republican's healthcare plan

[Bob78164]

I agree that the entire healthcare system is flawed. It needs to be addressed by carriers and providers. But, pricing things out of the market to offer coverage to those who chose not to buy or can't afford it won't work. Fine, do a better job of screening those who truly truly can't afford it, and get something in place. Don't penalize the rest.
It comes down to what you consider insurance to be. It isn't an inalienable right. Most, MOST, people are covered under corporate plans. And demonizing Republicans as saboteurs is stupid. I agree they need to shit or get off the pot right now, but they didn't start the shitstorm. I don't know who really did.

Congressional Republicans are refusing to authorize payments promised to carriers under the Affordable Care Act, and in fact are suing to prevent those payments from being made. They would end a significant amount of uncertainty by simply passing a bill to authorize those payments.

One of Donny's very first acts after the inauguration was an executive order that said that his Administration's policy was to undercut the Affordable Care Act in every way legally available to him. In particular, he has instructed his Administration to enforce the individual mandate against fewer and fewer people.

And that, of course, is leaving aside those states (including Texas) that refused to expand Medicaid at virtually no cost to themselves, simply to make a political point. These acts are what I'm referring to as sabotage.

I don't think carriers have any real incentive to address the problems. There isn't enough market transparency for people to make effective decisions between carriers. How many people do you know who even knew before accepting a job offer precisely which company would be offering health insurance? Or who would leave one job for another because they liked the other company's health plan better?

The same problem exists with providers. It's impossible to price medical procedures in advance except for the elective ones, but the real need to insurance coverage is the stuff that isn't elective. When that stuff happens, you just hope that your coverage pays for what you or your family need. You don't go comparison-shopping.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as penalizing the rest. It's not realistically possible to require coverage of pre-existing conditions without something like the individual mandate, because otherwise people would simply wait until they got sick before getting coverage. --Bob

[Spock]

Earendel>>>"So let's say that everyone becomes intelligent and starts putting away money for health care. What does that do to the economy?"<<<

My mind has been turning on this from earlier in the thread. I submit that the last thing that this country has to worry about is people saving too much money (for whatever use).

I understand the argument, but I will never buy the concept that the economy is better served by me spending $1,000 on imported Chinese crap now (possibly on my credit card) than it would be by me saving a few thousand and paying a doctor bill a couple of years later.

[silverscreenselect]

It comes down to what you consider insurance to be. It isn't an inalienable right.

That depends on what your definition of inalienable right is. Is the right to insurance, or more accurately, affordable health care, more inalienable than the right to a high school education? There's nothing in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution or anywhere I know of that says public education is a right. Yet, we've had it in this country for decades.

So, if we as a people can decide that public education is a right, then we can also decide that public healthcare is a right as well.

Our most precious right, the right to vote, at one time was limited to white, male property owners, so that right has certainly changed over the years. The right to bear arms exists in this country but not in many others, so it's certainly not universally inalienable.

There are no stone tablets saying what are and aren't inalienable rights. Even the Constitution is subject to change.

[Jeemie]

Well, when you consider the "good old days," it does work fairly well as opposed to people simply dying off quickly. Here's an article about the "good old days."

It depends on whether you want to live longer, or better.

As the costs rise, because new technologies developed funded by money (conscripted earnings) and as the uncontrolled spending of those conscripted earnings creates the inelastic demand for medical care, our mix of spending between healthcare and life's enjoyment will become more heavily weighted to healthcare. This is over a lifetime as while young you will pay for the elderly's extended but more expensive living so there will be less and less to spend on life's enjoyment.

The problem I have with all this is "who's choice"?

If I'm O.K. with refusing twice daily dialysis if needed when I'm 75 so when I'm younger I can fly across the country to play bridge, or make sure every year I get to see all the Oscar nominated movies in Dolby THX Widescreen in reclining seats, I should be able to make that choice. And I should be able to do those things with the money I earn and not have to pay for someone else's dialysis because they don't want to die, even though they lived a life of burgers, fries, cigars, and alcohol.

This is where we're headed. No consequences to lifestyle choices (other than some discomfort) because we have all the money to spend to develop and deliver treatment to prolong the life in a self-damaged body. And unfortunately, there will be little left to life up to that point.

We will run out of money. And then there will be "death panels" deciding the age where dialysis is no longer provided, or deciding which patient gets the last remaining bed in the hospital.

We don't need the government to fund anything. Folks have money to pay for their healthcare (for the most part). Starbucks 2016 revenues (worldwide) were over $21 billion. Every single dollar of that was discretionary spend. It could have been spent for healthcare (or health insurance), but the customers decided they'd rather have a mocha grande or scone. The average American spends $65 month on cable. 258 billion cigarettes were sold in the U.S. last year. I don't have the $ that represents, but a lot of the money spent was by folks getting some of my conscripted earnings to supplement or fully pay for their healthcare.

For those truly in need, there are charities to meet the gaps. And I'm O.K. with government programs paying for preventative care.

Many say "It's not right that someone goes bankrupt due to medical costs". Why? It's no more unfair that a family going bankrupt due to the death of the primary wage earner. That happens all the time. Life is not fair. The government can not make it fair, or even fairer. It can only improve someone's life by taking from someone else's. There is no creation by government. Are we to now provide a life insurance stipend for every wage earner who dies so their family doesn't have to sell the house and move in with parents?

At the end of the day, people die. We will never be able to prevent that. We should get to choose how we live, what efforts we want to put forth and how we want to use the reward of those efforts. For those who choose to put in a lot of effort, the rewards are not guaranteed, but they should get to choose how those rewards are used, not having the government (as an agent of the less effort giving or rewarded folks) decide how those rewards are use.

You could have saved a lot of time simply saying "Poor people are poor because they're lazy".

The same point would have been made.

[Spock]

Earendel>>>"So let's say that everyone becomes intelligent and starts putting away money for health care. What does that do to the economy?"<<<

My mind has been turning on this from earlier in the thread. I submit that the last thing that this country has to worry about is people saving too much money (for whatever use).

I understand the argument, but I will never buy the concept that the economy is better served by me spending $1,000 on imported Chinese crap now (possibly on my credit card) than it would be by me saving a few thousand and paying a doctor bill a couple of years later.

Earendel also said>>>"But if people are saving for their own health care costs, who's going to have money to give to charities?"<<<

Nobody would give to charity then, I guess, because we all know that those who give the most to charity are those who live paycheck to paycheck and that don't have any savings.

[Bob Juch]

Oh, I worked as an adjuster way back for a large company. While I/they were fair and equitable, a mantra of theirs, I have no illusions about insurance companies. They're like cockroaches. They'll never fail.

I work for BCBS of IL, MT, OK, TX and NM. I know exactly how bad they are.

[Beebs52]

Oh, I worked as an adjuster way back for a large company. While I/they were fair and equitable, a mantra of theirs, I have no illusions about insurance companies. They're like cockroaches. They'll never fail.

I work for BCBS of IL, MT, OK, TX and NM. I know exactly how bad they are.

I worked for Travelers in prop/casualty. While we really did settle things fairly, at least I thought so, the bottom line is cutting losses. They never jacked with regular people, but when you're talking large settlements you weigh legal costs vs time blahblahblah. Understandably they have shareholders and if you're talking catastrophic storms etc what do you do. My only point is they are so monolithic, invested that they really won't fail. Bailout of AG good example.
I don't have any complaints personally about BCBS or others thruout the years. Never got flack even during cancer shit.

[Bob78164]

Oh, I worked as an adjuster way back for a large company. While I/they were fair and equitable, a mantra of theirs, I have no illusions about insurance companies. They're like cockroaches. They'll never fail.

I work for BCBS of IL, MT, OK, TX and NM. I know exactly how bad they are.

I worked for Travelers in prop/casualty. While we really did settle things fairly, at least I thought so, the bottom line is cutting losses. They never jacked with regular people, but when you're talking large settlements you weigh legal costs vs time blahblahblah. Understandably they have shareholders and if you're talking catastrophic storms etc what do you do. My only point is they are so monolithic, invested that they really won't fail. Bailout of AG good example.
I don't have any complaints personally about BCBS or others thruout the years. Never got flack even during cancer shit.

As with most things, it depends on whom they hire. I've seen carriers (mostly in the CGL context) make some truly boneheaded decisions and I make part of my living suing them on behalf of their clients. And of course, the case reports are full of cases where carriers did jack around with regular people and their only mistake was pushing so hard that they were forced to find a lawyer. I can only imagine how often such jacking was profitable for the carrier. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I work for BCBS of IL, MT, OK, TX and NM. I know exactly how bad they are.

I worked for Travelers in prop/casualty. While we really did settle things fairly, at least I thought so, the bottom line is cutting losses. They never jacked with regular people, but when you're talking large settlements you weigh legal costs vs time blahblahblah. Understandably they have shareholders and if you're talking catastrophic storms etc what do you do. My only point is they are so monolithic, invested that they really won't fail. Bailout of AG good example.
I don't have any complaints personally about BCBS or others thruout the years. Never got flack even during cancer shit.

As with most things, it depends on whom they hire. I've seen carriers (mostly in the CGL context) make some truly boneheaded decisions and I make part of my living suing them on behalf of their clients. And of course, the case reports are full of cases where carriers did jack around with regular people and their only mistake was pushing so hard that they were forced to find a lawyer. I can only imagine how often such jacking was profitable for the carrier. --Bob

For personal injury cases, that were cut and dried, we'd offer the 3 times medical, depending on the severity. Some cases are obviously pay a bundle. Others, like the professional slip and fallers not so much. Kansas was a nofault for cars, but in parts contributory negigence. It's been awhile.

[Spock]

My brother-in-law is exactly the type person that the article describes. For years, he had a good paying job working for the company that repairs the MARTA trains at the airport. All we ever heard from him was how bad the union and black people he worked with were (he used a different term to describe them). Now, both he and his ex-wife, both in their mid-50s are disabled with multiple health problems and pretty much unable to do any sort of work. The only reason they are alive today is because of the various government funding and the union benefits he got, not to mention their ability to get medical care today.

But they voted for Trump and would undoubtedly vote to re-elect him today.

I hope you hide your contempt for your brother-in-law when you see him in person. Be that as it may-you are obviously a member of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" school of thought.

I will accept for the sake of argument (for this post only) that your B-I-L is voting against his economic interetests, and furthermore, that he is aware of such.

While you obviously disagree with his politics-are you capable of giving him the credit that he is looking beyond his narrow interests and is voting for who he thinks is better to lead the country? Give him the benefit of the doubt on that anyway.

[Bob78164]

My brother-in-law is exactly the type person that the article describes. For years, he had a good paying job working for the company that repairs the MARTA trains at the airport. All we ever heard from him was how bad the union and black people he worked with were (he used a different term to describe them). Now, both he and his ex-wife, both in their mid-50s are disabled with multiple health problems and pretty much unable to do any sort of work. The only reason they are alive today is because of the various government funding and the union benefits he got, not to mention their ability to get medical care today.

But they voted for Trump and would undoubtedly vote to re-elect him today.

I hope you hide your contempt for your brother-in-law when you see him in person. Be that as it may-you are obviously a member of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" school of thought.

I will accept for the sake of argument (for this post only) that your B-I-L is voting against his economic interetests, and furthermore, that he is aware of such.

While you obviously disagree with his politics-are you capable of giving him the credit that he is looking beyond his narrow interests and is voting for who he thinks is better to lead the country? Give him the benefit of the doubt on that anyway.

It's a little hard to give voters credit for casting informed votes when a whole bunch of them just went apeshit at NPR because they thought it was taking potshots at Donny. How had NPR done this? By reading the exact words of the Declaration of Independence on air (and tweeting them). Just like they've done on July 4 every year for approximately the last two decades. --Bob

[BackInTex]

It's a little hard to give voters credit for casting informed votes when a whole bunch of them just went apeshit at NPR because they thought it was taking potshots at Donny. How had NPR done this? By reading the exact words of the Declaration of Independence on air (and tweeting them). Just like they've done on July 4 every year for approximately the last two decades. --Bob

There are dumbasses on both sides. And there are smart folks on both sides.