 AM »
Lighten up,  Frances.

justchristine

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3067 on: July 01, 2017, 05:15:53 AM »
It's early and I can't sleep so naturally my brain turns on and tries to solve the problems of the world.  The question that popped in my head is why don't the Republicans punt this to the state level.  They clearly want smaller involvement from the federal level.  Why not say that at least say 95% of a states population must be covered, give them Medicaid funds to do as they would and let the states figure it out.  That would totally suck for me and probably every red state citizen but it seems that would be easier for them to pass or does that foul up the whole thing with just needing a simple majority vote.  I don't know the nuances up legislative procedure , just random thoughts at too early o'clock.

Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4059
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Oregon
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3068 on: July 01, 2017, 10:55:02 AM »
Well that is what they are trying to do with Medicaid.. I.e just give a much smaller block of money to each State for Medicaid. The problem of course is that most of the States are in a budget crisis and won't be able to afford to fund Medicaid back to its original level.

Sooo.. States would have to raise taxes.. Or not of course and let the system wither away.

So essentially you might help the Federal deficit this way but you simply move the problem to the States.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3069 on: July 01, 2017, 02:20:59 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or anyone?) supports the Republican plan to strip health insurance from millions of poor Americans in order to fund a tax break for billionaires? 

We're not talking about speed limits or alcohol prohibition here, this is literally medical care for sick people.  We're talking about taking away medical care from sick people.  Yes, some sick people will die if you take away their medical care.  No joke.

You could equally make the case that Americans are fat and need to eat less, but that doesn't mean we should end the WIC program that provides subsidized food to malnourished babies.  See the exact parallel?

Frankly I'm more than a little bit disgusted that anyone would find that kind of "joke" funny.  Americans are fat, but that doesn't mean we want babies to starve to death.  Healthcare costs too much, but that doesn't mean we want sick people to die.  You can make a logical case for why healthcare costs are too high without playing the part of super-villain caricature.  "And after I steal from these nuns, I'll burn down the orphanage too!  Muwahahahahah!"

Fear is an amazing motivator.  For example, fear of weapons of mass destruction got us to invade Iraq. I disagree with the republican plan as it does not address my biggest concern which is cost, but yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.  Another comment like giving tax breaks for the rich is also great propaganda considering those were the ones who were taxed due to the ACA. It sure sounds better and more sinister compared to "reversing tax hikes on the rich." Add them together and you have yourself a super line. "Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there.  Again, I do not agree with the republican plan, I'm just pointing out the psychology here.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3070 on: July 01, 2017, 02:44:09 PM »
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 03:12:38 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5213
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3071 on: July 01, 2017, 02:50:00 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.

I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.

Quote
"Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there. 

Here's a tip:  don't use quotation marks when you're not quoting.  Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't make shit up and then pretend that someone you disagree with said it.  That's the lowest form of dishonest, isn't it?  Lying to make it look like someone else was lying?  You should be ashamed of yourself.

We expect better from each other here.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3072 on: July 01, 2017, 03:00:28 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or anyone?) supports the Republican plan to strip health insurance from millions of poor Americans in order to fund a tax break for billionaires? 

We're not talking about speed limits or alcohol prohibition here, this is literally medical care for sick people.  We're talking about taking away medical care from sick people.  Yes, some sick people will die if you take away their medical care.  No joke.

You could equally make the case that Americans are fat and need to eat less, but that doesn't mean we should end the WIC program that provides subsidized food to malnourished babies.  See the exact parallel?

Frankly I'm more than a little bit disgusted that anyone would find that kind of "joke" funny.  Americans are fat, but that doesn't mean we want babies to starve to death.  Healthcare costs too much, but that doesn't mean we want sick people to die.  You can make a logical case for why healthcare costs are too high without playing the part of super-villain caricature.  "And after I steal from these nuns, I'll burn down the orphanage too!  Muwahahahahah!"

It appears that roughly 10% of the US population supports the Republican health care plan.

This is some kind of informal survey link, so the results probably aren't very accurate:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/suffolk-poll-obamacare-trump-senate-health-care-plan/103249346/

This is very strange.   Up here the politicians would be running away from such unpopular legislation as fast as their legs could carry them.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3073 on: July 01, 2017, 03:27:31 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.

I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.

Quote
"Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there. 

Here's a tip:  don't use quotation marks when you're not quoting.  Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't make shit up and then pretend that someone you disagree with said it.  That's the lowest form of dishonest, isn't it?  Lying to make it look like someone else was lying?  You should be ashamed of yourself.

We expect better from each other here.

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.  It makes for great news, and makes for great propaganda.  Remember I don't disagree with you that the republican plan is bad.  Actually I keep reiterating it because people keep thinking I am a republican or something which is completely not true.

Also, I did not put quotes around 10 million people will die because I am not quoting anyone. It is similar though to what you posted above. Please read my entire comment the words and punctuation have a purpose.

Again, I am not denying that people losing health insurance coverage is a bad thing which will harm those people.  All I am doing is showing the psychology of these statements. I even write it directly in my post but you seam to ignore that and jump straight to the item you don't like. The psychology of your response is completely understandable. You take it as an attack on you and instantly disregard all other statements.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 03:43:01 PM by EnjoyIt »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5213
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3074 on: July 01, 2017, 09:07:42 PM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with. 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3075 on: July 01, 2017, 11:02:54 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.
I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.  It makes for great news, and makes for great propaganda.  Remember I don't disagree with you that the republican plan is bad.  Actually I keep reiterating it because people keep thinking I am a republican or something which is completely not true.

Also, I did not put quotes around 10 million people will die because I am not quoting anyone. It is similar though to what you posted above. Please read my entire comment the words and punctuation have a purpose.
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.
It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

EnjoyIt did misquote sol, who never said "millions will die."  Sol's comment did mention millions but in the context of losing insurance, not dying.

Can't say whether EnjoyIt made it up, but saying "[n]obody has said [millions will die] except [EnjoyIt]" is also not correct, as the Daily Kos headline: House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death (the article itself is less histrionic) and the comments starting at ~2:20 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICWuOmbLKds attest.  OK, nobody (that I know of) said 10 million. ;)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3076 on: July 01, 2017, 11:47:45 PM »
EnjoyIt did misquote sol, who never said "millions will die."  Sol's comment did mention millions but in the context of losing insurance, not dying.

Can't say whether EnjoyIt made it up, but saying "[n]obody has said [millions will die] except [EnjoyIt]" is also not correct, as the Daily Kos headline: House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death (the article itself is less histrionic) and the comments starting at ~2:20 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICWuOmbLKds attest.  OK, nobody (that I know of) said 10 million. ;)

I mean, Daily Kos is probably the most liberal-skewed news site that has at least some semblance of journalistic integrity, and as you say, the clickbaity headline is still FAR more misleading than the content.

Sol's point remains. If the best response to "thousands of people will literally die because of these tax cuts for the rich" is "yeah, but so and so said MILLIONS, so WTF!!!!?!?!@?!?$#?!?" you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale, regardless of your political allegiance.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 11:50:57 PM by Lagom »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3077 on: July 01, 2017, 11:57:39 PM »
...you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale
Fortunately it seems at least a few Republican senators won't support the version last offered, so hope remains for something more reasonable.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6152
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3078 on: July 02, 2017, 04:51:38 AM »
...you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale
Fortunately it seems at least a few Republican senators won't support the version last offered, so hope remains for something more reasonable.
And here's to hoping....
I'm just nervous.  Someone on NPR said yesterday "never turn your back on a zombie bill ... and this is a zombie bill"
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3079 on: July 02, 2017, 08:08:10 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3080 on: July 02, 2017, 09:55:35 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

Sol,
I completely agree with you, don't you understand it.  I agree with you that the republican plan is shit. How can i get that through your skull?
I also see the argument on the left to be extreme in an attempt to bring fear and fear sells. Remember the death panel argument on the right?  It is the same extreme that unfortunately removed a very positive section of the ACA.

I am talking about psychology and nothing more. The current US psychology judges our health plan by the number of people it insures irregardless of the cost or the quality of the insurance provided.  Unless the Republicans can increase the number insured or keep it the same but increase quality or decrease cost to the consumer the plan will be extremely unpopular even amongst republicans.

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3081 on: July 02, 2017, 09:57:42 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.


Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

You strike me as one of those people who will kick the shit out of a gay hispanic for wearing a trump hat and then go home feeling good about yourself.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3082 on: July 02, 2017, 10:05:29 AM »
I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right.
Lunatic fringes exist on the edges of all parts of the political spectrum.  What type of behavior do you expect from the lunatic fringe of the left?

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3083 on: July 02, 2017, 11:50:09 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.

Rosy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
  • Location: Florida
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3084 on: July 02, 2017, 12:46:13 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Apparently Martin Shkreli is posting in our forum, https://youtu.be/e_V7N1oAu00?t=1m17s

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.


Stop it Alim - if you have nothing but rabble rousing remarks to contribute. Stop derailing this thread and stop trying to bring it down to your level of communication skills.

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3085 on: July 02, 2017, 01:40:21 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Apparently Martin Shkreli is posting in our forum, https://youtu.be/e_V7N1oAu00?t=1m17s

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.


Stop it Alim - if you have nothing but rabble rousing remarks to contribute. Stop derailing this thread and stop trying to bring it down to your level of communication skills.w

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.

[MOD NOTE: Enough of this.  Forum Rule #1]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 08:10:28 PM by FrugalToque »

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3086 on: July 02, 2017, 03:39:25 PM »

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.
Describing people as "uncivil lunatics", as you did, is definitely an ad hominem attack, and detracts from what has been a difficult but essentially constructive discussion.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3087 on: July 02, 2017, 04:17:33 PM »

I find that insults spew when cognitive dissonance sets in. Psychological turbulence sets in when someone is given an argument that they are unable to rationalize with their own view of the world. The mind has to either admit that it has rationalized incorrectly, change the subject, or lash out with insults to protect itself. It happens on the right and the left.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Location: MA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3088 on: July 02, 2017, 04:30:47 PM »
Nah, sometimes I just insult people because I am angry and tired.  It’s exhausting having to muddlethrough the inaccurate and petty bullshit that people post on a daily basis, and everyone has a limit.  I keep hearing the “cognitive dissonance” arguement by people who really have no business making that judgment (Scott Adams comes to mind).  Seriously. It is pretty much impossible to know if that is what someone is experiencing unless you are in their head.  But if it makes you feel superior, go for it. 

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4419
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3089 on: July 02, 2017, 04:56:42 PM »

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.
Describing people as "uncivil lunatics", as you did, is definitely an ad hominem attack, and detracts from what has been a difficult but essentially constructive discussion.
I have found here, and on local message boards, that people tend to resort to flat out insults "you're stupid" or "you're crazy" when they are incapable of discussing issues rationally.

For most subjects, there's a middle ground, no black/white and no right/ wrong.  But people on BOTH sides often have difficulty navigating this.  Because it's complicated.  And complicated is hard.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3090 on: July 04, 2017, 08:31:30 PM »

BTW, I just received a letter from my health insurance provider. it is the same letter I receive every year since the ACA.  They will not be providing my insurance and I will need to find an alternative for 2018.  Yeah....I wonder how much shittier my options will be next year.  The thing is, I would accept it, if we were doing something to make healthcare more affordable instead of this bullshit.


Any surprise that insurance companies keeping bowing out when the Republicans in both Congress and the White House will do everything they can to destabilize the Federal Marketplace or State exchanges (so that insurance companies leave these)?

We had Marco Rubio spearhead the effort to derail the risk corridors for the insurance companies, Trump has left it unclear whether he would continue to support the cost-sharing subsidies, Republican state governments in states like Texas refused Medicaid expansion which strains the Federal Marketplace exchanges, and now this:

Congress Moves to Stop I.R.S. From Enforcing Health Law Mandate
https://nyti.ms/2tGknIZ

If you like back to the middle of page 56 on this thread, you'll see the graphic of the three legged stool that's required to keep the ACA marketplaces stable. One of those legs requires a mandate to get insurance or face a penalty (the penalty is too lenient).

« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 08:33:24 PM by DavidAnnArbor »

Moustaches

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
  • Age: 38
  • Location: DC
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3091 on: July 05, 2017, 07:31:35 AM »
+1 Sol.

Like I said before in this thread, way too many Republicans are sociopaths and really don't give a shit about people dying and would rather have a tax cut and upset liberals than save people's lives.   There's really no other way to put it.

You need to move away from the assumption that congressmen think through issues based on the net benefit to society.  What is important to congressmen is keeping the gravy train flowing.  They need to constantly raise money in order to campaign in elections to convince their local constituents that they should be elected.  If they piss off the wrong rich people, they lose campaign funds and are out of a job.  So, this bill makes more sense once I realized that.  This is not a health care improvement bill, it's a tax cut for rich people (including health insurance companies, medical devices, pharma, and rich taxpayers), who can legally donate millions of dollars to super PACs due to Citizen United, and fund lobbyists who can directly fund congressmen in a system of legalized bribery.  The only way to stop that is to make the congressmen fear that they won't be elected if they screw over their local citizens too much, but this fear is lessened in gerrymandered districts that won't ever vote for democrats, and when the democrats can't put forth good candidates.

If you really want to stop this health care bill, you can't appeal to the republican's sense of rationality.  You must appeal to their fear and beat them at their own game - which is why the actions of "Indivisible" are so important.
Live like a badass, so that later you can live like a badass.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3092 on: July 05, 2017, 03:31:30 PM »

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3093 on: July 05, 2017, 09:34:05 PM »
What percentage of income over 250k is worth giving so citizens have the option to buy health insurance? It really comes down to that question.

Is it zero- all those uninsured people should figure it out on their own or use the ER when needed and the hospitals can collect from people with insurance to cover the loss?

Or is it some percentage? In which case, we need to figure out how to make the system work better.

An interesting provision in the Senate Bill is the elimination of the ACA tax is retroactive to 2016, meaning those who paid the 3.8% ACA tax on sums over 250k will love getting a nice tax refund.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3094 on: July 07, 2017, 02:17:25 PM »
Even if you do everything right financially, read this excellent piece by Ron Lieber, about the descent into Medicaid.
Also, the article reveals that long term care insurance and eldercare lawyers can be scammers.

One Woman’s Slide From Middle Class to Medicaid

https://nyti.ms/2uRaVjs

Exflyboy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4059
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Oregon
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3095 on: July 08, 2017, 02:05:10 PM »
Republicans ask Dems: Where's your health plan?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/340683-republicans-ask-dems-wheres-your-healthcare-plan

LOL?

The audacity of the GOP is beyond belief.. Sure the Dems should help with a plan.. So the GOP makes sure it tries to come up with a plan completely behind closed doors.. and fails twice!

And this is the most advanced nation on Earth!

talltexan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3096 on: July 10, 2017, 07:48:40 AM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Difference being that not giving a few thousand or whatever to family won't cause them to die because they can't afford cancer treatments but cutting Medicaid or backdoor evisceration of protections for pre-exisiting conditions does.  Many studies show that it's X # of deaths per Y # of uninsured.  Or is that fake news? 

Just admit that many of you right wingers just don't give a shit about people, you don't care if people die.   Fucking sociopaths.
They care a lot about fetuses though!

But really, I do have a LOT of conservative family members.  A LOT.  And ... they sort of don't care if people die.  I don't mean that in a "cold-hearted" way, but more of a practical way.

You know we've touched on this in several threads, but not sure if we've really delved deeply into it.

Aside from the cost of care being high and the need to cut it, there's the practical aspect and the caring aspect
- babies born early that spend a lot of time in the NICU cost a lot of money
- many of them have life-long problems that cost a lot of money, both health-wise and education wise
- babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or with other birth defects like down syndrome, or genetic disorders - they cost money.  To care for medically, and to educate.
- people get cancer.  Cancer treatment is expensive.
- people get diabetes, sometimes kids get Type 1, treatment is expensive
- people get old and sick.  And end of life care is expensive, and sometimes you need it for a very long time
- people will spend an inordinate amount of money, time, effort, to keep someone alive
- we don't allow euthanasia.  What if someone would rather die peacefully than live on machines for years, or die by refusing to eat?
- young people die because they get sick and don't have insurance and aren't able to get care

So, where do you draw the line?  I've got friends in Canada and Europe and the UK where they get care.  Yes, their taxes are high.  But they don't generally go broke due to medical issues.

In the US, we are such "individuals"... honestly, a lot of my conservative family members are practical.  People die.  They get that.  My cousin died of a leg infection.  Sometimes your baby is born too early and they die.  Sometimes you get cancer, and your church has a spaghetti dinner and a pancake breakfast (or 3) because your insurance sucks, or you don't have it at all.  But then you can't afford to finish chemo, so you die.  Sometimes you get old, and you cannot afford a home.  You don't want to go in one anyway.  So a few friends and family members may help you out, come by, bring dinner.  But in the end, you are living alone, you have an aneurysm burst and you die (my dad).

It's complicated, especially when you are talking millions of dollars.  I saw a quote yesterday "by having a lifetime cap on insurance, you are telling someone that they aren't worth any more money to keep alive".  Which sounds harsh.  And it is.  A preemie can hit that in months, and that preemie can go on to grow up and get a job and pay taxes.  On the other hand, that preemie might require a lifetime of specialized care in a special home, and that can run even higher.

Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3097 on: July 10, 2017, 03:07:28 PM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Difference being that not giving a few thousand or whatever to family won't cause them to die because they can't afford cancer treatments but cutting Medicaid or backdoor evisceration of protections for pre-exisiting conditions does.  Many studies show that it's X # of deaths per Y # of uninsured.  Or is that fake news? 

Just admit that many of you right wingers just don't give a shit about people, you don't care if people die.   Fucking sociopaths.
They care a lot about fetuses though!

But really, I do have a LOT of conservative family members.  A LOT.  And ... they sort of don't care if people die.  I don't mean that in a "cold-hearted" way, but more of a practical way.

You know we've touched on this in several threads, but not sure if we've really delved deeply into it.

Aside from the cost of care being high and the need to cut it, there's the practical aspect and the caring aspect
- babies born early that spend a lot of time in the NICU cost a lot of money
- many of them have life-long problems that cost a lot of money, both health-wise and education wise
- babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or with other birth defects like down syndrome, or genetic disorders - they cost money.  To care for medically, and to educate.
- people get cancer.  Cancer treatment is expensive.
- people get diabetes, sometimes kids get Type 1, treatment is expensive
- people get old and sick.  And end of life care is expensive, and sometimes you need it for a very long time
- people will spend an inordinate amount of money, time, effort, to keep someone alive
- we don't allow euthanasia.  What if someone would rather die peacefully than live on machines for years, or die by refusing to eat?
- young people die because they get sick and don't have insurance and aren't able to get care

So, where do you draw the line?  I've got friends in Canada and Europe and the UK where they get care.  Yes, their taxes are high.  But they don't generally go broke due to medical issues.

In the US, we are such "individuals"... honestly, a lot of my conservative family members are practical.  People die.  They get that.  My cousin died of a leg infection.  Sometimes your baby is born too early and they die.  Sometimes you get cancer, and your church has a spaghetti dinner and a pancake breakfast (or 3) because your insurance sucks, or you don't have it at all.  But then you can't afford to finish chemo, so you die.  Sometimes you get old, and you cannot afford a home.  You don't want to go in one anyway.  So a few friends and family members may help you out, come by, bring dinner.  But in the end, you are living alone, you have an aneurysm burst and you die (my dad).

It's complicated, especially when you are talking millions of dollars.  I saw a quote yesterday "by having a lifetime cap on insurance, you are telling someone that they aren't worth any more money to keep alive".  Which sounds harsh.  And it is.  A preemie can hit that in months, and that preemie can go on to grow up and get a job and pay taxes.  On the other hand, that preemie might require a lifetime of specialized care in a special home, and that can run even higher.

Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

It was a family business, so the shareholders were all in my father's family.  So presumably they all agreed to issue a policy covering preexisting conditions or some such, within a day of my birth/emergency delivery.  It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3098 on: July 11, 2017, 12:13:39 PM »
Quote
It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

I find myself thinking personally that so much of what I view as wrong with our society comes down to a lack of ability or willingness to empathize with the plight of others. I can't pretend to know what it is like to be really rich or grow up poor or be a minority, but I can take a moment to do a thought experiment and see where that takes me. I have some awareness of how very fortunate I have been in life and how others may not necessarily have had all of those breaks. That makes me much more willing to support policies to level the playing field a bit and provide people with enough of a safety net to be able to better themselves.

Perhaps I am overly sensitive? Perhaps others purposefully turn off their empathy switch? I'm not sure.
"It'll be great!"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7108
  • Registered member
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3099 on: July 11, 2017, 12:29:17 PM »


Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

It was a family business, so the shareholders were all in my father's family.  So presumably they all agreed to issue a policy covering preexisting conditions or some such, within a day of my birth/emergency delivery.  It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

Don't worry, they just passed the costs on to their other insured by raising premiums (allowed by regulators since payouts increased).