hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:18 pm
do people really think their private insurance is so awesome they couldn't conceive of anything better?
In comparison with the Affordable Care Act choices, my private insurance costs significantly less and pays for significantly more. Of course, it's subsidized by my employer.
If I could get in to my employer pool, private health care maintenance would cost significantly less than ACA silver rated health care (which is better coverage since we dropped our Cadillac plan) without being subsidized by my employer. But I can't get in that pool without my employer. Even COBRA through my employer is more expensive than ACA based silver plan health care. I rather doubt I could get a health care plan at all without an employer based in without that ACA at this point in life. I have too much medical history (aka existing conditions) and I'm not old enough for medicare.
I haven't learned the exchanges/ACA well enough to know yet but it looks like there is a path to getting your insurance subsidized that would make ACA significantly cheaper but still a significantly more than the OOP cost of the subsidized cost I am paying annually today. As it goes now, though my predicted expense is going to be about $16,000 a year for medical (monthly+copay+deductible) until post work but pre-medicare and pre-inflation, which is more than all my other monthly expenses rolled into an annual expense combined.
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
Exactly. I still can't figure out why the business community hasn't clamored for this. Managing health care costs requires teams of people, consultants, constant shopping around and negotiating with insurance companies, prescription providers, HSA providers, etc. It's very expensive. And it makes us super expensive as employees when offering business services especially to overseas clients. There has been a real impact. For example, most of the US based consultancies are struggling in the EU because of this. Rates you have to charge are completely out of line with costs for local EU resources since health care costs aren't carried as direct overhead. My company is essentially locked out of the EU because of this one issue.
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:39 amI still can't figure out why the business community hasn't clamored for this.
If you could get enough businesses to rally together and invest in lobbying, they may be able to outspend the opposition and/or constituent concerns of law makers.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I wound up watching ~ 45 minutes of it. It was fine. Overall I thought it was one of Trump's better debate performances as these things go, but that's a low bar - mainly he was able to finish complete sentences, which is not always a given. Biden did fine (though I think either Harris or Warren could've completely demolished Trump). Really doesn't seem like anything that could give Trump the boost he needs (and on balance will probably slightly help Biden).
The funny thing about Trump's efforts to smear Biden is that he's really only talking to the Fox News / conservative bubble. It's all littered with these random references that you wouldn't understand in the slightest if you're not in that bubble - Trump's saying to Biden "You're the big man, aren't you?" is completely incoherent unless you're up to date on the latest conservative babble. In other words, not only is Trump not really speaking to the core concerns of most people, but his attacks are only going to be understood by people who already overwhelmingly support him.
Give many Republican politicians the opportunity, they will repeal Medicare too. McConnell, Ryan, Bush, Hastert, Gingrich.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:11 amhis attacks are only going to be understood by people who already overwhelmingly support him.
Par for the course. He only cares about the people who love him, and at that "care" is a strong word. It's more like he feeds off their energy. If they stop feeding him, he's happy to discard them without hesitation.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:11 amhis attacks are only going to be understood by people who already overwhelmingly support him.
Par for the course. He only cares about the people who love him, and at that "care" is a strong word. It's more like he feeds off their energy. If they stop feeding him, he's happy to discard them without hesitation.
More than that, I genuinely don't think that he understands that most people won't know what he's talking about.
I thought Biden did a really good job on a couple of occasions contrasting himself with Trump in that he would be a president for all people, not just the ones who voted for him. Trump didn't even try to rebut it, because he knows he doesn't give a shit about anyone other than his base.
I think the thing that bothers me about the whole debate process is that Biden can get raked over the coals by both Trump and the moderator on a crime bill he pushed 26 years ago, and somehow in "debate world" it's of equal importance to 250,000 Americans dying right now due to Trump's inaction. It lends this false equivalency to various issues that are on universally different scales.
In a normal world, even if Biden HAD used the term super predator (which he didn't), and HAD NOT disowned the 1994 crime bill (which he did), I'd still stand in line for hours to vote for him over the racist garbage we have in power now.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I think it's the obvious endgame if SCOTUS rejects Obamacare. I don't think there are any constitutional objections to Medicare - it certainly seems within Congress's power to implement a tax and disburse those funds to medical providers - so if Obamacare goes away I think the logical step is to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and adjust taxes to pay for it.
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I think it's the obvious endgame if SCOTUS rejects Obamacare. I don't think there are any constitutional objections to Medicare - it certainly seems within Congress's power to implement a tax and disburse those funds to medical providers - so if Obamacare goes away I think the logical step is to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and adjust taxes to pay for it.
There is a lot of money being made with the healthcare system we have today which means there is a lot of money to fight single payer. There is NOT a lot of money fighting FOR single payer. American healthcare costs are outrageous compared to the rest of the modern world and we've been trained to see that as the way it has to be. Freedom (apparently means crowdfunding anything healthcare related)!
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:11 amThe funny thing about Trump's efforts to smear Biden is that he's really only talking to the Fox News / conservative bubble. It's all littered with these random references that you wouldn't understand in the slightest if you're not in that bubble - Trump's saying to Biden "You're the big man, aren't you?" is completely incoherent unless you're up to date on the latest conservative babble. In other words, not only is Trump not really speaking to the core concerns of most people, but his attacks are only going to be understood by people who already overwhelmingly support him.
This is so very typical for American conservatives in general. We see it all the time (well, we used to) here on OO, and it's the exact same from folks I've spoken with IRL. I chalk it up to conservatism being the concept of "no change" (which is relatively simple) versus liberalism being the concept of "new ideas" which can go in an infinite number of directions. "No change" means everybody's inside the wagons and basically singing from the same choir sheet (which is why one or now two news outlets are sufficient to cover that base). And if you're all getting your infotainment from the same place, then you've got your gaggle of talking heads from which you take your marching/thinking orders. Couple all that with that base being a low-education group, and you run into a general case of folks having difficulties adequately expressing their ideas to folks who haven't already run across those ideas. And when you're fighting that battle uphill, what's the one great equalizer: stoke up the emotions (generally either fear or anger). Now if you move away from those generalizations (conservatives who've experienced higher education and a longer period of an exchange of ideas), then you also tend to move away from folks speaking from the crib notes.
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I think it's the obvious endgame if SCOTUS rejects Obamacare. I don't think there are any constitutional objections to Medicare - it certainly seems within Congress's power to implement a tax and disburse those funds to medical providers - so if Obamacare goes away I think the logical step is to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and adjust taxes to pay for it.
Oh, sweet summer child. There aren't really any serious constitutional objections to Obamacare (particularly to the current iteration of the anti-ACA litigation). A 6-3 conservative majority would absolutely find constitutional objections to single payer healthcare (even if it's literally just taking Medicare and expanding it to everyone).
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I think it's the obvious endgame if SCOTUS rejects Obamacare. I don't think there are any constitutional objections to Medicare - it certainly seems within Congress's power to implement a tax and disburse those funds to medical providers - so if Obamacare goes away I think the logical step is to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and adjust taxes to pay for it.
There is a lot of money being made with the healthcare system we have today which means there is a lot of money to fight single payer. There is NOT a lot of money fighting FOR single payer. American healthcare costs are outrageous compared to the rest of the modern world and we've been trained to see that as the way it has to be. Freedom (apparently means crowdfunding anything healthcare related)!
It IS the way it has to be unless
1) We stop demanding A+++ care for everyone.
2) We cap the amounts providers (equipment/pharmaceuticals/doctors) can charge.
Income (insurance premiums) and expenses (medical costs) are not directly related.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
I think it's the obvious endgame if SCOTUS rejects Obamacare. I don't think there are any constitutional objections to Medicare - it certainly seems within Congress's power to implement a tax and disburse those funds to medical providers - so if Obamacare goes away I think the logical step is to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and adjust taxes to pay for it.
There is a lot of money being made with the healthcare system we have today which means there is a lot of money to fight single payer. There is NOT a lot of money fighting FOR single payer. American healthcare costs are outrageous compared to the rest of the modern world and we've been trained to see that as the way it has to be. Freedom (apparently means crowdfunding anything healthcare related)!
It IS the way it has to be unless
1) We stop demanding A+++ care for everyone.
2) We cap the amounts providers (equipment/pharmaceuticals/doctors) can charge.
Income (insurance premiums) and expenses (medical costs) are not directly related.
What providers charge is irrelevant. What they get paid is the issue.
The demand for A+++ care is an issue.
Also an issue is treatment cost equitabulity. Do we spend $500K to extend an cancer patient's life by a few months or $50K to extend a dozen overweight patients' lives by a few years? Granted it's not usually a direct either/or proposition but at some point you are making that call.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
When Biden said that a majority of people who crossed the border showed up for their immigration hearing Trump, after saying the opposite, said that the few that did had a low IQ. Essentially, people who follow the law are stupid. Unsurprising of course for a person who thinks he's too smart to be bound by laws like the rest of us ordinary mortals.
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
$iljanus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:49 am
When Biden said that a majority of people who crossed the border showed up for their immigration hearing Trump, after saying the opposite, said that the few that did had a low IQ. Essentially, people who follow the law are stupid. Unsurprising of course for a person who thinks he's too smart to be bound by laws like the rest of us ordinary mortals.
And, of course, he was also wrong. The fact-checks I saw afterward suggested that upwards of 75% of immigration cases showed up through all their hearings.
$iljanus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:49 am
When Biden said that a majority of people who crossed the border showed up for their immigration hearing Trump, after saying the opposite, said that the few that did had a low IQ. Essentially, people who follow the law are stupid. Unsurprising of course for a person who thinks he's too smart to be bound by laws like the rest of us ordinary mortals.
And, of course, he was also wrong. The fact-checks I saw afterward suggested that upwards of 75% of immigration cases showed up through all their hearings.
It's all part of his mindset that everyone who pays taxes, wears a mask, volunteers for the military or dies in the service of their country are just suckers.
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:18 pm
do people really think their private insurance is so awesome they couldn't conceive of anything better?
In comparison with the Affordable Care Act choices, my private insurance costs significantly less and pays for significantly more. Of course, it's subsidized by my employer.
Does it cost your employer significantly less? I know my employer pays the GDP of a small country for our insurance.
There are people costing him over $30k per year just for health insurance.
The problem with the ACA has always been that it didn’t put everyone in the exchanges which is what was needed to drive insurance premiums down and to make it function like other insurance that is sold directly to consumers.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:22 am
The real answer is to go single payer. I really don't understand why that's such a bogeyman when we already have Medicare.
Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:03 am
I only caught some excerpts last night and it might be the closest thing Trump has been in four years to sounding "presidential" and even then it was all lies and madness.
The tone might have been presidential, but the content was full on wingnut.
Whether he'll admit it or not, the structure of the debate helped him.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:11 am
Trump's saying to Biden "You're the big man, aren't you?" is completely incoherent unless you're up to date on the latest conservative babble.
Taken out of context, it sounds vaguely complementary or deferential.
hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:18 pm
do people really think their private insurance is so awesome they couldn't conceive of anything better?
In comparison with the Affordable Care Act choices, my private insurance costs significantly less and pays for significantly more. Of course, it's subsidized by my employer.
Does it cost your employer significantly less? I know my employer pays the GDP of a small country for our insurance.
There are people costing him over $30k per year just for health insurance.
The problem with the ACA has always been that it didn’t put everyone in the exchanges which is what was needed to drive insurance premiums down and to make it function like other insurance that is sold directly to consumers.
It's a good question. I'm actually not sure. My employer is big enough that they decided to self insure. While Aetna administers the plan, all the risk is born by my employer for all employees and retirees that are eligible.
My guess is that the demographics would make it lower cost (no support of major disabilities), but who knows by how much?
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:18 pm
do people really think their private insurance is so awesome they couldn't conceive of anything better?
In comparison with the Affordable Care Act choices, my private insurance costs significantly less and pays for significantly more. Of course, it's subsidized by my employer.
Does it cost your employer significantly less? I know my employer pays the GDP of a small country for our insurance.
There are people costing him over $30k per year just for health insurance.
The problem with the ACA has always been that it didn’t put everyone in the exchanges which is what was needed to drive insurance premiums down and to make it function like other insurance that is sold directly to consumers.
It's a good question. I'm actually not sure. My employer is big enough that they decided to self insure. While Aetna administers the plan, all the risk is born by my employer for all employees and retirees that are eligible.
My guess is that the demographics would make it lower cost (no support of major disabilities), but who knows by how much?
Speaking from my own experience in administering my employees' health care plans in TX and CA, the ACA plans vs the group policy plans were roughly equivalent in terms of actual bottom line cost (ACA plans might have been marginally - say 10% - cheaper IIRC), at least as of a few years ago before the Republicans started monkeying with the underlying support structure.
If the employer pays a chunk, then of course it "costs" less from the employee perspective, but it's not accurate to say that the plan itself is cheaper. (No idea how self-insured would work though - we maxed out at about 20 employees, and generally covered 100% of the cost. Our insurance bill was 20-30k/month give or take.)
Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:45 pm
Consider this: We will likely NEVER see Trump in another debate.
But if we do, it means very bad things (e.g. Trump running for a 3rd term).
It's also possible for Trump to run in 2024 after losing in 2020.
If he gets the ass-stomping he's predicted to get in a couple weeks, would the GOP really be crazy enough to advance him for 2024?
They just might be (assuming he is still alive). He commands the only coherent base. A major problem is it is doubtful they can advance voter suppression and gerrymandering over the next 4 years. Also, can you imagine Kamala Harris debating a decrepit, fuming Trump after 4 more years of mental deterioration.