|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 24, 2017 5:54:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Dec 24, 2017 8:38:00 GMT -6
The vitriol and hate are connected to Net Neutrality? Or the Russians? Well, both, of course. The Kremlin goal is to stoke as much division and distrust as possible in the West. They don’t give a flying fuck about specific ideology. They manipulate liberals as well as conservatives, they just happened to find the biggest dupes on the right...this round. Could/will be the left next time. ‘Active meaures’ dont stop at party lines though, as the investigations are/will showing/show. But it’s no coincidence that Fox News parrots RT and Sputnik right now. Enough people on the right have hitched their wagons to Trumpism that no amount of evidence will convince them it was a mistake. They’re ready to go down with the ship, and they will. The former ‘Blue Lives Matter’/‘Support Our Troops’- ribbon crowd is being convinced that law enforcement is the villain. That it’s the rule of law itself that’s the problem and not the lawlessness of their own president. Ugly times we live in. But make no mistake, if/when there are more ready and willing “useful idiots” on the left than the right (and that’s saying something, cause they’re are a lot on the left already), it’ll be a lefty stooge instead of a righty one. That “hate and vitriol” is the goal and the reason for the investment, regardless of any ideological positions. And thus far it’s paying a helluva nice return. This ^ is the alarming truth and people are clueless (because they don't work at being informed). Anything Russia does is designed to create dissension on the chat boards. Vyascheslav Volodin helps Putin and his troll farms undermine the internet utilizing his custom-designed computer terminal loaded with a system called Prism, which monitors public sentiment online using 60 million sources. According to the website of its manufacturer, Prism “actively tracks the social media activities that result in increased social tension, disorderly conduct, protest sentiments and extremism.” Or, as Forbes put it, “Prism sees social media as a battlefield.” And sadly it's working in the United States with foreign news networks like Fox jumping right on the bandwagon because it makes them billions. Facebook has admitted their algorithms favor negative news and conflict because it keeps human beings more engaged with their website. It's not looking good out there, so grab that extra $2,000 out of your tax refund and buy some guns.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 9:01:17 GMT -6
Risk is risk man. Financial risk due to health expenses is no different than any other.
And you’re still completely skipping the bait and switch of including routine basic medical services under insurance.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 24, 2017 9:12:39 GMT -6
I'm all for local sovereignty. >Don, I'm curious if you had money in the stock market in 2008? Do you think government was right to solve that problem? Has government encouraged Wall Street investors- presumably like yourself, but I don't know for certain- dependence on government by continuously coming to the rescue when the market fails?< Frank, I have a friend I met 'cause he was a fan of BOC, and he's a wealthy hedge fund manager. He grew up poor, a son of a Greek immigrant who managed a gas station, had a substance problem, licked it, then discovered he had a talent for the stock market. Now he has boatloads of money. I asked him in 2008 about that, he thought we came close to a financial collapse, and thought the gov't had to do it. But there was no consequences for anyone but Lehman Bros and the GM bond and stock holders (probably quite a few Grannies and retirees too) out of that whole period, was there? And a bunch of Goldman Sachs people joined the Obama administration. That doesn't seem right. Even though the goverment twisted the arms of the banks to make all those bad loans. If you're old enough, remember the ballyhoo about 'redlining' during the Clinton years? Home ownership for all was a big policy deal from Clinton well into the Bush administration. Also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a hand in the bubble. Money was so easy that people were speculating houses as prices exploded until the crash in '08-09. Wall Street had repackaged and fobbed off all that shaky debt and the rest is history. The usual suspects exonerated gov't's role in this, but I believe none of it would have happened without government's social policy meddling in the mortgage loan business to begin with. And Clinton's head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, made 90 million dollars in salary and bonuses during that period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Role_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_MacI didn't have stock during that time and very little of my savings are in stock now. I have a knack for never making much money on investments. I missed the 5000 pt. Dow run up since Trump was elected. I'm lucky I'm still able to work and people want to book me. Don, I think you misperceive my viewpoint when you try to make it political. I think both the right and left politicians economic policy is determined by the wealthy. So, I don't care about the political tit for tat. You're wasting my time with the politics. Both parties are complicit in making Wall Street speculation essentially risk free in the long term as the government-both right and left-will bail them out. It's a protection racket for the wealthy, plain and simple. Not much rugged individualism there.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 9:21:19 GMT -6
You know what? I don't think I care to talk to you any more. I have no idea how you could possibly read what I've written and assume that I'm against charity, pro-bono work, or saving the lives of children. You've insulted me on almost every single post you've made. I don't get it. I don't think that NYT article supports your premise very much. Those hospitals are doing between 2 and 35% of their revenue on charitable work. So... it would make quite a bit of sense to me that they're meeting costs then spending the rest on charity. Just how much profit do you think companies make? Most insurers are between 4-8%. 12% is really good. Anyway best of luck to you, and Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 24, 2017 11:17:10 GMT -6
The unsolveable issue as I see it is that the country is split roughly down the middle with each side having pretty vastly different ideologies - and each side unwilling to budge, and each side essentially thinking/believing that the other doesn't exist, or that the other side are complete morons who don't deserve to vote / think for themselves. It's been shown here in this thread.
I think we have been in the same place in the past (50/50 splits) but the hatred and degradation of the other side was not nearly as rampant as it is now. That coupled with an extremely biased press and lobbyists buying every politician they can find is killing the country.
Criticism of politicians and the president is one thing, hatred and uncontrolled anger and the hubris to tear down anything in their way for any reason is another. I don't care WHO our president is, I don't want to turn on the news and hear anti-president stuff that's absolutely stupid every day of the week. The press has no respect for itself anymore. Politicians have no respect for themselves or for their constituents. I honestly think our country as it once was is done. I hope I'm wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 24, 2017 11:24:23 GMT -6
The unsolveable issue as I see it is that the country is split roughly down the middle with each side having pretty vastly different ideologies - and each side unwilling to budge, and each side essentially thinking/believing that the other doesn't exist, or that the other side are complete morons who don't deserve to vote / think for themselves. It's been shown here in this thread. I think we have been in the same place in the past (50/50 splits) but the hatred and degradation of the other side was not nearly as rampant as it is now. That coupled with an extremely biased press and lobbyists buying every politician they can find is killing the country. Criticism of politicians and the president is one thing, hatred and uncontrolled anger and the hubris to tear down anything in their way for any reason is another. I don't care WHO our president is, I don't want to turn on the news and hear anti-president stuff that's absolutely stupid every day of the week. The press has no respect for itself anymore. Politicians have no respect for themselves or for their constituents. I honestly think our country as it once was is done. I hope I'm wrong though. I agree with almost everything you say here. But for me, no politician, especially the POTUS, gets a pass. If the POTUS, GOP or Dem, does stupid/harmful stuff, I want it reported. The ratio of “negative coverage” this particular POTUS is receiving is pretty close the ratio of dumb/bad things he’s engaged in. That’s of course subjective and I have no animice towards people who disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 24, 2017 11:29:50 GMT -6
The unsolveable issue as I see it is that the country is split roughly down the middle with each side having pretty vastly different ideologies - and each side unwilling to budge, and each side essentially thinking/believing that the other doesn't exist, or that the other side are complete morons who don't deserve to vote / think for themselves. It's been shown here in this thread. I think we have been in the same place in the past (50/50 splits) but the hatred and degradation of the other side was not nearly as rampant as it is now. That coupled with an extremely biased press and lobbyists buying every politician they can find is killing the country. Criticism of politicians and the president is one thing, hatred and uncontrolled anger and the hubris to tear down anything in their way for any reason is another. I don't care WHO our president is, I don't want to turn on the news and hear anti-president stuff that's absolutely stupid every day of the week. The press has no respect for itself anymore. Politicians have no respect for themselves or for their constituents. I honestly think our country as it once was is done. I hope I'm wrong though. I agree with almost everything you say here. But for me, no politician, especially the POTUS, gets a pass. If the POTUS, GOP or Dem, does stupid/harmful stuff, I want it reported. The ratio of “negative coverage” this particular POTUS is receiving is pretty close the ratio of dumb/bad things he’s engaged in. That’s of course subjective and I have no animice towards people who disagree with me. I'm not saying the president should get a pass. I'm saying that I don't want to hear the press degredating him for some off the cuff comment, or for dropping his napkin on the floor and not picking it up. It's stupid. It's both sides. It's tearing the country down the middle. When the goal of the press is to tear down a man / politician at any cost in an effort to sway public opinion their personal direction, the press is beyond worthless. They enter the domain of terrorists at that point. (i.e.: having the goal of creating fear and dissension in the country at any cost necessary.)
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 11:40:23 GMT -6
Part of me thinks it was always this way and we just have the benefit of seeing how the sausage gets made. Politics has always been a rich man’s game for power. Perhaps the politicians and the press were just able to keep up the facade more easily in the past.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 24, 2017 11:49:45 GMT -6
Part of me thinks it was always this way and we just have the benefit of seeing how the sausage gets made. Politics has always been a rich man’s game for power. Perhaps the politicians and the press were just able to keep up the facade more easily in the past. I think there's a good degree of truth in that. I think that the free press is one of the greatest aspects of this country, and most likely the end of it - as personal responsibility and pride for one's actions is a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 24, 2017 12:08:55 GMT -6
I agree with almost everything you say here. But for me, no politician, especially the POTUS, gets a pass. If the POTUS, GOP or Dem, does stupid/harmful stuff, I want it reported. The ratio of “negative coverage” this particular POTUS is receiving is pretty close the ratio of dumb/bad things he’s engaged in. That’s of course subjective and I have no animice towards people who disagree with me. I'm not saying the president should get a pass. I'm saying that I don't want to hear the press degredating him for some off the cuff comment, or for dropping his napkin on the floor and not picking it up. It's stupid. It's both sides. It's tearing the country down the middle. When the goal of the press is to tear down a man / politician at any cost in an effort to sway public opinion their personal direction, the press is beyond worthless. They enter the domain of terrorists at that point. (i.e.: having the goal of creating fear and dissension in the country at any cost necessary.) If we saw the premise the same, I would agree with your conclusion. You see a president dropping a napkin; I see a president doing his best to undermine the oversight and accountability that was wisely baked into our system of government by firing anyone who might hold him to account and installing unqualified sycophants everywhere he can. You see a press trying to take him down regardless of what he does, I see a press reporting to the populace things that actually occur (granted I don’t watch TV news, cable or otherwise. That may be an important distinction. I’m pretty serious about journalism and am careful about what I consume in thatregard.) I think it’s a grave, grave threat, this targeted campaign to get the citizenry to believe that they can’t trust any reporting (other than the Dear Leader/Fox/RT stuff of course) and I think it’s nakedly a preparation for the nasty truths that are coming to light. And it’s working. That’s where I see the real danger. If POTUS moves to fire Bob Mueller (lifelong conservative war hero with as sterling a reputation as anyone ever, praised by everyone from Newt Gingrich to Paul Ryan as a straight shooting law man), we are squarely in constitutional crisis land. BUT, again, if I shared your baseline premises, I can see your point of view having a lot of merit.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 24, 2017 12:11:03 GMT -6
It's back to my (edit: and other people's) argument that politicians are celebrities (actors), news is now like TMZ. The 'news' grabs a sound bite or off script comment and frame a whole story around it, tell us it's a hot story and trending. And they completely neglect the whole story. The public never got the scoop that this stuff is all theater for ratings and manipulation. BOTH SIDES. Anyone who really cares can go watch CSPAN, and see all the empty seats -except when the big bills come to the table. Where is congress? Out somewhere where the money is obviously. And not working on or voting on the bills that won't benefit their image. I always go and read Trumps speeches word for word when I see a headline, because the press ignores any positive, friendly, or non-nutball thing he ever says. Each party is a sports team now, doesn't matter how terrible the team is.. 'it's MY TEAM, we need to beat them other guys', and it's a part of our indentiy, we need to step outside that and take the hat and jersey off. Corruption is in every single society, always has been, so it's a common theme to blame on them other guys. Corruption never goes away, it goes deeper than politics because at its core is man's internal struggle with greed and fear. Something we all struggle with, in every walk of life. The ideas that we are all radically different is myth. We are all so much very alike in so many ways, all the important ones. But our differences are what the manipulators and ratings seekers can focus on. All our opinions, and preferred news sources, on even the things we think we know (like Net Neutrality needs to be protected) aren't necessarily based on any truth, but instead based on regurgitated info and gut reactions from characters we think we can trust, who got their opinions just like we did. Anyway since it's Christmas I'm reminded that some dude came along a couple thousand years ago and tried to teach people to see through the bullshit, that the internal struggle affects us all, and that love needs to be focus and that will conquer the demons. They actually crucified him, blinded by their own inability to see beyond their view. And that only made his message stronger. Well with all this partisan garbage, I'm reminded of back before the Bush Gore election, when the country was in a vicious battle: entertainment.theonion.com/national-funk-congress-deadlocked-on-get-up-get-down-is-1819565355Merry Christmas y'all
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 12:22:18 GMT -6
It’s a lot like a team sport. Which is why there’s so much hypocrisy. And why I don’t buy in any more.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 24, 2017 12:27:38 GMT -6
Most people don't understand how health insurance actually works. After a certain amount of time in a hospital, a patient is declared disabled at which point payment moves from the insurer to Medicare Disability. After the patient goes bankrupt from the co-pays, Medicaid takes over. The co-pays generally add up to many times what the health insurance company pays.
In other words, the government is already paying the lion's share of healthcare and we are all paying much higher medical bills that have been created by the medical bankruptcies caused by this system.
What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
|
Post by ericn on Dec 24, 2017 14:39:38 GMT -6
I don't understand the logic. Her healthcare plan won't pay. So...she's a state employee of California? Or of a public school district or some such? And it should be my problem that her bad employer (i.e., state or municipality in California) only offers her a bad healthcare plan? I mean.. look, start a fund, take up a collection, whatever. But the logic here is just completely backwards. I wouldn't have a problem at all with the government acting as a public insurer with some kind of national plan. But nowhere when they offer government healthcare can it be allowed to coexist with private plans. Why? Because usually people won't want it. The government need the massive risk pool to subsidize the cost of small percentage of high expense people, and private insurers can offer better plans for smaller (lower) risk pools because they can exclude these folks. So your idea of opt-in national plan won't ever exist - except for some special circumstances like tricare or the VA (and you probably don't want to swap your private plan for the VA, speaking from experience). Your thought process is something along the lines of -- our national healthcare system has been so fouled up due to regulation that it's completely broken, so now we should just let the government handle it entirely. I can't really agree. And rest assured regulation (state, federal, etc) is the root cause of the pricing problems. If I had a magic wand I'd probably do something like this: government mandated insurance account for all - everyone getts a pre-tax HSA account with some annual contribution cap on it. No deductible, no network or discounted / negotiate rates, no copays, nothing. Then people could go back to actual insurance (i.e., coverage for things that don't happen every year... car accidents, not oil changes) with major medical plans, and you restore the pricing mechanism between providers and patients for normal annual visits, wellness checks, and so on. People get a big discount on the tax break, the HSA can grow tax-free when its unused (way better than a low deductible plan in that regard!), providers get paid cash instead of fighting with insurers for 30-90 days for payment, win-win-win. Except for the insurance companies, they lose. Which of course is why it won't happen, because they lobby. Edit - and I agree that some things need to have an organized function. There are dozens upon dozens of charities in the US that work at all sizes and scales, from the American Red Cross at near $3 billion a year revenue to single-issue, single-focus places like the Burke Center for Youth near Austin that help 10-15 boys per year. I don't believe that the requirement for an organized response should automatically equal state or federal government. It just confuses everything, and it never ends. Federal disaster relief was really started in the great flood of 1927 and we've gone from those simple aid packages to the bloated, inefficient behemoth of FEMA... which really just financially incentivizes people to live in stupid, flood-prone areas by acting as a lender / insurer of last resort for their homes. It never is "ok, let's make this temporary plan to help these folks in an organized response". We start an agency, and then it gets funded, then it uses its budget every year (use it or lose it!) and then the budget grows a little, and then more, then before you know it there's billions in waste and nobody is happy. It's the same story every time. You don't care, until it's your healthcare plan that doesn't cover it then it's a problem or someone you care about or even the girl who gets your coffee order right is in the ER with a stroke and will end up in Nursing home that we shall all be on the hook for, but if they had coverage their high blood pressure would have been caught and treated for a lot less. See that's the problem we are dependent on others & by not having coverage we have a safety net that has this way of catching people at the worst and most expensive times! A simple covers everybody basic system and Cadillac private market would be more effective & efficient!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
|
Post by ericn on Dec 24, 2017 14:43:07 GMT -6
Plus in an instance like this the hospital is most likely a large teaching hospital and a committee delclared this a relevant teaching case so all other expenses will be written off as education, the surgeons are nothing in the big picture!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 15:53:51 GMT -6
Is it wrong for me to hope that none of any tax dollars I pay end up benefitting you directly via public services like fire, police, food stamps, health care subsidies etc..? Because you or your kids could and should obviously get a job to support yourself, right? God forbid anything happen to you or your family such that your wife can't work and raise those 2 kids. Where's the eye roll emoji. you know, I miss living in New York City. I didn't use any of the social programs they have for low-income people even tho I definitely qualified (food stamps, health care subsidies, subway/bus stipends for kids to get to school) but I'm glad they were there for those that needed them. EVEN IF THEY DID GET A JOB and it still wasn't enough. This is 'murica, I should have some kind of choice where my money goes, right? Well, I pay local taxes for my fire and police services. They take no money from you. I don’t use food stamps and while I have an HSA I typically pay cash for my medical expenses - it’s quite a bit cheaper to do so. So I’m not taking money from you, near as I can tell. And I hope that stays that way. I’m not looking for a handout from you or anyone else. My local taxes support my school district (directly) along with the county hospital. Do you think it should work some other way? Some guy in NYC should pay for cops in Texas? If something did happen to me, I pay out of pocket for life insurance and long term disability. I have money saved just in case, and I would hope that my family and church would take care of me or my family voluntarily before I expected the government to force you to do it. This is just called responsibility. I am responsible for myself and my family, I take responsibility for them and their care. I don’t expect you or anyone else to look after me or them. I also think it is my responsibility to take care of the members of my family, my church, and my community. This is why after Hurricane Harvey me and thousands of Texans spent months cleaning up houses, volunteering at local charities, donated food and shelter and money to people. It’s why I don’t have a studio right now - a family with a one year old is living there while their house can get rebuilt. There’s two ways this kind of stuff can go. People have an attitude that expects personal responsibility and take care of their friends and family, and strangers where they can through direct charitable means and volunteering. Or they are forced to financially support a third party to do it for them via taxation. I think the former is both preferable and more effective, and I think it humanizes people. There’s no virtue in forced charitable giving. And it completely destroys an individuals ability to be completely responsible for themselves. As long as daddy is there - whether it’s your father or Uncle Sam - you’re never really a grownup. The problem is, more people in this country think like YOU than ME, and I don’t get to opt out. So some of my money goes to pay for the health insurance of some kid in Indiana. Sure doesn’t seem like the best way to handle that to me. I’d rather let those Indiana folks and me keep more of our federal tax dollars - then I can help the folks in texas, and those Indianans can help the folks in indiana. Or not, because it’s a free country and if someone wants to be a miserly miserable old bastard and not help others it’s none of my business to force him to do so cuz I think it’s right. I feel like this used to be common sense but I know I’m considered backwards now. Texas it’s still pretty normal, though, thank God. Wel, you can take that attitude - and many people do - but it's kind of selfish and smacks of something closely resembling feudalism. It's also an attitude that supports a sort of ingrained racism although it's not fashionable to openly admit it these days. What's most important though is that, as a system, it doesn't work very well, which is why states where that attitude pevails have the worst ecvonomies, the lowest average incomes, and the lowest average standard of living, whereas those states with the greatest amount of social services also have a higher standard of living and a better per capita income among those of the working and middle classes. It's all very well to say that you're responsible for yourself and your family and you don't need or want help from the state, but what are you going to do if something happens and you can't do that? What happens if, for example, you get your back broken in two places in a truck wreck or you suddenly come down with a serious heart condition and you can't work? Either you're going to rely on the charity of your friends and relatives or you're going to starve, that's what. Within a few months you're going burn through your savings and the money you had saved to send your kids to college and where are you going to be then? You talk about "personal responsibility", well, so do I. It's just that my concept of responsibility covers a bit more territory. We are all responsible to some extent for each other, and it benefits all of us. The United States is a NATION, and as a nation we need to work together for the benefit of all. Now I realize that Texas is a bit of an anomaly, in that Texas still regards itself as an independent country and is the only southern state that has sufficient internal wealth and industrialization to bne able to pull that off, but what if every state took that attitude? Your neighbor to the north, Oklahoma, the state where I grew up, has taken that attitude since LBJ came out for civil rights in the '60s and now is so poor that most parts of the state can't support basic services for their citizens and the school week has been cut to FOUR DAYS. And for decades the people who control the state have rejected help from the federal government. Why might that be? Think about it. Ther thing is that your insular attitude is promoted by a very tiny class of the uber rich who actually do no work, produce nothing and live of the hard work of folks like yourself. When your personal wealth reaches a certain point the money becomes self-replicating - the interest accrues faster that you can possibly spend it, even if you collect yachts and private jets. You can afford to buy entire communications networks to con hard working folks into buying into a system of thought that is totally contrary to their own self interest and very beneficial to yours. At this point one half of one percent of the people in the US control NINETY PERCENT of the wealth. These people have stripped the assests of much of our major industry - converted productive industries into paper short term profits for their owners and executives. That's no way to create a viable industrial base. Neither is selling off our real estate to foreign interests. Most other developed nations have laws preventing foreign investors from owning a majority interest in either real estate or business. We don't. You complain about paying into insurance that "benefits some kid in Indiana" - well plenty of people in Indiana are paying into insurance that will benefit YOU, at such time that you need it. And you will, I promise you, unless you plan on dying before your time. Or unless yuou stubbornly refuse to avail yourself of the program, which you can do if you insist. You can refuse the benefits of the system, but can't shirk your responsibility. The thing about insurance is that you pay into it when you can pay (and think you don't need it because nothing's going to happen to you that you can't handle) and then you get to draw out of the pool so created when something happens and you suddenly find that things like that DO happen to you. I used to think a lot like you - like I said, I grew up in Oklahoma - but there's nothing like getting a broken back and discovering that the people you thought were behind you really aren't to change your thinking. Even so it took me a while to come around.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 15:55:49 GMT -6
We're one country. I don't care if my taxes help someone from another state, if they need help, it's better for our society for many reasons to do so. What I resent is the negative attitude many people put out toward big cities like New York, when we're in fact contributing more to someone else's state than our own. Some situations can be handled on a personal level, but some need an organized effort. Homeless people on the streets of NY is a complex issue. Me doing something kind for someone when I can still doesn't affect the larger issues. Nothing's wrong with personal responsibility, but some things are bigger than one, or a few people's good intentions. Exactly. We're all in this together, whether we think we are or not, and whether or not we want to be.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 15:57:25 GMT -6
I don’t get it. Y’all want it to be everyone’s problem, public charity, but you object to me saying I’d prefer for it to be everyone’s problem, private charity.
Anyway I would not agree with a basic plan being national / federal if the basic plan is anything other than major medical. Cuz the inclusion of routine service is what causes broad price inflation by removing pricing feedback mechanism.
That’s the whole problem. People aren’t really talking about insurance anymore, just vague “healthcare”. Huge warning flag.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 16:03:33 GMT -6
I agree. But the thing is — paying for your kid to go to the doc is not best handled on the national level. Yknow? Do you have ANY IDEA of what hospitals cost these days? Evidently not. I have congestive heart failure. Some of the outpatient tests I have cost a couple thousand dollars - without Medicare I would not bve able to afford the care I need. A couple years ago I had an embolism in my lung I was in the hospital for five or six days. As I was not yet on Medicare I was on Obamacare.The bill for that was over 10 grand, IIRC. Could you afford bills like that without some sort of assistance?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 16:07:18 GMT -6
I don’t get it. Y’all want it to be everyone’s problem, public charity, but you object to me saying I’d prefer for it to be everyone’s problem, private charity. Anyway I would not agree with a basic plan being national / federal if the basic plan is anything other than major medical. Cuz the inclusion of routine service is what causes broad price inflation by removing pricing feedback mechanism. That’s the whole problem. People aren’t really talking about insurance anymore, just vague “healthcare”. Huge warning flag. It IS everybody's problem. And it's not "charity". It's insurance. You pay in a little, over time, to take out when you need it. That's how insurance works. Me, I don't want to have to rely on anyone's "charity".
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 24, 2017 16:14:18 GMT -6
Yes, because I’ve been saving money in my HSA for ten years. But again no one is arguing against insurance. Insurance is literally to reduce exposure to risk your liquidity can’t cover. I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing against it being: -mandatory -single payer public (which Medicare is) -administered on a national level -and including planned expenses (like routine healthcare) It’s really funny because by saying this I’ve been accused of hating poor people, wanting feudalism, shilling for hospitals, being against children, and so on. Yet I imagine my (voluntary) annual charitable contributions exceed most folks on here tax burden proportioned to Medicare and such. Not a brag, just weird. I’m a monster! Raaar!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 16:15:12 GMT -6
The unsolveable issue as I see it is that the country is split roughly down the middle with each side having pretty vastly different ideologies - and each side unwilling to budge, and each side essentially thinking/believing that the other doesn't exist, or that the other side are complete morons who don't deserve to vote / think for themselves. It's been shown here in this thread. I think we have been in the same place in the past (50/50 splits) but the hatred and degradation of the other side was not nearly as rampant as it is now. That coupled with an extremely biased press and lobbyists buying every politician they can find is killing the country. Criticism of politicians and the president is one thing, hatred and uncontrolled anger and the hubris to tear down anything in their way for any reason is another. I don't care WHO our president is, I don't want to turn on the news and hear anti-president stuff that's absolutely stupid every day of the week. The press has no respect for itself anymore. Politicians have no respect for themselves or for their constituents. I honestly think our country as it once was is done. I hope I'm wrong though. The problem is that only one side is irrationally biased, but one of their primary techniques is blaming everybody else for the things they are actually up to themselves. "Fake News" being a prime example. The roots of th current mess actually go back a long, long way, some as far as the '30s and even as far as the roots of the Great Depression.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 16:29:12 GMT -6
Yes, because I’ve been saving money in my HSA for ten years. But again no one is arguing against insurance. Insurance is literally to reduce exposure to risk your liquidity can’t cover. I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing against it being: -mandatory -single payer public (which Medicare is) -administered on a national level -and including planned expenses (like routine healthcare) It’s really funny because by saying this I’ve been accused of hating poor people, wanting feudalism, shilling for hospitals, being against children, and so on. Yet I imagine my (voluntary) annual charitable contributions exceed most folks on here tax burden proportioned to Medicare and such. Not a brag, just weird. I’m a monster! Raaar! Medicare is NOT single payer. You don't get Medicare unless you've paid in at least a minimum amount pert quarter over at least a minimum numberr of quarters. And it MUST be administered on a national level in order for it to be either fair or effecient. Charity is all well and good - but often charity comes with strings attached. Religious and philosophical strings for the most part, sometimes political. That's a BAD thing, and one of the reasons I'm suspicious of charities. I don't think YOU want feudalism. I doubt you even ever thing of things in those terms, most people don't because most people don't take a long historical view. I think that the people who shape the way you think want feudalism, because those types of people DO study history and their views are definitely informed by that. And I'm not talking about the people who are the public faces for that, at least for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2017 16:30:57 GMT -6
It’s a lot like a team sport. Which is why there’s so much hypocrisy. And why I don’t buy in any more. That's what they want you to think.
|
|