« prev   random   next »
1   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (56)   2018 Oct 16, 1:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

DIE!, ASSHOLES!

SICK!

PEOPLE!

DIE!

LIBBY! CUNTS! GET! SICK!

LIBBY! CUNTS! FUCKING! DIE!
2   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (56)   2018 Oct 16, 5:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

MegaForce says
Aphroman says
Like Borat always says about Republicans


Given how Borat himself is mentally retarded, that IS funny.
3   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

tovarichpeter says
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/opinion/affordable-care-act-pre-existing-conditions.html


I read the whole article. Very sad.
Are we ever gonna fix the fucking health system?
My wife works part time for a major corporation, just for our health insurance. I have always been self employed. She plans on working until the end of next year, so that we can travel the world before we get old. She is 51 years old. I dread the insurance problems we could face down the road, along with the ridiculous premiums we will be paying. We can manage the costs by sacrificing something else, but still hate to see our hard earned savings go down the drain.
My possible strategy: Get hospitalization coverage only with the highest deductibles, and simultaneously get annual travel insurance that covers health. If most of our time is spent out of the country, we should be OK. Preexisting conditions won't be included with the travel insurance, but we don't have major health issues.
Any ideas opinions and suggestions would be welcome.
4   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 16, 5:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

tovarichpeter says
Millions of Americans are hostage to their....


captors in the revenue maximizing medical industrial complex, and have developed Stockholm syndrome to such an extent that they can only demand more subsidies for the entrenched industry players that victimize them. The same administration that signed Obamneycare, promising infinite subsidies ("no lifetime caps!"), signed "sequestration" to reduce medical research, thus thwarting potentially disruptive innovation that might have freed the hostages. As long as you can be chronically monetized, whole careers depend on ensuring there will be no cure for whatever ails you.
5   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 5:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

One possible solution is to let everyone buy in to Medicare, at any age.
6   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 5:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
One possible solution is to let everyone buy in to Medicare, at any age.


I would go with that as an option. It will cost money if you want early Medicare, but the fear and uncertainty would vanish. Those who don't like it, can stick with their normal insurance.
7   LastMan   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 5:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Universal health care gives people the ability to change jobs freely, or pursue entrepreneurial endeavors. Very good for an economy, but for some reason unacceptable for many.
8   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2018 Oct 16, 5:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
One possible solution is to let everyone buy in to Medicare, at any age.


They only make you work 10 years to get free part a. Your part B can get expensive if you are rich though, as they charge more per higher tax brackets. Add in a supplement, RX, dental and vision...

All-in the we pay in $800 a month between A/B/supp/dental/vision/RX, to have almost no extra out of pocket costs of healthcare for average senior. No idea if this is a sustainable market value of care. Even at $800/month w no extra financial risk, most people couldn't afford it
9   marcus   ignore (11)   2018 Oct 16, 6:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
One possible solution is to let everyone buy in to Medicare, at any age.


I don't see how that makes any sense.

For medicare for all to work you need everyone signed up. Only then can you easily cover pre-existing conditions. Yes, it means we all subsidize that part of it.

Mind you, there should be supplemental policies.

THe problem with the idea of optional medicare, is that it doesn't address the preexisting isue at all. Unless we're just going to have the tax payer (I should say - basically the middle class tax payer), subsidize it.

Young people would have no incentive to pay in (any more than their payment for retirement age medicare that we all pay), if preexisting conditions are covered no strings. If they get sick, they would buy medicare, only then. The whole point of a medicare for all is that we all pay in, and that there is one powerful "payer" that could keep prices in check.
10   marcus   ignore (11)   2018 Oct 16, 7:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

marcus says
The whole point of a medicare for all is that we all pay in


But we wouldn't pay for health insurance (except possibly the supplemental), and our employers could pay us for our medicare instead of what they pay for now, along with a supplemental policy, and it would still be cheaper - especially in the long run.
11   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 7:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

marcus says
Patrick says
One possible solution is to let everyone buy in to Medicare, at any age.


I don't see how that makes any sense.

If there is a better solution, lets hear it.

marcus says
But we wouldn't pay for health insurance (except possibly the supplemental), and our employers could pay us for our medicare instead of what they pay for now, along with a supplemental policy, and it would still be cheaper - especially in the long run.

That does not help those without an employer. They cold be self employed, unemployed etc
Better solutions please.
12   marcus   ignore (11)   2018 Oct 16, 10:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Strategist says
Better solutions please.


You didn't understand. WE would all pay in to it through taxes and that would cost less than insurance does now.

I brought up employers becasue it begs the question, "why would we want such a system of higher taxes, if our employer pays for it now ?" And also to deal with the transition to such a system going from a system where our employer pays for our H.I, to one where we pay much more than now into medicare taxes ?

LEt's just say there are a lot of possible good answers for that. One would simply be to be paid more - but it's hard to count on that happening. Better to have a way where the employers in some way essentially cover that increased tax cost, and possibly the supplemental ins cost as well.

Yes, self employed are left out. But they, like the employers, still get a better deal than now.

Strategist says
unemployed


Obviously the amount paid is tied at least somewhat to income. A reason why many plutocrats will never buy in to it.
13   mell   ignore (5)   2018 Oct 16, 10:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

LastMan says
Universal health care gives people the ability to change jobs freely, or pursue entrepreneurial endeavors. Very good for an economy, but for some reason unacceptable for many.

That may be true but it also at least equally if not more punishes all with less net money and more poverty and bad health, esp. if it keeps its extremely high inflation rates. It's a zero sum game. Maybe you can tax the uber wealthy 0.1-1% extremely high but then you'd face capital flight.
14   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (56)   2018 Oct 17, 2:34am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Aphroman says
Oh yea? Capital flight to where exactly?


Vanuatu, the Caymans, Ireland, etc. you know, the only really FREE! and reliable economies in the world.
15   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2018 Oct 17, 3:23am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Read the article. It's mostly dramatized fluff. 1) employer plans havent changed that much. Ex: A small company could still reject someone w a major medic condition because their group rates would go up. 2) Trump has stated over and over again that pre-x coverage will stay. The articles links to the court argument wherein they say the same thing, yet the author of the article says the exact opposite.

The ACA deeply hurt most people w increased costs. The middle class got hit the hardest. The ACA did certainly did simplify the life of a few people who have no access to an employer plan, who aren't on medicaid, and have pre-x's.

Trump is bringing much needed reform to U65 health. So far everything he has done is reasonable, and effective.

Somehow, even the market place rates were flat this year going into 2019 (down 1.5%) for the first time in recent memory. Compare that to a 20+ % increase last year.
16   LastMan   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 17, 5:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

mell says
That may be true but it also at least equally if not more punishes all with less net money and more poverty and bad health, esp. if it keeps its extremely high inflation rates. It's a zero sum game. Maybe you can tax the uber wealthy 0.1-1% extremely high but then you'd face capital flight.


Could you translate this into English? Does it mean you're against entrepreneurial endeavors? Perhaps enabling the little guy to change jobs or start a business doesn't fit with your big business agenda?

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions