Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-26-2016, 04:45 PM   #1
basswipe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
basswipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: RI
Posts: 5,544
Obama Care Increases

SURPRISE!!!Not so much if you paid attention 6yrs ago.

Absolutely shocked there has been no discussion on this subject.

Have at it boys and girls!I want some real entertainment...please don't disappoint.
basswipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2016, 06:52 PM   #2
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
I don't think anyone, except the "stupid" Americans Gruber was counting on to help get Obamacare passed, is surprised. Certainly not Obama. The intention all along is that it would fail. Obama was saying as far back as 2003 that single payer government health care was needed and would require a transitional private sector form--such as Obamacare for instance--before it could be made a reality.

The necessary transition has come, is on its way toward disappearing, and Hillary will work to usher in universal government healthcare.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 07:40 AM   #3
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 31,738
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I don't think anyone, except the "stupid" Americans Gruber was counting on to help get Obamacare passed, is surprised. Certainly not Obama. The intention all along is that it would fail. Obama was saying as far back as 2003 that single payer government health care was needed and would require a transitional private sector form--such as Obamacare for instance--before it could be made a reality.

The necessary transition has come, is on its way toward disappearing, and Hillary will work to usher in universal government healthcare.

I am OK with health coverage for all citizens (Citizens Only!!!) and even single payer, provided:

Fix the budget deficit first
Plan reduction to national debt (how?)
Fix SS

If Government shows it can be responsible and do all that without cutting/gutting defense, I would even pay a little extra in taxes.

Currently, our elected Government has not shown well enough if it can manage its current responsibilities let alone manage new ones.

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 08:30 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
I am OK with health coverage for all citizens (Citizens Only!!!) .
Agreed. But what you have to do (which Obamacare failed at) is to get young, healthy people to pay in to the system as well. The math doesn't work if only sick people sign up, you need to spread the cost among healthy people too.

And there's a whole lot of fraud and waste that needs to be addressed, that would at least put a dent in costs.

The timing of the premium spikes will help Trump. Probably not enough, but it will help.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 08:36 AM   #5
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,767
The penalties are too small to force people into the program. They are going up to I believe $700/year. People can just cancel/buy insurance at any time. That is prob. as big or a bigger problem.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 08:39 AM   #6
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The penalties are too small to force people into the program. They are going up to I believe $700/year. People can just cancel/buy insurance at any time. That is prob. as big or a bigger problem.
Good point, Paul. You can't have a system where people sign up the day before they have surgery, then opt out the day they get out of the hospital. The math doesn't work.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 11:38 AM   #7
Fishpart
Keep The Change
iTrader: (0)
 
Fishpart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Road to Serfdom
Posts: 3,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The penalties are too small to force people into the program. They are going up to I believe $700/year. People can just cancel/buy insurance at any time. That is prob. as big or a bigger problem.
Force people into a government program? Sounds kind of Fascist? I thought Democrats were about choice not coercion.

Its not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections, Antonin Scalia
Fishpart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 11:40 AM   #8
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,767
It is a penalty for not enrolling.

I thought Repubs. where about personal responsibility - I guess not when it comes to abortion.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 12:03 PM   #9
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
I am OK with health coverage for all citizens (Citizens Only!!!) and even single payer, provided:

Fix the budget deficit first
Plan reduction to national debt (how?)
Fix SS

If Government shows it can be responsible and do all that without cutting/gutting defense, I would even pay a little extra in taxes.

Currently, our elected Government has not shown well enough if it can manage its current responsibilities let alone manage new ones.
We already had health coverage (health care) for all citizens before we concocted Obamacare. What was objected to was its reverse progressivity. The more you could afford it, the better coverage (care) you could get.

"Universal" health coverage, the same amount, type, and quality, of all health care provided by government to everyone regardless of ability to pay for it, is one of the types of socialist dreams which disincentivize the drive to improve one's life. Government universalization of necessities is basically government control of its populace. And it is a control which most likely will lead to stagnant mediocrity in the populace which will be more or less trapped in its "classless" position within the "masses," and will be dependent on its elite rulers. Of course, the elites will have better stuff in spite of "universalization."

Sure, if we can stop the universalization at healthcare, other things might not change. But the nature of socialism is not to stop at partial or limited control. What stops it, eventually, is failure. As you have pointed out, our Federal Government is failing even to manage its current responsibilities. It's solution is not to lessen those responsibilities (control), but to double down. Of course it will take on more . . . and more . . . until utter collapse and necessary revolution.

If we want universalized health care, would it be better if we left it up to the individual States to put proposals to their ciltizens for various plans? Wouldn't that fulfil the original plan, federalism, of States as the laboratories of experiment? Wouldn't that give us different perspectives on what worked, what didn't, or what worked better? My guess is that the plans which left the most discretion to individuals and the market would ultimately be the best and most affordable. And certainly would be the ones which allowed flexibility and opportunity for change or improvement rather than the stubborn doubling down imposed on us by bureaucrats.

And would be the ones which most distanced ourselves from the control of centralized bureaucratic government.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 12:07 PM   #10
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
It is a penalty for not enrolling.

I thought Repubs. where about personal responsibility - I guess not when it comes to abortion.
One could argue that forcing someone to purchase something, goes against core conservative principles. But we force drivers to buy insurance, because we all have a vested interest in making sure that those we share the road with, have adequate insurance.

I think a similar case can be made with health insurance. I don't think anyone - ANYONE - should suffer long-term financial hardship because of health issues they have no control over (issues from obesity or smoking are a whole other matter, that's the result of choice, for the most part). To me, it seems very fair to spread the cost of un-preventable, lifelong catastrophic health issues, among all of us.

"I thought Repubs. where about personal responsibility - I guess not when it comes to abortion"

Can't imagine what you mean by that. Being opposed to abortion is perfectly consistent with the notion of holding people accountable for their actions - if you are healthy and chose to engage in consensual sex, you can deal with the consequences of that choice.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 12:08 PM   #11
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishpart View Post
I thought Democrats were about choice not coercion.
Not when it comes to school choice they're not. Nor when it comes to opting out of a labor union you have no desire of supporting.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 12:32 PM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
One could argue that forcing someone to purchase something, goes against core conservative principles. But we force drivers to buy insurance, because we all have a vested interest in making sure that those we share the road with, have adequate insurance.

That kind of circular reasoning is not an example of principle, conservative or otherwise. Force drivers to have insurance in order to make sure they have insurance--really? I want to force you to give me something to make sure I have that something. Well, yeah, I guess there is a principle involved. The principle of absolute power.

For a Progressive, any "insurance" program is a transitional step to a centralized Federal "universal" program. Eventually, instead of forcing drivers to have insurance, we can transition to having "universal" coverage paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. That will spread the cost, right.



I think a similar case can be made with health insurance. I don't think anyone - ANYONE - should suffer long-term financial hardship because of health issues they have no control over (issues from obesity or smoking are a whole other matter, that's the result of choice, for the most part). To me, it seems very fair to spread the cost of un-preventable, lifelong catastrophic health issues, among all of us.
Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 02:14 PM   #13
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care.
"Force drivers to have insurance in order to make sure they have insurance--really"

Everyone who drives, has a vested interest in sharing the road only with people who have adequate insurance. I worked in Personal Auto insurance, I've seen what happens to people who are hurt by drivers who don't have adequate insurance. Does the requirement limit freedom? Sure. So does the law that says I can't park in handicap parking spaces, but I don't quarrel about that, either.

"Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care. "

I make no claim to having any kind of viable solution. But while I was lucky to be born ailment-free, others are not so lucky, and I have no issue with all of us sharing the financial costs of un-preventable medical problems that some are born with. I'd rather pay to treat a little kid born with leukemia, than pay for someone to get food stamps that they trade for beer and cigarettes. That's my Catholicism talking.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 04:00 PM   #14
basswipe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
basswipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: RI
Posts: 5,544
Not sure what abortion has to do with my thread title but this is exactly the kind of entertainment I was hoping for!

Keep it going ladies and gents!!!
basswipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 08:25 PM   #15
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Force drivers to have insurance in order to make sure they have insurance--really"

Everyone who drives, has a vested interest in sharing the road only with people who have adequate insurance.

I have more of a vested interest in sharing the road with people who are safe drivers than with adequately insured ones.

At this time, mandated auto insurance is at the State level. If the people of a State agree to it, so be it. I live in a State that has no-fault auto insurance. So whether the other driver is adequately insured or not is less of an issue than if I am adequately insured. Since I have an older car, I only carry the required liability insurance. My latest 6 month bill of $1463.00 included $930.00 for Medical Personal injury Protection. This is the highest in the nation. On top of which living in Detroit makes my policy actuarially higher than most of the rest in my State--even though I have never caused an accident or caused property damage or ever injured anyone by driving, nor have ever been so injured. And that is a record compiled for almost 60 years of driving. The insurance companies have made tons of money off of me from all the comprehensive insurance premiums I've paid for new cars as well as the liability fees over that time none of which I cashed in on. It is drivers like me that are their cash cow to make up for the reckless or careless ones. So I don't feel as generous as you when it comes to "sharing the burden."

Before no fault, compensation was decided through tort litigation. A fellow I worked with, before no fault, was responsible for paying the medical bills and a lifetime monthly stipend to a person who his wife had permanently injured in an automobile accident that she caused. I am more in favor of those who cause damage paying for it rather than sharing costs for which I am not at fault.

My State recently had a ballot proposal to eliminate the medical personal injury protection fee, but the citizens voted to keep it. We had a choice, it wasn't summarily forced on us. And I appreciate that I can move to a State that doesn't have no fault insurance and has much lower insurance costs (which I am planning to do for other reasons, but cheap auto insurance is a substantial bonus).

And I would prefer that insurance was a commodity which gave me an advantage if I purchased it. If I was willing to pay a premium in advance in the event that I might reek expensive damage which the insurance company would pay for, then I might consider it an advantage to buy the insurance over those who don't buy it. But when everyone is required by law to buy it, especially if it is universal coverage, then there is no advantage, and worse there is the disadvantage of much higher costs inherent in universal coverage.

Not to mention the loss of choice and the setting or further practice of liberty busting precedent. Oh . . . I guess I did.

Comparing State or locally mandated auto insurance to Federally mandated Obama Care, which is meant to transition into Federally provided universal healthcare is a false analogy.

And doesn't government mandated "universal" insurance actually destroy the original concept of free market insurance? wasn't insurance something separate from a universal "right"? Something that you could acquire to help you protect yourself personally from some calamity or expense. And doesn't universality replace that with some societally guaranteed right not to be burdened by calamity or expense paid for by society rather than by the individual?

It seems to me that calling a "right" "insurance" is superfluous. We can eliminate the antiquated word "insurance" from our vocabulary. And we can eliminate the plight of individual burdens by guaranteeing the right to be free from them, rather than have the individual responsibility to seek ways of avoiding them.


I worked in Personal Auto insurance, I've seen what happens to people who are hurt by drivers who don't have adequate insurance. Does the requirement limit freedom? Sure. So does the law that says I can't park in handicap parking spaces, but I don't quarrel about that, either.

What makes you think that just because you have a car you have some inherent freedom to park wherever you want which should not be abridged?


"Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care. "

I make no claim to having any kind of viable solution. But while I was lucky to be born ailment-free, others are not so lucky, and I have no issue with all of us sharing the financial costs of un-preventable medical problems that some are born with. I'd rather pay to treat a little kid born with leukemia, than pay for someone to get food stamps that they trade for beer and cigarettes. That's my Catholicism talking.
That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it.

I have tremendous respect for your church. And for Christianity, and a good amount for Judaism, and for good atheists, but none, as everyone can guess from my posts, for Islam. And there are other religions, cults, and philosophies that I feel some kinship with.

But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines.

If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that. But if your sentiments are imposed on me, I am not free to do that or not to. I am impelled, coerced, forced to do what you want to do.

Since you claim to not have any kind of viable solution, perhaps, then, you don't believe in a free market, nor in the charity of a free people. Perhaps, your Catholicism requires a controlled market and a regulated people to "do the right thing."

Where is the "faith" in all that? Do you have faith in the good, or do you require good to be mandated by the opinion and force of men.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-27-2016 at 08:31 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 09:08 PM   #16
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it.

I have tremendous respect for your church. And for Christianity, and a good amount for Judaism, and for good atheists, but none, as everyone can guess from my posts, for Islam. And there are other religions, cults, and philosophies that I feel some kinship with.

But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines.

If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that. But if your sentiments are imposed on me, I am not free to do that or not to. I am impelled, coerced, forced to do what you want to do.

Since you claim to not have any kind of viable solution, perhaps, then, you don't believe in a free market, nor in the charity of a free people. Perhaps, your Catholicism requires a controlled market and a regulated people to "do the right thing."

Where is the "faith" in all that? Do you have faith in the good, or do you require good to be mandated by the opinion and force of men.
"If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. "

The thing is, I can't do it on my on. But all of the healthy people, together, can. And in my opinion, should.

"There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that."

I do. But there aren't enough people contributing which is why families who deal with un-preventable ailments, suffer severe financial consequences for the rest of their lives. I don't like it.

"That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it. "

Now you sound like someone at MSNBC. I have no interest in forcing people into my tent. In fact, I think we need to clean house and kick out phonies like Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

"But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines."

Well then I have bad news for you. The Constitution, which I think you like, was largely formed via the religiously-informed consciences of the founding fathers. It sounds like you are saying you are OK with constitutionally valid federal laws, as long as they weren't inspired by religious motivation. I don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law.

And while your insurance company has made a lot of money on you individually, they haven't made much on the pool of people you are rated with. Premiums and losses must be submitted to your insurance department, and if profits are too rich, the state of Michigan will tell your carrier to lower their rates. Margins are pretty thin here.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 12:04 AM   #17
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. "

The thing is, I can't do it on my on. But all of the healthy people, together, can. And in my opinion, should.

We've had this discussion before. It got nowhere then, and will not now. I like you a lot, Jim, but in my opinion, your opinion on this matter is too narrow and too personal. There is so much to consider before we let our emotions translate into coercion. Our natural existence is over-filled with ways to die. Until we can control nature, it will always be so. Why do you think nature, or your Catholic God, created beings with the potential to continuously propagate, or as your Bible might say: be fruitful and multiply?

It's ironic that as we conquer nature we have in this country alone 50,000 cases per year of destroying or preventing the natural life they engendered from being born, while at the same time thousands who desperately want to save their offspring from nature's hand of death. It seems that if we don't allow nature to cull the herd, we'll unnaturally do it ourselves.

We were meant to die. If you insist that we must all be coerced into sharing the cost of someone foiling or putting off the moment of death, you've got a massive, probably impossible, agenda, and one which will enrich a few at the huge expense of others.

You have a special concern about leukemia because of your friends expensive experience with their daughter. But there are other diseases and misfortunes that plague us. Are they of any less concern or empathy than what you have for leukemia? If you can afford, even in the most desperate way, the choice of saving one of your children, bless you, go for it. But if you're young enough to have another child, why would you burden the rest of society with the cost of saving the sick one? Why would you deprive the one you can procreate of the chance for life in order to have society pay for your sick one?

Does that sound cold, heartless? Perhaps. Or perhaps it is pragmatic. It is amazing how, when life was far more tenuous than now, and there weren't the options we have now, we grieved for little ones we lost to nature, then naturally produced more little ones to love and to give them the gift of life.

An aunt and uncle of mine lost both daughters to leukemia. Back then, it was pretty much a death sentence. One was quite young when she died. The other was around 18 if I remember correctly. It affected me strongly when the youngest one died (I was not too much older than her then). That feeling lasted a long time. Eventually, I forgot the grief, but remembered her for the positive feelings she inspired by her innocence and goodness. The older one grew from a gangly tomboy to a very beautiful and vivacious young women. She confided in me her joy of life, especially the pleasure and excitement of her romantic escapades. I, again, felt the grief of losing her, this time because of her vibrant and beautiful presence. I thought it was not fair that she should die with so much life to live, especially one as beautiful as her. But I wonder now, if those beautiful memories of her would have been obliterated now by her lasting to old age with all its infirmities and deformities and calamities. Would she have had a bad marriage or two, some broken hearts, psychological and economic poverty? There are many versions by many wise people of an ancient saying "Whom the Gods love dies young." Or the other version "Only the good die young."

But they, as was more common back then, had two brothers who grew into responsible family men who bred their own children, who eventually did the same, but whom I really didn't like and became distant from. It was all just the natural and usual cycle of life and death. Nothing that I think society, or government, should have made a huge fuss over. The freedom they had to pursue their commonplace lives was all they had a right to expect from their government. In my opinion.



"There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that."

I do. But there aren't enough people contributing which is why families who deal with un-preventable ailments, suffer severe financial consequences for the rest of their lives. I don't like it.

Waiting for government to save us from suffering is like "Waiting for Godot." Ain't gonna happen. Get over it.

"That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it. "

Now you sound like someone at MSNBC. I have no interest in forcing people into my tent. In fact, I think we need to clean house and kick out phonies like Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

But you do have an interest in doing so if you want us to share in paying for forced charity of paying for leukemia or automobile catastrophes as an expression of your Catholicism.

"But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines."

Well then I have bad news for you. The Constitution, which I think you like, was largely formed via the religiously-informed consciences of the founding fathers. It sounds like you are saying you are OK with constitutionally valid federal laws, as long as they weren't inspired by religious motivation. I don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law.

You've really twisted the news there. Those religiously-informed consciences were also informed by secular notions of the purpose of government. And they understood very well when they wrote the Constitution that it prevented the government it created from coercing even their own religious inclinations from being forced on those who wanted none of it. They purposely prevented even themselves from coercing others to believe or think as they did other than to defend the notion that individuals were free to pursue their own life, liberty, and happiness--so long as it didn't deprive others of the same freedom.

You're the one who brought up your Catholicism as, I guess, the inspiration for why you think everyone should share in the cost of paying for someone's leukemia. And, by extension, I guess, why government should force us to share in such costs. Why bring up your Catholicism if you "don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law"?


And while your insurance company has made a lot of money on you individually, they haven't made much on the pool of people you are rated with. Premiums and losses must be submitted to your insurance department, and if profits are too rich, the state of Michigan will tell your carrier to lower their rates. Margins are pretty thin here.
That's rich. I should feel good about being the cash cow because insurance companies didn't make much on those I am rated with. Probably, if it weren't for cash cows like me, they would have lost money on others in "the pool."

Don't insurance companies make massive amounts of money by investing the premiums they collect (on a thin margin)? I guess I'm not feeling the proper sympathy for some of the richest companies in the world because they profitably invest my premiums, for which I have gotten nothing but a big chunk of my income being removed from my well being in order to enrich theirs.

Boo Hoo!

Oh yeah, that's right . . . I should be happy about being forced to defray somebody else's costs of reckless behavior or bad luck.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-28-2016 at 01:15 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 04:33 AM   #18
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,579
congress had 8 years to fix the issues and just attempted repeal it like 50 times so i ask who screwing who

I am in a Group of thousands and my insurance is 700 a month and 1st 750 out of pocket .. not seeing the outrage

the people seeing this increase are single or family policys whom are not in a group ..they are buying as individuals its Price and demand

so it seem outrageous if you never have had health insurance

how many here fall into 1 of 4 categories

Medicare, Medicaid private or employee based (group) this changes your pricing greatly
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 05:51 AM   #19
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
congress had 8 years to fix the issues and just attempted repeal it like 50 times so i ask who screwing who

I am in a Group of thousands and my insurance is 700 a month and 1st 750 out of pocket .. not seeing the outrage

the people seeing this increase are single or family policys whom are not in a group ..they are buying as individuals its Price and demand

so it seem outrageous if you never have had health insurance

how many here fall into 1 of 4 categories

Medicare, Medicaid private or employee based (group) this changes your pricing greatly
"not seeing the outrage "

That's because you don't want to see the outrage, nd because MSNBC isn't covering the outrage. That doesn't mean there isn't outrage.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 06:05 AM   #20
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
That's rich. I should feel good about being the cash cow because insurance companies didn't make much on those I am rated with. Probably, if it weren't for cash cows like me, they would have lost money on others in "the pool."

Don't insurance companies make massive amounts of money by investing the premiums they collect (on a thin margin)? I guess I'm not feeling the proper sympathy for some of the richest companies in the world because they profitably invest my premiums, for which I have gotten nothing but a big chunk of my income being removed from my well being in order to enrich theirs.

Boo Hoo!

Oh yeah, that's right . . . I should be happy about being forced to defray somebody else's costs of reckless behavior or bad luck.
Yes, we have had this discussion, and I don't expect it to go anywhere. It's a big issue, not going to get addressed here.

I am not anti-government. I don't mind the feds doing that which (1) needs to be done, and (2) can't be done by a loose collection of individuals. There are a very small number of things on that list, you and I agree whole heartedly on that. This is one of those items on which we disagree. I don't like to see despair that was unavoidable to the person who is suffering, yet which cn be mitigated by social programs. And we don't need to raise taxes to address this, just cut a tiny fraction of the stupid waste that's out there,

As to your car insurance, no, no one expects you to feel good that you subsidized bad drivers in your town, which is exactly what you did. But you can, and should, take some small comfort in knowing that if you accidentally hurt someone today, you have an insurance policy designed to make sure that you don't lose everything you have.

That's the same exact kind of protection that I think sick people deserve. They can't help having a pre-existing condition, so why should they have to pay (and struggle for their entire lives) dearly for that?

Tone can be badly misinterpreted in emails, I hope that's not the case here. I have nothing but respect for you, this is just s friendly, challenging disagreement.

"Don't insurance companies make massive amounts of money by investing the premiums they collect (on a thin margin)?"

First of all, there are no investment gains these days. Insurance companies can't invest premiums in hedge funds, most of it is in bonds, which no pay interest rates pretty close to zero. Second of all, in personal auto insurance, there often isn't a lot of time to invest and earn, before claims are paid out. As opposed to some other lines, like medical malpractice, where claims often take 10 years to settle, companies have a lot more time to invest. No company is making big money as a result of buying short term bonds with your automobile premiums.

"If you insist that we must all be coerced into sharing the cost of someone foiling or putting off the moment of death"

I'm not talking about spending a zillion dollars so that a 99 year old with acute liver failure can live 3 more days. I am talking about a family whose child is born, for example, with something like spinal bifida (spelling error likely). Something that the family will live with for decades. Is it right that such a family might never be able to afford to buy a home, or send their kids to college, because every spare cent gets sucked up by medical expenses? I don't think so. I just don't.

It's fair to charge bad drivers more for car insurance. I don't think it's fair to charge sick people more for their healthcare. I can't prove it, it's just my gut.
Jim in CT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 08:32 AM   #21
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,767
You two should stop responding to each other. The post is a troll.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2016, 10:19 AM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I am not anti-government.

I don't think I've said or implied that either one of us is anti-government. Don't know why you had to bring that up.

I don't mind the feds doing that which (1) needs to be done, and (2) can't be done by a loose collection of individuals. There are a very small number of things on that list, you and I agree whole heartedly. This is one of those items on which we disagree. I don't like to see despair that was unavoidable to the person who is suffering, yet which cn be mitigated by social programs. And we don't need to raise taxes to address this, just cut a tiny fraction of the stupid waste that's out there,

In my opinion, you're contradicting yourself here. We agree that there are a very small number of things on the constitutional list of what the Feds can do. Mitigating the despair of persons for whom it is unavoidable may, in general, be only one category, but it is a category which is so large that it can absorb the money required for the other things on the list. And no, it is not actually on the list. That you want to put it there aligns you, whether you like it or not, with those who want to expand the list. Anything put on the list by other than amendment sets a precedent for adding anything else including the "stupid waste out there".

And if you think there is even a chance that the stupid waste will not be there, especially if you set precedents for adding more to the list of Federal powers and duties, you are being worse than contradictory. The limited list was put in the Constitution not only to protect the populace from overreaching government, but also to prevent adding things that would add to power of the Federal government to spend money and create more stupid waste. The Founders knew that those in power could or would try to spend beyond their means, so they limited their means.


As to your car insurance, no, no one expects you to feel good that you subsidized bad drivers in your town, which is exactly what you did. But you can, and should, take some small comfort in knowing that if you accidentally hurt someone today, you have an insurance policy designed to make sure that you don't lose everything you have.

I don't want car insurance to be an item that is added to the Federal list.

That's the same exact kind of protection that I think sick people deserve. They can't help having a pre-existing condition, so why should they have to pay (and struggle for their entire lives) dearly for that?

Why should this be added to the Federal list? And, as an aside from the list, pre-existing condition doesn't just refer to unavoidable condition.

I'm not talking about spending a zillion dollars so that a 99 year old with acute liver failure can live 3 more days. I am talking about a family whose child is born, for example, with something like spinal bifida (spelling error likely). Something that the family will live with for decades. Is it right that such a family might never be able to afford to buy a home, or send their kids to college, because every spare cent gets sucked up by medical expenses? I don't think so. I just don't.

Adding this to the list of Federal problems and duties is just another precedent for the Federal Government to assume any power it wishes. Hey . . . why not just write a new Constitution. It could be very simply put and understood. There would be no need to "interpret" it in order to make Federal decisions constitutional. Simply state that from henceforth only one Government entity shall be valid for the country known as The United States. It will be located in the area named Washington D.C. It shall be vested with the power to do whatever is necessary for the good and welfare of the citizens of said country, or of anyone the government wishes to include. There shall be one elected representative who shall have uncontested executive and legislative power, and who shall appoint any necessary regulatory agencies to write, in law, how legislation will be effected and enforced. There shall be one court system for the country, one Supreme Court whose power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, and shall be assisted with subsidiary inferior branches whose location, number, and appointment will be decided by the elected representative with the aid of the appointed expert regulators

It's fair to charge bad drivers more for car insurance. I don't think it's fair to charge sick people more for their healthcare. I can't prove it, it's just my gut.
When any insurance becomes mandatory and universal, fairness is no longer an issue.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-28-2016 at 10:29 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com