Overheard on Facebook

[Kashmani]

I'm assuming the blenders in question are Vitamix and Blendec?

If so then I recommend getting them even though they are hefty if you blend a decent amount. They are incredibly well-made and have a very long warranty (and great customer service). I believe you may find a sale on them on Amazon or another website today.

I was arm-twisted in getting DW a Vitamix for her 40th birthday last year and thought the price was ridiculous.

Since then, I have been appeased with regular smoothies and banana milks, sometimes in a mason jar in my lunch bag. And I hate to admit it, but - damn, they're good. That thing doesn't blend almonds, it obliterates them into individual almond molecules effortlessly floating in an oh-so-foamy emulsion of bananas and milk.

I no longer judge. Like crack, the blender may be a bad value but it's addictive...

[ketchup]

I was near an expensive food processor over the weekend. Its notable feature: it was quiet.

I can vouch for he opposite at the very least.  I bought a cheapie one from Walmart last year and it is mediocre but it definitely sounds like a tornado running over a ball bearing factory.

[Finallyunderstand]

just bought my 2nd blender ever.  First was about $35.  This one was about the same.  First lasted 5 years.  I'm 33.  I may blend things until I'm 80.  57yrs/5= 11.4 expected cheap blenders needed in my lifetime or $399.  I'll take a new blender every half decade instead of a $600 blender with a warranty.  I should also add that it is used a minimum of once daily and sometimes 2-3 times per day on different occasions. 


On topic "I want Starbucks but my bank account is telling me no" from a recent facebook post.

If your bank account can't handle a Starbucks purchase then the lack of coffee is the least of your worries. 

[Hadilly]

I was at Costco yesterday and the vitamix guy was doing a demo. Sounds like Costco has the best price and they are dropping another $60 or $100 too, so maybe $250 or so total?  Maybe check out Costco if you want one. Sorry to be so vague on the details.

I hate adding appliances so I also use my food processor for the occasional smoothie.

[zolotiyeruki]

There's an ice cream place in the same building where I work.  They recently replaced their several-years-old commercial-grade BlendTec blenders.  I picked one of the old ones up for $50.  It's the kind with the cover that encloses the pitcher while you blend stuff, and has programmed sequences for blending different things.  The thing is a beast, too--it requires a 20A outlet in our kitchen!

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

On topic "I want Starbucks but my bank account is telling me no" from a recent facebook post.

If your bank account can't handle a Starbucks purchase then the lack of coffee is the least of your worries.

At least they're not buying it. A broke person who doesn't buy shit because they know they can't afford it is still conceptually miles ahead of the person who throws it on a credit card.

[Just Joe]

Hopefully that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles. 

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

On topic "I want Starbucks but my bank account is telling me no" from a recent facebook post.

If your bank account can't handle a Starbucks purchase then the lack of coffee is the least of your worries.

At least they're not buying it. A broke person who doesn't buy shit because they know they can't afford it is still conceptually miles ahead of the person who throws it on a credit card.

Or who borrows from a friend or relative, or who mooches it off someone else, or who sticks someone else with the bill, or plenty of other dysfunctional behaviors we've seen discussed on this board.

[Just Joe]

Hope their car doesn't break any time soon. I've seen that happen. Dependent on a car to get through the week. Can't afford to repair it. Lasting troubles ensue. Credit card debt, sudden car payments if they can pony up the cash each month for years, etc all because the car needs $200 worth of parts and the owner can't/won't DIY anything.

[nereo]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

No.  Absolutely no.  This is one of those factoids that gets branded around without substance or context. While more than half of bankruptees may blame medical debt for causing their bankruptcy, in most cases they were on seriously shaky financial footing to begin with, enough where they couldn't cover an unexpected expense. If you've been in the workforce for a decade+ you ought to have tens-of-thousand$ saved up, minimum.  If outside forces (e.g. job loss) have truly kept you from saving any money then those factors led to the bankruptcy, not the unanticipated medical bill at the end.  If spent your 20s leasing new cars, going on vacations, eating at restaurants and otherwise living a life on credit and then go bankrupt when you suddenly need medical care, the medical care was just the expense that exposed the cracks in your shaky financial house.

Do some people go through bankruptcy because of medical debt?  sure.  Is it >50%?  hell no.

[shelivesthedream]

I think the correct verb is probably "precipitated".

[marty998]

Hmm... I had to stop and think about something today...

Saw on a mustachian group Facebook page someone was bragging about their car passing 300,000 in milage.

Everyone was congratulating him saying how wonderful it is to keep a cheap old car going.

My first reaction was "driving 300,000 miles doesn't sound very frugal to me".

(And really? We're having the blender discussion again? Haha)

[mustachepungoeshere]

Hmm... I had to stop and think about something today...

Saw on a mustachian group Facebook page someone was bragging about their car passing 300,000 in milage.

Everyone was congratulating him saying how wonderful it is to keep a cheap old car going.

My first reaction was "driving 300,000 miles doesn't sound very frugal to me".

(And really? We're having the blender discussion again? Haha)

Says person who was given a free blender. :P

[merula]

Hmm... I had to stop and think about something today...

Saw on a mustachian group Facebook page someone was bragging about their car passing 300,000 in milage.

Everyone was congratulating him saying how wonderful it is to keep a cheap old car going.

My first reaction was "driving 300,000 miles doesn't sound very frugal to me".

(And really? We're having the blender discussion again? Haha)

I didn't see the post, but did the poster drive the 300,000 miles, or did they buy a high-mileage used car as is the official recommendation from MMM?

In contrast, my five year old car is approaching 30,000 miles. Super mustachian, you say? Hardly, since I made the mistake of buying it new.

[LeRainDrop]

In contrast, my five year old car is approaching 30,000 miles. Super mustachian, you say? Hardly, since I made the mistake of buying it new.

We're practically twins!  I bought my car new six years ago, and I have almost 17,000 miles on it.  Each year I bring it in for the state's emissions check, the guy asks me what my odometer says, so I tell, him, and he always checks it himself, like, "No, not the tripometer; I mean the odometer!"  I knew most of my drives were short, but I didn't realize it would be that little distance/time!

[Imma]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

No.  Absolutely no.  This is one of those factoids that gets branded around without substance or context. While more than half of bankruptees may blame medical debt for causing their bankruptcy, in most cases they were on seriously shaky financial footing to begin with, enough where they couldn't cover an unexpected expense. If you've been in the workforce for a decade+ you ought to have tens-of-thousand$ saved up, minimum.  If outside forces (e.g. job loss) have truly kept you from saving any money then those factors led to the bankruptcy, not the unanticipated medical bill at the end.  If spent your 20s leasing new cars, going on vacations, eating at restaurants and otherwise living a life on credit and then go bankrupt when you suddenly need medical care, the medical care was just the expense that exposed the cracks in your shaky financial house.

Do some people go through bankruptcy because of medical debt?  sure.  Is it >50%?  hell no.

This is true for someone with a professional office job (although that person might have a lot of student debt because they needed to go to college to get that kind of job) but absolutely not for the millions and millions of very hard workers in blue and pink collar jobs. Not everyone who doesn't have tens of thousands in the bank has been living the high life. I believe that you can save money on nearly any income level, but for many people their savings will be very modest even if they live a very frugal life.

[Hula Hoop]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

No.  Absolutely no.  This is one of those factoids that gets branded around without substance or context. While more than half of bankruptees may blame medical debt for causing their bankruptcy, in most cases they were on seriously shaky financial footing to begin with, enough where they couldn't cover an unexpected expense. If you've been in the workforce for a decade+ you ought to have tens-of-thousand$ saved up, minimum.  If outside forces (e.g. job loss) have truly kept you from saving any money then those factors led to the bankruptcy, not the unanticipated medical bill at the end.  If spent your 20s leasing new cars, going on vacations, eating at restaurants and otherwise living a life on credit and then go bankrupt when you suddenly need medical care, the medical care was just the expense that exposed the cracks in your shaky financial house.

Do some people go through bankruptcy because of medical debt?  sure.  Is it >50%?  hell no.

This is true for someone with a professional office job (although that person might have a lot of student debt because they needed to go to college to get that kind of job) but absolutely not for the millions and millions of very hard workers in blue and pink collar jobs. Not everyone who doesn't have tens of thousands in the bank has been living the high life. I believe that you can save money on nearly any income level, but for many people their savings will be very modest even if they live a very frugal life.

Absolutely.  I know tons of people in this situation.  I'm sure you do too.  Think about the daycare worker who looks after your children, the waitress at your local diner, the cashier at the supermarket, the construction worker, the janitor at the hospital.  Most of my husband's family have these kinds of jobs and have very little in savings and I don't blame then for it at all.  They lead very frugal lives.  But some jobs just don't pay much.

[facepalm]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

No.  Absolutely no.  This is one of those factoids that gets branded around without substance or context. While more than half of bankruptees may blame medical debt for causing their bankruptcy, in most cases they were on seriously shaky financial footing to begin with, enough where they couldn't cover an unexpected expense. If you've been in the workforce for a decade+ you ought to have tens-of-thousand$ saved up, minimum.  If outside forces (e.g. job loss) have truly kept you from saving any money then those factors led to the bankruptcy, not the unanticipated medical bill at the end.  If spent your 20s leasing new cars, going on vacations, eating at restaurants and otherwise living a life on credit and then go bankrupt when you suddenly need medical care, the medical care was just the expense that exposed the cracks in your shaky financial house.

Do some people go through bankruptcy because of medical debt?  sure.  Is it >50%?  hell no.

This is true for someone with a professional office job (although that person might have a lot of student debt because they needed to go to college to get that kind of job) but absolutely not for the millions and millions of very hard workers in blue and pink collar jobs. Not everyone who doesn't have tens of thousands in the bank has been living the high life. I believe that you can save money on nearly any income level, but for many people their savings will be very modest even if they live a very frugal life.

Absolutely.  I know tons of people in this situation.  I'm sure you do too.  Think about the daycare worker who looks after your children, the waitress at your local diner, the cashier at the supermarket, the construction worker, the janitor at the hospital.  Most of my husband's family have these kinds of jobs and have very little in savings and I don't blame then for it at all.  They lead very frugal lives.  But some jobs just don't pay much.

Interesting article on the subject here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/the-myth-of-the-medical-bankruptcy

But can we get back to blenders?

I asked for some advice on blenders on fb. Was told to get a 600 dollar model.  ´'If you take the shortest financing option of 12 months you only end up paying 68 dollars in interest!'' :O People really finance blenders?

I'm pretty sure the last blender I bought was close to $68 total.

I'll be honest, I don't have a blender. But I do have a food processor that I also use occasionally as a blender. It cost $80. I can't imagine what a $600 blender must be able to do to be worth all that money. Is it refrigerated for long-term smoothie storage or something? Because I have a fridge already.

I don't get blenders. But then, I don't get smoothies. Why would you want to pulverized all the good stuff in your food and accelerate caloric intake? When I see an overweight person drinking a smoothie I just cringe.

I know you can use them to make sauces and such, but I can do the same thing in a food processor. And while I would like a Robot Coup, I'll stick to something cheaper. I have worked in a few kitchens (and bakeries), and fell into the snob trap of buying commercial grade cookware for a while. You know what? The lesser expensive stuff does just fine. I have a set of Forschner knives, but end up using my cheap stamped steel Dexter Russell Sani Safes more often.

[Just Joe]

Sometimes the extra cost of better cooking tools helps. I have some very cheap pots and pans that have warped over the years so that they rock on the stove top. We also have a few nicer examples that were made with thicker materials that have not warped. From time to time I've used a rubber mallet to reflatten the bottoms of the cheaper pots which dance on the stove top.

We have a mix of really cheap and somewhat better kitchen things. We're replacing with the better quality things as the cheapest stuff wears out. 

[CindyBS]

Hope that $200 clinic visit doesn't start a cascading set of events that leads to even more financial problems. Sick, can't work, missing bills, overdrafts and late fees, etc and only two years later do they crawl out from under their troubles.

More than half of bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. While a $200 expense shouldn't send anyone spiraling into a major predicament, the reality is that people who can't scrape up small amounts to cover emergencies are in a very precarious position.

No.  Absolutely no.  This is one of those factoids that gets branded around without substance or context. While more than half of bankruptees may blame medical debt for causing their bankruptcy, in most cases they were on seriously shaky financial footing to begin with, enough where they couldn't cover an unexpected expense. If you've been in the workforce for a decade+ you ought to have tens-of-thousand$ saved up, minimum.  If outside forces (e.g. job loss) have truly kept you from saving any money then those factors led to the bankruptcy, not the unanticipated medical bill at the end.  If spent your 20s leasing new cars, going on vacations, eating at restaurants and otherwise living a life on credit and then go bankrupt when you suddenly need medical care, the medical care was just the expense that exposed the cracks in your shaky financial house.

Do some people go through bankruptcy because of medical debt?  sure.  Is it >50%?  hell no.

We have a critically ill child who had more than $2Million of medical expenses this year and I've lost my job to stay home and care for him.  I completely agree with your statement.  We've had lost wages, high deductible, and then all the little expenses that come with a sick kid - gas to drive to the hospital, groceries go up b/c of special food needs and lack of time/energy to plan, etc.  Over all, it has cost us tens of thousands a year. 

The only thing we have had to cut back on is retirement savings and vacations and are financially fine.  We are the only people with sick kids that I know that doesn't have a go fund me or ask charities for money.

BUT and this is a huge BUT - we have high wages, good insurance, are old enough to have had decades to build up our net worth, are married, have a stable community of support.   Few people have all those things, and without all of them, I think it is very easy to have a medical problem overwhelm you, especially when lost wages come into play.  In the US, we do not have a society with proper supports (for example, FMLA is a joke with a critically ill kid) that is designed to survive these devastating medical events, even when we can medically save the sick patient.   

[Kyle Schuant]

TWO MILLION?!!!!

[StockBeard]

TWO MILLION?!!!!

I'm not surprised. Our 3rd kid was born prematurely and the final bill for her birth, the NICU treatment, and my wife's hospital stay was about $600K*. So, for a critically ill child who needs constant treatment, I'm actually surprised it doesn't go way higher than 2 million.

* That's what was billed to the insurance. We had to pay about $10K out of pocket.

[former player]

Sometimes the extra cost of better cooking tools helps. I have some very cheap pots and pans that have warped over the years so that they rock on the stove top. We also have a few nicer examples that were made with thicker materials that have not warped. From time to time I've used a rubber mallet to reflatten the bottoms of the cheaper pots which dance on the stove top.

We have a mix of really cheap and somewhat better kitchen things. We're replacing with the better quality things as the cheapest stuff wears out.

Newsflash: once the bottoms of the pans have warped sufficiently to rock on the stove top they are officially worn out.

[marielle]

Sometimes the extra cost of better cooking tools helps. I have some very cheap pots and pans that have warped over the years so that they rock on the stove top. We also have a few nicer examples that were made with thicker materials that have not warped. From time to time I've used a rubber mallet to reflatten the bottoms of the cheaper pots which dance on the stove top.

We have a mix of really cheap and somewhat better kitchen things. We're replacing with the better quality things as the cheapest stuff wears out.

Newsflash: once the bottoms of the pans have warped sufficiently to rock on the stove top they are officially worn out.

I switched to 100% cast iron because of this reason. They're buy it for life and I might have birds one day. They recommend no non-stick for birds (and humans, really, but our respiratory systems aren't quite as sensitive).

[CindyBS]

TWO MILLION?!!!!

Give or take $100K, yes.  My son has cancer and had a bone marrow transplant in June.  The transplant itself was about $1Million alone and included 39 day stay in the ICU.

My son has spent more than 150+ days in the hospital since his diagnosis in 2016 (unlike adult cancer, the majority of childhood cancer is treated inpatient since the treatments are so much more life threatening and intense). 

I think his pharmacy charge alone for Jan. 2017 was $156,000 (before negotiated rate which is probably more like $90,000). He takes a drug that costs $11,000 per month at home.  Chemo is big, big business where they like to price gouge people at their very most vulnerable.  The CEO of the company that makes the chemo drug he takes at home got $15 Million of compensation in 2015. 

Without the protections of the limitations of lifetime max of the ACA, our son would have completed maxed out his lifetime max in 1 year, before he even reached his 15th birthday.  This is why blanket repeal of the ACA is so extremely dangerous for those of us with critically ill kids, and we have employer based insurance.   If we had been on our previous, pre-ACA insurance plan that had a lifetime max, we would be financially ruined by now.

[RidetheRain]

TWO MILLION?!!!!

Give or take $100K, yes.  My son has cancer and had a bone marrow transplant in June.  The transplant itself was about $1Million alone and included 39 day stay in the ICU.

My son has spent more than 150+ days in the hospital since his diagnosis in 2016 (unlike adult cancer, the majority of childhood cancer is treated inpatient since the treatments are so much more life threatening and intense). 

I think his pharmacy charge alone for Jan. 2017 was $156,000 (before negotiated rate which is probably more like $90,000). He takes a drug that costs $11,000 per month at home.  Chemo is big, big business where they like to price gouge people at their very most vulnerable.  The CEO of the company that makes the chemo drug he takes at home got $15 Million of compensation in 2015. 

Without the protections of the limitations of lifetime max of the ACA, our son would have completed maxed out his lifetime max in 1 year, before he even reached his 15th birthday.  This is why blanket repeal of the ACA is so extremely dangerous for those of us with critically ill kids, and we have employer based insurance.   If we had been on our previous, pre-ACA insurance plan that had a lifetime max, we would be financially ruined by now.

I'm sad to hear this story, I hope your son recovers from his surgeries well.

Another bad part of a blanket repeal would add insult to injury. If people can't pay their medical bills (which I think Cindy has proven is very likely) then it just goes back to the taxpayer. The government covers loss of payment for hospitals. If insurance is done and the hospital can't get money from you then they get it from the government. This includes things like the ER which is where people are more likely to end up if they can't afford preventative care. So it would be a double whammy. First, you wreck people financially that already have an illness/disease to deal with and then you charge the taxpayers more than if you just made it reasonable to begin with.

[Just Joe]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

[zolotiyeruki]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

My understanding is that it only repeals the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole, so all the regulations are still in place.  Of course, it still has to actually *pass* the senate, then get through conference committee, and then get passed by both houses again, so your guess is as good as mine whether it will actually happen.

[CindyBS]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

My understanding is that it only repeals the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole, so all the regulations are still in place.  Of course, it still has to actually *pass* the senate, then get through conference committee, and then get passed by both houses again, so your guess is as good as mine whether it will actually happen.

I had heard the same.  I brought up the ACA b/c we are always at risk of repeal.  I think many people have the misconception that if you are a high income earner with private insurance, the ACA doesn't affect you - but it affects everyone.  We are all 1 serious illness away from financial ruin without its protections.  The year before my son was diagnosed, we had about $500 of medical expenses - just a couple office visits. We had no warning of my son's cancer and it is not hereditary, so no family history.   It literally came out of nowhere.

[zolotiyeruki]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

My understanding is that it only repeals the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole, so all the regulations are still in place.  Of course, it still has to actually *pass* the senate, then get through conference committee, and then get passed by both houses again, so your guess is as good as mine whether it will actually happen.

I had heard the same.  I brought up the ACA b/c we are always at risk of repeal.  I think many people have the misconception that if you are a high income earner with private insurance, the ACA doesn't affect you - but it affects everyone.  We are all 1 serious illness away from financial ruin without its protections.  The year before my son was diagnosed, we had about $500 of medical expenses - just a couple office visits. We had no warning of my son's cancer and it is not hereditary, so no family history.   It literally came out of nowhere.

One correction to what I said above--the Senate *has* passed their version of the bill.

[Kyle Schuant]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

[AlanStache]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

[AlanStache]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

[ixtap]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

Bigger medical bills = FREEDOM!

Bigger deficit = FREEDOM!

[BDWW]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

Obviously someone is... Do you think all that money is just disappearing into the ether?

[AlanStache]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

Obviously someone is... Do you think all that money is just disappearing into the ether?

Former gf was making 200k-300k/year selling medical devices to hospitals.  I never understood how she added more value than a website.  Her company made some really dumb manufacturing mistakes too; like shipping products after a change and not in any way testing the change.  There was some dumb stuff like that that are the reason we have to have stupid laws.  But she had a really nice house and her gardener was a good guy so the money was being put back into the economy... 

[lbmustache]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

My understanding is that it only repeals the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole, so all the regulations are still in place.  Of course, it still has to actually *pass* the senate, then get through conference committee, and then get passed by both houses again, so your guess is as good as mine whether it will actually happen.

House bill keeps the individual mandate, Senate bill removes it. I'm curious to see if it makes it to the final bill, however I did read that the House may approve the Senate measure if negotiations fail. Repeal of the individual mandate means those of us who don't qualify for subsidies and pay for insurance out of pocket will have much higher premiums.

[Sibley]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

I'm an optimist (realist). We're not beyond hope. Our current form of government may be, our current crop of politicians may be, but if Germany can come back from WWII, then the US can come back from the current shit show.

[zolotiyeruki]

Did the Republican tax bill repeal the ACA too? I know they were talking about that but I never heard if they did it.

My understanding is that it only repeals the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole, so all the regulations are still in place.  Of course, it still has to actually *pass* the senate, then get through conference committee, and then get passed by both houses again, so your guess is as good as mine whether it will actually happen.

House bill keeps the individual mandate, Senate bill removes it. I'm curious to see if it makes it to the final bill, however I did read that the House may approve the Senate measure if negotiations fail. Repeal of the individual mandate means those of us who don't qualify for subsidies and pay for insurance out of pocket will have much higher premiums.

That's probably correct, because the young, healthier population will opt out of insurance, since it's already expensive and they'd be subsidizing the older/sicker part of the population.

[RidetheRain]

It's not just the young and healthy that would forgo purchasing insurance. People that have trouble affording insurance (young people are double screwed here I think) probably look at insurance as "pre-debt" to the medical emergency.

I know there are stories of people paying thousands out of pocket for copays and deductibles. I could absolutely see someone thinking that they're going to be in debt either way and opt for more money now.

[infogoon]

That's probably correct, because the young, healthier population will opt out of insurance, since it's already expensive and they'd be subsidizing the older/sicker part of the population.

One of my favorite pastimes at family functions is listening to the Baby Boomers complaining about the ACA, without ever acknowledging (or realizing) how much of it was put in place to help their older, unhealthy generation at the expense of the Millennials and Xers.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

That's probably correct, because the young, healthier population will opt out of insurance, since it's already expensive and they'd be subsidizing the older/sicker part of the population.

One of my favorite pastimes at family functions is listening to the Baby Boomers complaining about the ACA, without ever acknowledging (or realizing) how much of it was put in place to help their older, unhealthy generation at the expense of the Millennials and Xers.

Or to keep them from going broke paying for medical treatment for an aging mother or father.

[MrMoogle]

That's probably correct, because the young, healthier population will opt out of insurance, since it's already expensive and they'd be subsidizing the older/sicker part of the population.

One of my favorite pastimes at family functions is listening to the Baby Boomers complaining about the ACA, without ever acknowledging (or realizing) how much of it was put in place to help their older, unhealthy generation at the expense of the Millennials and Xers.

Or to keep them from going broke paying for medical treatment for an aging mother or father.

Or forcing them to watch a parent rapidly decline when there is a cure/treatment, just you can't afford it.

[Fomerly known as something]

It's not just the young and healthy that would forgo purchasing insurance. People that have trouble affording insurance (young people are double screwed here I think) probably look at insurance as "pre-debt" to the medical emergency.

I know there are stories of people paying thousands out of pocket for copays and deductibles. I could absolutely see someone thinking that they're going to be in debt either way and opt for more money now.

Funny, the copay and a sudden change when I had to pay for routine labwork is the reason I give for switching from Blue Cross to a HDHP plan, I figured if I was going to have to pay for it anyway I might as well have a cheaper health insurance.  (I then learned about tax sheltering in my HSA)

[RidetheRain]

It's not just the young and healthy that would forgo purchasing insurance. People that have trouble affording insurance (young people are double screwed here I think) probably look at insurance as "pre-debt" to the medical emergency.

I know there are stories of people paying thousands out of pocket for copays and deductibles. I could absolutely see someone thinking that they're going to be in debt either way and opt for more money now.

Funny, the copay and a sudden change when I had to pay for routine labwork is the reason I give for switching from Blue Cross to a HDHP plan, I figured if I was going to have to pay for it anyway I might as well have a cheaper health insurance.  (I then learned about tax sheltering in my HSA)

I have a similar situation. My regular health plan used to have a $500 deductible. My company has a $500 benefit if you have a HDHP with health fund. My typical yearly healthcare is pretty expensive, but with the company assist, lower monthly cost, and tax sheltering I actually come out on top even with health problems with HDHP. If it helps me with a chronic issue I can only imagine how much better they are for actual healthy people.

[eljefe-speaks]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

No no no, I am told we are now winning like never before.

Bigger medical bills = FREEDOM!

Bigger deficit = FREEDOM!

Being always slightly worried your might get gunned down in public = FREEDOM!

[eljefe-speaks]

Give or take $100K, yes. 

Your country is beyond hope.

I'm an optimist (realist). We're not beyond hope. Our current form of government may be, our current crop of politicians may be, but if Germany can come back from WWII, then the US can come back from the current shit show.

Most encouraging thing I have read in a loooooong time, thanks.

[Kyle Schuant]

I'm an optimist (realist). We're not beyond hope. Our current form of government may be, our current crop of politicians may be, but if Germany can come back from WWII, then the US can come back from the current shit show.

So what you're saying is that the US will be fine so long as it suffers aerial firebombing of major cities, invasion and 50 years of foreign military occupation and partition?

And this makes you an optimist?

[Jacana]

That's probably correct, because the young, healthier population will opt out of insurance, since it's already expensive and they'd be subsidizing the older/sicker part of the population.

One of my favorite pastimes at family functions is listening to the Baby Boomers complaining about the ACA, without ever acknowledging (or realizing) how much of it was put in place to help their older, unhealthy generation at the expense of the Millennials and Xers.

My mother, a tail end baby boomer just about to turn 60, has been hearing this crap from her older relatives for a few years now. She has now refined her response to a single zinger: "Oh, so you declined Medicare then?" That usually ends the conversation fast.