Obamacare

Quote: boymimbo

Gross Margin: Sales less Cost of Goods sold. Off their annual report. I didn't say "profits" were huge. I said "margins" were huge. When you mark up health care by 25% and then 20 billion on "operations", you start to wonder if government couldn't do it cheaper. You figure there's a large gap between what medicare pays vs what United pays which could lower costs tremendously for everyone.

"Gross" margin is pointless, it is the net that counts. Any business has many costs above COGS. Your analysis is kind of like Tesla who says, "well, if we didn't have all of these other expenses look at how much more we would have made!"

Sorry to upset you, but in the real world there are costs for "operations." From rent for the building to paying employees. Or do you think they should be operating out of the trunk of the CEO's car?

As to "the government doing it cheaper" you can't be serious? What on earth does the government do cheaper and better than the private sector? Oh, yeah, that's right, the Obamacare website is just a model of how to run a system!

Well, we could do like in Canada and just tell sick people to come back next month.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Gross" margin is pointless, it is the net that counts. Any business has many costs above COGS. Your analysis is kind of like Tesla who says, "well, if we didn't have all of these other expenses look at how much more we would have made!"

Sorry to upset you, but in the real world there are costs for "operations." From rent for the building to paying employees. Or do you think they should be operating out of the trunk of the CEO's car?

The point is to ask yourself whether insurance companies are making any effort to reduce costs given the monopoly they have in many states. Given the inefficiency I've personally seen, the answer is not really.

Quote:

As to "the government doing it cheaper" you can't be serious? What on earth does the government do cheaper and better than the private sector? Oh, yeah, that's right, the Obamacare website is just a model of how to run a system!

All governments are doing it cheaper than the private sector. The measure of better can be and should be debated. There are plenty of countries (not Canada) who are doing it better for less. The argument that governments are inherently inefficient doesn't always wash. There is a great deal of pressure actually to lower costs in order to keep taxes low.

Quote:

Well, we could do like in Canada and just tell sick people to come back next month.

You could do like in Canada, yes you could. And save a family of four about oh, say $14,000 / year in health costs (that's net of taxes, by the way). Canadians live longer. Your criticism doesn't match the facts. It was only three years ago when my wife went to a clinic (any clinic, we were out of town), was told to go to emergency for appendicitis and lo and behold, she didn't die. It was about 20 years ago when my dad had a heart attack and lo and behold, they took care of her right away. It was about 3 months ago when I had an eye problem and went to the doctor's to be given a prescription, right away, for an eye infection that took care of the problem.

Quote:

All governments are doing it cheaper than the private sector. The measure of better can be and should be debated. There are plenty of countries (not Canada) who are doing it better for less. The argument that governments are inherently inefficient doesn't always wash. There is a great deal of pressure actually to lower costs in order to keep taxes low.

Now I know you cannot be serious. Have you seen all the crying from Obama and other liberals over the very minor "sequester" cuts? And keeping taxes low is not in the liberal mindset. All that happens is a built-in increase in costs every year. The only time a government tries to keep spending low is when the money is not there, then they call for a tax increase.

Give me a private-sector company that has shareholders to answer to for keeping costs low over government any day of the week.

Quote:

You could do like in Canada, yes you could. And save a family of four about oh, say $14,000 / year in health costs (that's net of taxes, by the way). Canadians live longer. Your criticism doesn't match the facts. It was only three years ago when my wife went to a clinic (any clinic, we were out of town), was told to go to emergency for appendicitis and lo and behold, she didn't die. It was about 20 years ago when my dad had a heart attack and lo and behold, they took care of her right away. It was about 3 months ago when I had an eye problem and went to the doctor's to be given a prescription, right away, for an eye infection that took care of the problem.

Hmm, I thought you didn't like "anecdotal" stories about the Canadian system. You know, like the Canadians I have met who said they would be dead under the Canadian system? Or about dogs getting treatment faster than humans?

Quote: AZDuffman

Hmm, I thought you didn't like "anecdotal" stories about the Canadian system. You know, like the Canadians I have met who said they would be dead under the Canadian system? Or about dogs getting treatment faster than humans?

The problem is that you've completely discredited any anecdotal story that you may tell with your previous flied lice whopper. You will not get that one back, ever.

Quote: rxwine

Assume doom for Obamacare....So the people opposing it will have to run against sick people who didn't have insurance and couldn't easily get it, not so sick but preexisting condition people, those who got lower rates, those who got lower subsidized rates, and those who just got lower rates who can afford insurance at any rate but actually got a better deal..

[snip]

More fun on the way, if they try fixes that start to deprive people of insurance.

Another dumb argument. Thank goodness 55% of the people disagrees with you: Poll: Americans' approval of health care law drops

40% Approve
55% Disapprove

Quote: s2dbaker

The problem is that you've completely discredited any anecdotal story that you may tell with your previous flied lice whopper.

Hmm...making fun of the way some people pronounce words? That's pretty racist.

Quote: steeldco

The fact that the young adults are being forced to take on insurance is a plus. A huge plus.

Totally get what you're saying, but isn't that kind of a "Fail" argument?

I mean, that line of thinking would solve many woes. Our electrical grid is in tatters, so let's charge everyone more, including the Amish, despite the fact that they don't use it. Our welfare system is being abused at an alarming extent, so let's charge everyone more, including those that will never use it. I could go on and on, but it's obvious. Charging more people more money, or charging non-users for a service for someone else, would obviously assist in paying for said service. But is it the best choice? Is it the popular choice? Is this a bullet everyone will just bite, or is there going to be an uproar? Bases on the sales of torches and pitchforks, I'd say uproar.

And after thinking about it, LarryS' post kind of flipped the switch. They say that by getting everyone covered, it'll save on the "preventative" stuff being looked at before it's exorbitantly expensive. I gotta make a tentative call of horseshit on that one.

Why? Because we're American Men. How many of you would go to the Dr's and then listen to them on your own? Would you even go if not for A) a nagging Mrs, or B) something hurting beyond your ability to tolerate?

When I get sick, I walk that shit off. Cut, scraped, infected, torn... you walk that shit off. Coughing up blood? Walk. That. Shit. Off. If I cough up blood for more than 4 days without it getting better, then I'll go to the Dr, for no other reason than I can't make amoxicillan in my basement. Break a bone? Tape that shit up and carry on. Concussion? Ain't nobody got time for that.

I got neurological issues. I just deal with it. I've had 26 concussions that I know of and probably twice that that I've missed. Ain't about to stop nothing, no matter how many pleas I get from the doc. I get migraines something awful, I weird out every now and again, and ever since the last migraine a few weeks back, I've been having very mild hallucinations and a noticeable shift in personality. And I'm gonna walk that shit off.

Our problem, in large part, is ourselves. We smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much, beat on ourselves too much, and always have that faith that there will be a pill or a procedure that's going to undo it all. That very concept has been drilled into our heads for decades. So instead of proactively addressing (insert issue here) in its early stages, we carry on until it's a(n expensive) problem. I've probably already condemned myself to a life cut short by CTE, and lord knows how many zeroes are going to be on my late life med bills.

And every one of those zeroes will come from a man who's largely lived a life with completely full and completely free healthcare courtesy of his employer.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Quote: Face

I got neurological issues. I just deal with it. I've had 26 concussions that I know of and probably twice that that I've missed. Ain't about to stop nothing, no matter how many pleas I get from the doc. I get migraines something awful, I weird out every now and again, and ever since the last migraine a few weeks back, I've been having very mild hallucinations and a noticeable shift in personality.
.

You're probably a good candidate for Parkinsons. Hopefully
by then they'll have effective meds for you.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Another dumb argument.

You posted an approval rating in response. Just more stupid crap posting from you.

Quote: rxwine

You posted an approval rating in response.

Yeah, it was an Obamacare approval rating, and it was to show that most people don't buy that dumb argument.

If Republicans take control they will be in charge of canceling new policies of all the people I listed if they try to roll back Obamcare totally. Perhaps they will have the stomach for it, but it's different than just a popular support vote for or against.

Quote: s2dbaker

The problem is that you've completely discredited any anecdotal story that you may tell with your previous flied lice whopper. You will not get that one back, ever.

How is my telling a true story discrediting myself?

Quote: rxwine

If Republicans take control they will be in charge of canceling new policies of all the people I listed if they try to roll back Obamcare totally.

Guess you missed the news. Democrats ARE in control, and under them, a bunch of people have had policies cancelled.

Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

(I'll say it again: Dumb argument)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Guess you missed the news. Democrats ARE in control, and under them, a bunch of people have had policies cancelled.

Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

(I'll say it again: Dumb argument)

Be wrong as many times as you want.

I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about Republicans who plan to rollback Obamacare if they take the Senate or Presidency.

Even though I understand most states are not going to allow this, I was able to continue my current insurance through the end of 2014 on Friday after Obama caved on his "You will get to keep your insurance and doctors" lie he got nailed in. It only bought a year, but I feel the dems are going to get absolutely slaughtered in the midterms and their hopes of keeping this silliness alive without major concessions will be close to zero.

The self employed are really going to be vocal as the only subsidies we can get is the tax write off unless you have your business set up to pay you through payroll. I am a solo freelance web content writer so I cannot pull that off.

At least for now we can afford our insurance. We were going to have to go uninsured if we were not able to renew our current policy for a year, although I assume we will have to go through this again in a year.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Beethoven9th

Guess you missed the news. Democrats ARE in control, and under them, a bunch of people have had policies cancelled.

Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

(I'll say it again: Dumb argument)

Be wrong as many times as you want.

I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about Republicans who plan to rollback Obamacare if they take the Senate or Presidency.

This is a silly argument. 100k have signed up 6 weeks into it and 5 million got cancellation notices. At this rate, on Jan 1 2014, there will be 25x more people that lost insurance than signed up for it.

I have many self employed friends in the same boat. We absolutely, under no circumstance, can get health insurance under Obamacare. A good chunk of those 5 million people will not be in the system. Without those people and their money, how can Obamacare work? The answer is that it cannot and those 2015 insurance bills are going to be scary.

This system is uninsuring the self employed and the people that work for small businesses.

Quote: rxwine

Be wrong as many times as you want.

I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about Republicans who plan to rollback Obamacare if they take the Senate or Presidency.

Be ignorant as many times as you want.

I'm talking about Democrats who rolled back health care for the numerous people who got their coverage cancelled.

For one thing, I doubt all 5 million are going to stay without insurance. That would be a silly argument.

The cancelations may or may not continue at the same rate. We don't know yet.

Quote: rxwine

For one thing, I doubt all 5 million are going to stay without insurance.

The cancelations may or may not continue at the same rate. We don't know yet.

If this is the best you got, then..........LOL!!!

Quote: Beethoven9th

If this is the best you got, then..........LOL!!!

Another idiot post from you. Congratulations.

Some more data

Quote:

So far, two states — Washington and Vermont — have announced that they will not allow their health insurers to extend insurance policies that do not comply with minimum standards set by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the health-care law widely known as Obamacare.

Three other states — Ohio, Florida and Kentucky — announced that they would allow the renewals. At least eight states and the District of Columbia said they are trying to decide what to do in the wake of Obama’s announcement Thursday, which was intended to deal with a political furor over the cancellation of many Americans’ individual insurance policies because they do not meet the minimum requirements for coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-grapples-with-resistance-from-states-insurers-to-his-health-insurance-fix/2013/11/15/24d666ae-4e17-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

You're the one making bizarre arguments, not me. ;)

Quote: Beethoven9th

You're the one making bizarre arguments, not me. ;)

More crap. What a waste.

Quote: Beethoven9th

You're the one making bizarre arguments, not me. ;)

You argue with many because of your fucked up posts. That's just the facts buddy.

Bizarre argument #1: "For one thing, I doubt all 5 million are going to stay without insurance."
Bizarre argument #2: "The cancelations [sic] may or may not continue at the same rate. We don't know yet."

Yep, two bizarre arguments presented in favor of Obamacare. :)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Bizarre argument #1: "For one thing, I doubt all 5 million are going to stay without insurance."
Bizarre argument #2: "The cancelations [sic] may or may not continue at the same rate. We don't know yet."

Yep, two bizarre arguments presented in favor of Obamacare. :)

Really? so sad, you never get it, do you?

Quote: rxwine

You argue with many because of your fucked up posts.

Calm down. You need some anger management. :)

I swear, liberals are such angry people. *headshake*

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Beethoven9th

Bizarre argument #1: "For one thing, I doubt all 5 million are going to stay without insurance."
Bizarre argument #2: "The cancelations [sic] may or may not continue at the same rate. We don't know yet."

Yep, two bizarre arguments presented in favor of Obamacare. :)

Really? so sad, you never get it, do you?

Correct, I will never understand bizarre arguments like the ones above.

Make better arguments and you'll get better responses.

From you? I doubt it.

Quote: Beethoven9th

From you? I doubt it.

Try the rest of planet Earth then. Do everyone a favor.

Quote: boymimbo

So you account for the 50% difference [from Canada] in spending to demographics, income, and everything else to discount the true statistic. The fact is is that for companies to compete, they have to pass health insurnace costs to their employees, which means much less money in the employees pockets. Given that employee salaries are not increasing and more and more companies are passing along health costs to their employees, how does America compete? Copout.

The copout is the delay in the business mandate and the caving-in to massive criticism by major labor unions.

Quote: rxwine

Try the rest of planet Earth then. Do everyone a favor.

OK.....lol!

Quote: SanchoPanza

Quote: boymimbo

So you account for the 50% difference [from Canada] in spending to demographics, income, and everything else to discount the true statistic. The fact is is that for companies to compete, they have to pass health insurnace costs to their employees, which means much less money in the employees pockets. Given that employee salaries are not increasing and more and more companies are passing along health costs to their employees, how does America compete? Copout.

The copout is the delay in the business mandate and the caving-in to massive criticism by major labor unions.

As of 2012, 11.3% of the American workforce was in a union. With public sector workers having the highest percentage participation rate and in that group those in protection, fire and police the highest amongst them.

Those worker's didn't lose their medical benefits because of the ACA. So many are so quick to blame unions for everything they perceive to be wrong in this country. Including electing democratic presidents. How do so few people have so much power with so few votes?

It's just plain ignorant to keep blaming the unions or the workers for everything you don't like.

Increased use of the system accounts for the rise in cost? No, it doesn't. People stay away from preventative care because it's too expensive. Rather than see a doctor when you're 40 pounds overweight, you weight until you're 100 pounds overweight, are diabetic, and have to have gastric bypass surgery, uninsured. Who pays for the uninsured. Well, you do, whether it's you funding the county hospital or you paying more taxes, or you paying more insurance premiums. A far better system is preventative care for the under and uninsured. >>>>

I have been in pharmacy for 30 plus years. You really think people want preventative care. You think they will lift a finger to become healthy besides the easy way of taking meds. I dont know how many times in my life someone asks me for "the best over the counter diet pilll",,, and I answeR that I dont reccomend any of them, I reccomend diet and exercize...and people are disgusted with that answer. People are lazy...they want "pills". They dont want to lift a finger to help themselves. They raise children that sit behind computers and they like mom and dad become obese. Its cheep to watch meal portion size, and exercize. It costs money to buy pills, and get gastric surgery or have lipo suction. But people if given the chance would rather eat like pigs and get lipo suction than do diet and excersize.30 YEARS AGO no one was having lipo suction or stomach reduction surgery....now its a big money making industry. And the people who dont get these procedures are happy enough to wait till it gets so bad that medical intervention is needed.

You are wrong....when someone is 40 lbs overweight...if they go to the doctor..the doictor will tell them that they need to diet and exercide. They DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT.

lOOK AT THE AVERAGE WELFARE OFFICE. the amonut of obesity in welfare recipients is astronomical...AND THEY HAVE FREE MEDICAL CARE.

I visited a tourist attraction, a old school house in virginia city nevada...they had pictures of classes of kids from the 1920's and 30s....and one stricking thing.....NONE OF THE KIDS WERE OBESE......ZERO..in class picture after class picture.

Someone has to pay for peoples poor parenting skills, and poor personal lifestlyle choices. People are obese not because they cant afford medical care. All a medical health professional can do id offer advie to diet and exercise.

people are not disciplined to make their children eat healthy and lead a physically active life....and people are not diciplined to do the samr for themselves.

it has nothing to do with healthcare

I doubt very much those kids in the mining town of virginia city were thin because they had acess to cheap medical care.

Quote: LarryS

I visited a tourist attraction, a old school house in virginia city nevada...they had pictures of classes of kids from the 1920's and 30s....and one stricking thing.....NONE OF THE KIDS WERE OBESE......ZERO..in class picture after class picture.

I was in HS in the 60's and there were at least 1000 kids in
grades 9-12. There were almost no fat kids. There were a
few, and I mean maybe 10-15. And they weren't FATfat
like kids are now, circus fat, blubber fat. They were overweight,
and it was mostly girls. It's because of the foods we didn't
have. The salty snack aisle in the store was not there yet,
packaged and processed foods were at a minimum. We had
no vending machines at school at all, in fact soft drinks were
not allowed. If we wanted a snack at home, we ate an apple
or a banana. It just kills me on these commercials where the
mom makes a plate of Hot Pockets as a snack for her son and
his friends. A snack? We would have called that dinner in my house,
and we didn't have anything like Hot Pockets yet. Hot food was
a meal, it wasn't a snack.

Quote: EvenBob

I was in HS in the 60's and there were at least 1000 kids in
grades 9-12. There were almost no fat kids. There were a
few, and I mean maybe 10-15. And they weren't FATfat
like kids are now, circus fat, blubber fat. They were overweight,
and it was mostly girls. It's because of the foods we didn't
have. The salty snack aisle in the store was not there yet,
packaged and processed foods were at a minimum. We had
no vending machines at school at all, in fact soft drinks were
not allowed. If we wanted a snack at home, we ate an apple
or a banana. It just kills me on these commercials where the
mom makes a plate of Hot Pockets as a snack for her son and
his friends. A snack? We would have called that dinner in my house,
and we didn't have anything like Hot Pockets yet. Hot food was
a meal, it wasn't a snack.

And another thing, we road our bikes or walked everywhere we went. Tons of outdoor stuff. And to top that off most of us had jobs at a very early age, that was before the child labor laws.

The food supply today isn't what it was either. Carbs are cheap and easy. GMO eatables aren't exactly the way nature intended. How many family's actually cook anymore?

Quote: EvenBob

I was in HS in the 60's and there were at least 1000 kids in
grades 9-12. There were almost no fat kids. There were a
few, and I mean maybe 10-15. And they weren't FATfat
like kids are now, circus fat, blubber fat. They were overweight,
and it was mostly girls. It's because of the foods we didn't
have. The salty snack aisle in the store was not there yet,
packaged and processed foods were at a minimum. We had
no vending machines at school at all, in fact soft drinks were
not allowed. If we wanted a snack at home, we ate an apple
or a banana. It just kills me on these commercials where the
mom makes a plate of Hot Pockets as a snack for her son and
his friends. A snack? We would have called that dinner in my house,
and we didn't have anything like Hot Pockets yet. Hot food was
a meal, it wasn't a snack.

You are absolutely right. Your observations are in line with reality. bleeding heart liberals place the blame on the expensive medical field for peoples obesity....when in reality the medical field is expensive BECAUSE OF PEOPLES OBESITY.

Doctors cannot go home with you and be your personal trainer, or help you shop. They can guide you and give you advice..but thats it. The bottom line is that fat people in general want a "pill" that will melt fat off of them while they are eating their thrid slice of pie. There is no such pill although these companies keep advertising their mirical pill and suckers keep buying it.
And we cant say "oh the poor people need to be educated"....people over the last 20 years have be bombared with Oprah type shows, or Dr Oz type shows talking about salt, sugar, preservatives, healty eating vs unhealthy. With all these shows i think the word is out...just as it has been out about tobacco .

But people eat unhealthy foods, and smoke cigarettes knowingly at their own risk. But also at the expense of the healthcare system.

Obama liberals will say that people eat unhealthy foods and smoke cigareetes because the healtcare system is too expensive...but its the other way around. The healthcare system is too expensive because there are so many people who eat unhealthy foods and smoke cigarettes bleading the system with cancer, emphyzema, asthma, bronchitis, diabetes, heart issues, and weight related joint disorders...all offshoots of their behaviors and their inability to raise healty children.

We always hear how the poor need help, yet the poor in this country are fat. When poor people in America start looking like the poor in Ethiopia, then maybe I'll start listening more.

Since I don't see how we can't improve upon our health system, I see no reason not to try Obamacare.>>>

well lets see...how about improving healthcare by dumping 30 million new patients on the exisiting infrastuctiure...reducing payment for servicies, making healthcare workers have to service more patients in a day in order to make the same money.

Imagine an assembly line making cars. Lets say people got paid "per car". Lets say you are now going to pay people less per car, but you are going to speed up the assembly belt so that they can build more cars per day and therefore not get a pay cut.

Do you think workmanship may suffer?

Well the same is going to happen in healthcare....except when workmanship suffers....people die.

Quote: petroglyph

And another thing, we road our bikes or walked everywhere we went. Tons of outdoor stuff. And to top that off most of us had jobs at a very early age, that was before the child labor laws.

The food supply today isn't what it was either. Carbs are cheap and easy. GMO eatables aren't exactly the way nature intended. How many family's actually cook anymore?

well yeah, we werent warehoused in daycare and then go home in time formy 17 year old mom to microwave a frozen dinner before she drops me off to my 30 year old grandmother to watch me while my mom goes out "clubbing".

THere werent 3 aisles of frozen food in my once called grocery store.

when I grew up in the 60's....as i kid..if I saw someone in the gorcery store buying a frozen dinner...I would say to myself "poor guy". I actually felt sorry for those people

we were a lower income family, living in an apartment..but even to us...frozen dinners were a dirty word

Now we know so much more about the ingredients, we know about the nitrates and nitates in processed meats, we know about the salt content and sugar content...we are so well educated on cholesterol ...we are so much more knowledgeable than were were in the 60's...yet as a society we eat so much worse than we did in the 60's.

And out healthcare system reflects that.

Quote: LarryS

THere werent 3 aisles of frozen food in my once called grocery store.

Ain't that the truth. I never buy frozen food, ever never.
I was in that part of the store recently and was astounded
at what you can buy that's frozen. My god, everything
under the sun. Even corn on the cob. I remember when
there was TV dinners and frozen veggies and that's it.
Look at the average shopping persons shopping cart next
time you're in the checkout line. It's 80% carbs. We aren't
designed to eat like that.

Quote: petroglyph

As of 2012, 11.3% of the American workforce was in a union. With public sector workers having the highest percentage participation rate and in that group those in protection, fire and police the highest amongst them.

Those worker's didn't lose their medical benefits because of the ACA. So many are so quick to blame unions for everything they perceive to be wrong in this country. Including electing democratic presidents. How do so few people have so much power with so few votes?

It's just plain ignorant to keep blaming the unions or the workers for everything you don't like.

Unions fought to elect Obama, then fought for Obamacare, then fought to exempt themselves and their contracts from taxes and regulations required by it. Yes, I both blame them and think they are hypocrites for it. Pre-1980s unions were more about collective bargaining, today they are socialist tools.

Quote: Face

Totally get what you're saying, but isn't that kind of a "Fail" argument?

I mean, that line of thinking would solve many woes. Our electrical grid is in tatters, so let's charge everyone more, including the Amish, despite the fact that they don't use it. Our welfare system is being abused at an alarming extent, so let's charge everyone more, including those that will never use it. I could go on and on, but it's obvious. Charging more people more money, or charging non-users for a service for someone else, would obviously assist in paying for said service. But is it the best choice? Is it the popular choice? Is this a bullet everyone will just bite, or is there going to be an uproar? Bases on the sales of torches and pitchforks, I'd say uproar.

And after thinking about it, LarryS' post kind of flipped the switch. They say that by getting everyone covered, it'll save on the "preventative" stuff being looked at before it's exorbitantly expensive. I gotta make a tentative call of horseshit on that one.

Why? Because we're American Men. How many of you would go to the Dr's and then listen to them on your own? Would you even go if not for A) a nagging Mrs, or B) something hurting beyond your ability to tolerate?

When I get sick, I walk that shit off. Cut, scraped, infected, torn... you walk that shit off. Coughing up blood? Walk. That. Shit. Off. If I cough up blood for more than 4 days without it getting better, then I'll go to the Dr, for no other reason than I can't make amoxicillan in my basement. Break a bone? Tape that shit up and carry on. Concussion? Ain't nobody got time for that.

I got neurological issues. I just deal with it. I've had 26 concussions that I know of and probably twice that that I've missed. Ain't about to stop nothing, no matter how many pleas I get from the doc. I get migraines something awful, I weird out every now and again, and ever since the last migraine a few weeks back, I've been having very mild hallucinations and a noticeable shift in personality. And I'm gonna walk that shit off.

Our problem, in large part, is ourselves. We smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much, beat on ourselves too much, and always have that faith that there will be a pill or a procedure that's going to undo it all. That very concept has been drilled into our heads for decades. So instead of proactively addressing (insert issue here) in its early stages, we carry on until it's a(n expensive) problem. I've probably already condemned myself to a life cut short by CTE, and lord knows how many zeroes are going to be on my late life med bills.

And every one of those zeroes will come from a man who's largely lived a life with completely full and completely free healthcare courtesy of his employer.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Hey Face, I'm truly sad to read of your ailments. Many, many have issues of some sort and I sometimes think I'm a goof for feeling the way that I do, however, it is what it is. I hope that the medical profession continues to find cures for our ailments.

Thanks for a reasonably written post explaining a point of view that is opposite mine rather than some of the garbage that is written here.

Just to kind of try to re-state my opinion, I was asked to provide an instance of a benefit with this Obamacare, and I remain convinced that getting more people paying into the system is a huge plus and indeed fair. I say this because a young healthy person never knows if, or when, they may need extensive healthcare. If they are allowed to not pay in until they need it then they can never pay in enough to cover the costs. When that happens then everyone else suffers and bears the cost. If it were a matter of healthcare being inexpensive enough that someone can get caught up with paying enough in after they have been diagnosed then you would be correct and I would agree with you, but that's not the case.

Face, thanks again for your reasonable post and argument. Time will tell which one of us is right. Let's hope that we both live to see and understand the result.

Quote: steeldco

Hey Face, I'm truly sad to read of your ailments. Many, many have issues of some sort and I sometimes think I'm a goof for feeling the way that I do, however, it is what it is. I hope that the medical profession continues to find cures for our ailments.

Thanks for a reasonably written post explaining a point of view that is opposite mine rather than some of the garbage that is written here.

Just to kind of try to re-state my opinion, I was asked to provide an instance of a benefit with this Obamacare, and I remain convinced that getting more people paying into the system is a huge plus and indeed fair. I say this because a young healthy person never knows if, or when, they may need extensive healthcare. If they are allowed to not pay in until they need it then they can never pay in enough to cover the costs. When that happens then everyone else suffers and bears the cost. If it were a matter of healthcare being inexpensive enough that someone can get caught up with paying enough in after they have been diagnosed then you would be correct and I would agree with you, but that's not the case.

Face, thanks again for your reasonable post and argument. Time will tell which one of us is right. Let's hope that we both live to see and understand the result.

Oh, no no no. Don't feel sorry for me, my life is awesome. I wasn't attempting to pity post, just making a point.

This is what we do, what we've been taught and even encouraged to do since well before the snake oil salesmen pedaled their wares by horse and carriage. I could prevent impending back surgery by taking it easy and resting these blown out disks of mine, but I've got a championship to defend and a wheelbarrow full of Vicodin to pull me through it. There's two scoops of guys right now bitching about gout as we speak, and in that same thread there's medications almost if not into the double digits in numbers that they can take to allow them to continue their indulgences without suffering the consequences. Sure, we could just QUIT the stuff that's sending us to the medic... lol j/k. No we can't.

This is just who and what we are. We all "deserve" to have the life and pursue the pleasures we want. And when our bodies say "no", our minds say "too bad". And when it reaches that breaking point, well, there's a pill for that. And now that there's no pills as we've abused our way into bankruptcy, have we changed?

Nope. And we never will. We'll just legislate our way out of it.

Hey, it worked for our gun problem...

Quote: Face

Oh, no no no. Don't feel sorry for me, my life is awesome. ..

It fantastic that you have had an awesome life!

But to my point......
Let's say we have a young man who walks off his ailments and is as healthy as they come. But for his family's sake, he decides that he needs to acquire coverage lets say when he gets into his late 30s or early 40s. He ends up paying very little into the system. Now, what if the same young man acquires cancer in his say 50's? He goes thru a couple of years of chemo, radiation treatments, surgeries, drugs, etc. Over a couple of years he has incurred a $1 million in costs. He dies 3 years later, never coming close to having paid in enough to cover his bills. A guy who thought that he was invincible ends up costing everyone else. Why would this be fair?

Sure it's unfair to have everybody paying in when they may not use it, but I'd much rather have everyone paid in, than not.

Quote: steeldco

It fantastic that you have had an awesome life!

But to my point......
Let's say we have a young man who walks off his ailments and is as healthy as they come. But for his family's sake, he decides that he needs to acquire coverage lets say when he gets into his late 30s or early 40s. He ends up paying very little into the system. Now, what if the same young man acquires cancer in his say 50's? He goes thru a couple of years of chemo, radiation treatments, surgeries, drugs, etc. Over a couple of years he has incurred a $1 million in costs. He dies 3 years later, never coming close to having paid in enough to cover his bills. A guy who thought that he was invincible ends up costing everyone else. Why would this be fair?

Sure it's unfair to have everybody paying in when they may not use it, but I'd much rather have everyone paid in, than not.

I think I see a big part of the problem. We are talking about "paying into the system," when that is not how we should be thinking. In a system of private insurance the insurer offers a product at a set price after having carefully underwritten it in their risk management department. The insured is then free to take or leave this product based on their own personal risk assessment. There is no "the system" involved.

Fact is, the best way to solve this is with a HSA system. Pay into your own "system" when young and invest the money as you see fit, with CAT coverage to fill the gap. This would be the most fair to everyone.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think I see a big part of the problem. We are talking about "paying into the system," when that is not how we should be thinking. In a system of private insurance the insurer offers a product at a set price after having carefully underwritten it in their risk management department. The insured is then free to take or leave this product based on their own personal risk assessment. There is no "the system" involved.

Fact is, the best way to solve this is with a HSA system. Pay into your own "system" when young and invest the money as you see fit, with CAT coverage to fill the gap. This would be the most fair to everyone.

First, despite it being "carefully underwritten", the fact is that everyone ends up sharing the costs incurred by the man who passed away. I find this to be unfair. Have everyone pay in, starting at an early age, and we will mitigate the effect on our costs.

Your comment stating the use of an HSA system is a better solution holds merit. But that's not what is on the books. Get it changed but don't try to gloss over the advantage of getting the young to pay in.

Quote: steeldco

First, despite it being "carefully underwritten", the fact is that everyone ends up sharing the costs incurred by the man who passed away. I find this to be unfair. Have everyone pay in, starting at an early age, and we will mitigate the effect on our costs.

We do not "share" the costs, they are the risk in the insurance pool. What about a young person who dies instantly in a car crash? They "get nothing" for what they paid in.

Quote:

Your comment stating the use of an HSA system is a better solution holds merit. But that's not what is on the books. Get it changed but don't try to gloss over the advantage of getting the young to pay in.

Getting the young to pay in is nothing more than a tax on the young and more wealth transfer. It will not reduce costs, and in fact will increase them as the younger buyer who otherwise would have "walked off" a minor issue now goes for treatment to "get their money's worth."

And that is why the Obamacare scheme will not work, nor will anything else that requires everyone to pay. We need to make people better consumers, getting reward and punishment for their own choices. Here is a good description of why "getting the young to pay into the system" will not work.

Quote: AZDuffman

We do not "share" the costs, they are the risk in the insurance pool. What about a young person who dies instantly in a car crash? They "get nothing" for what they paid in.



Getting the young to pay in is nothing more than a tax on the young and more wealth transfer. It will not reduce costs, and in fact will increase them as the younger buyer who otherwise would have "walked off" a minor issue now goes for treatment to "get their money's worth."

And that is why the Obamacare scheme will not work, nor will anything else that requires everyone to pay. We need to make people better consumers, getting reward and punishment for their own choices. Here is a good description of why "getting the young to pay into the system" will not work.

Aren't you the guy who made the case that the insurance companies don't have large margins? You think that out of the goodness of their hearts, they're going to just absorb the large claims and not pass along the cost to all of the other insured? That would seem to be a little naïve on your part, wouldn't it?

And to your point about the young person in a car crash, yep it's unfair. I stated that previously. What I am championing is not a fair way, but a MORE fair way than the alternative.