US-Politics The Resistible Rise of Donald J. Trump

[ThinkerX]

If it's not too personal, did you have health insurance before the ACA that you purchased independently?  If so, how does it compare with your current plan with respect to costs of premiums, deductibles, coverage of services, access?

[/quote]

Prior to the ACA, I did not have health insurance.  The costs were simply too much.  That said, I did have to go to the emergency room a year beforehand.  The hospital hit me with an $1800 bill, of which about $200 was for $20 worth of bandages and over the counter meds. When I protested, I was told I might qualify for the 'poor peoples discount' (income adjusted fee structure.)  That knocked $1200 off the tab.

At the time, I also saw the doc twice a year.  Visit plus lab work plus sliding scale came out to a few hundred bucks each time.  Fair enough.

 

Since getting on the ACA, I have had two more regular type doctors visits.  Because of the insurance shenanigans I still fork over a couple hundred bucks...plus four digits worth of payments to the insurance companies.

 

So, I have been thinking here lately: Suppose I do end up having to go to the emergency room again and get presented with another four digit bill afterward?  Would the 'poor peoples discount' apply.  Or do I get to pay the full amount (because the deductible is so damn high) plus shell out thousand of dollars for premium payments while getting, at best a few hundred bucks back?

 

And this is one of the supposedly decent Silver plans.

 

My view, before the ACA passed and afterwards, is this:  You get medical costs under control by directly attacking medical expenses.  Set up uniform, sane costs for medical procedures. Remember the stories of a operation running $2000 at one hospital and $20,000 at another a few blocks away.  Put an end to that.  Price gouging, plain and simple.  Draconian price controls on drugs - as in about a 90% cost decrease.  Way I see it, most prescription drug cost is actually price gouging.  Then expand Medicare for everybody.

 

As it is, the ACA is headed for an unmitigated disaster in the not so distant future unless dramatic changes are made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

At least it is some sort of indication as to whether or not they can do the job. If you can't get the job, you can't do the job.

ME,

But being a good campaigner and bullshit spinner is completely different from being a statesman which is what being President is supposed to be about.

Tywin,

I 

think that might be the single worst idea I've ever heard of. It might work out for the the House, but having some random idiot in charge of the military is so foolish.

 

Fine, but it is not without precident.  In Athens the vote came with the possiblity of being appointed to various posts in the Athenian Bureacracy.  Thus, in that society the vote was tied to very specific obligations.

 

[TrackerNeil]

For one, the people that end up paying the penalty for not having insurance are worse off than before.  These people are still uninsured, and now also have to pay a penalty. 

As I recall, the mandate does not apply to those below a certain income level who do not qualify for Medicaid, so I don't know how large a concern that really is. We're probably talking about a relative few, and given how many people are being helped, I think it's important not to lose sight of the big issue here.

Now, if you're referring to folks who prefer paying the penalty for nothing than premiums for something, I don't have a great deal of sympathy. Those who choose to go uninsured are essentially free-riding on the system, letting others cover the cost of their care, and often when it's most expensive. That's not something I think we should craft a system to permit.

Edited to add: I don't really understand the complaints about cost-reduction and the Affordable Care Act. Even if one accepts that the ACA has done exactly zero to cut costs--a proposition still hotly contested--that doesn't mean that the problem of rising health care costs is somehow linked to the Affordable Care Act. A 7% increase in premiums was pretty much what we were all used to in the pre-ACA days; why is it now some sign that the Affordable Care Act is doomed? I don't understand it.

[lokisnow]

ME,

But being a good campaigner and bullshit spinner is completely different from being a statesman which is what being President is supposed to be about.

Tywin,

 

Fine, but it is not without precident.  In Athens the vote came with the possiblity of being appointed to various posts in the Athenian Bureacracy.  Thus, in that society the vote was tied to very specific obligations.

 

And only like two dozen people had the vote, much easier to implement with small numbers and everyone knows evetybody.

I'd expand medicare this way. Every year lower the age threshold by six months and raise the Medicare tax by five basis points. In twenty years you have medicare at 55 and the tax has increased, in total 1% from todays tax rate.

That takes the sickest most expensive people gradually off the ones company insurance rolls and lowers everyone's premiums, but relative to the average Medicare recipient, the same younger 55-65 are much healthier, less expensive enrollees and won't cost medicare ad much per patient, pulling down the he average cost.

If it then continues to be implemented we will quickly reach a popular threshold at sub 55 to go medicare for all because of kids and spouses and whatnot, as 55 and under have a lot more worries about such things than 65 plus retirees with no dependents. First we'd get a medicare buy in then eventually medicare for all.

concierage medical care and insurance would still be available for the wealthy and the rest of us would be a little less fucked.

[Bonesy]

Matt Bevin caved on Medicaid expansion. Happy New Year, Kentucky.

[TrackerNeil]

Matt Bevin caved on Medicaid expansion. Happy New Year, Kentucky.

Good news, but do you have a link? I can't find anything except his assurances that the Medicaid program will be "changed." That in itself might be the same thing, but I'm curious.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lokisnow,

According to this wikipedia article there were about 1,100 voters who were qualified to be appointed to offices by lot but that the most senior positions in Athens were elected.  I don't know if they were elected by the "Assembly" which was the huge direct democracy arm of Athens or some other smaller deliberative body:

 

Approximately 1100 citizens (including the members of the council of 500) held office each year. They were mostly chosen by lot, with a much smaller (and more prestigious) group of about 100 elected. Neither was compulsory; individuals had to nominate themselves for both selection methods. In particular, those chosen by lot were citizens acting without particular expertise. This was almost inevitable since, with the notable exception of the generals (strategoi), each office could be held by the same person only once. For example, "The same person could not be a member of the Boule in two consecutive years, and could only be a member twice in a lifetime."^[44]

 

Part of the ethos of democracy, however, was the building of general competence by ongoing involvement. In the 5th century version of the democracy, the ten annually elected generals were often very prominent, but for those who had power, it lay primarily in their frequent speeches and in the respect accorded them in the assembly, rather than their vested powers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying we should adopt the practice of putting people into office by lot.  But the idea of tieing citizenship and the right to vote to specific and sometime onerous duties does have some appeal to me.  Didn't Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."?  Isn't that sort of attitude important for a civics that works?

 

 

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not saying we should adopt the practice of putting people into office by lot.  But the idea of tieing citizenship and the right to vote to specific and sometime onerous duties does have some appeal to me.  Didn't Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."?  Isn't that sort of attitude important for a civics that works?

Well, how onerous do you mean? And does this onerous duty serve some valid civic purpose, other than proving one is ready to participate in a democracy?

[Commodore]

I'm not saying we should adopt the practice of putting people into office by lot.  But the idea of tieing citizenship and the right to vote to specific and sometime onerous duties does have some appeal to me.  Didn't Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."?  Isn't that sort of attitude important for a civics that works?

 

 

the state exists to serve us, not the reverse

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Onerus in the sense that it demands our time and attention and may not give us direct immediate benefit.

Commdore,

It's interesting that Kennedy used "Country" and not "the State" in that speech.  It could be that he was avoiding confusion as "States" in the US are Governments seperate and appart from the national Federal Government.  However, it could mean more.  I seriously doubt he ment we owe our efforts to "the State" as an abstract concept.  I think he was talking more about a hybrid concept of the cultural entity that is the US.  We, recently, in one of my threads talked about the distiction that can be drawn between the Nation and  the State (I do not believe they are synonomus).  Perhaps what Kennedy ment was that we owe it to ourselves to contribute to our communities and while the benefit may not be direct or immediate it is, over time, tangible.

[Martell Spy]

Good news, but do you have a link? I can't find anything except his assurances that the Medicaid program will be "changed." That in itself might be the same thing, but I'm curious.

 

Kentucky's New GOP Governor Kicks Off Obamacare Shake-Up
But Gov. Matt Bevin gave few details on how he plans to reshape the state's expanded Medicaid program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-governor-obamacare_5683e42be4b0b958f65ad4cc

 

 

 

[TrackerNeil]

 

Kentucky's New GOP Governor Kicks Off Obamacare Shake-Up
But Gov. Matt Bevin gave few details on how he plans to reshape the state's expanded Medicaid program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-governor-obamacare_5683e42be4b0b958f65ad4cc

So Bevins is walking back his promise to end the expansion. Unsurprising, really; not even Republicans are eager to take benefits away from people already getting them. From a public policy standpoint this is foolish--the system works and is popular--but then Republicans don't really care about policy anymore.

[Maltaran]

Somali Islamist group uses Trump in propaganda film

[Mexal]

Somali Islamist group uses Trump in propaganda film

Yes, but according to Trump's lawyer and his retweets, Clinton asked Al-Shaba to put Trump in the video.

[Wise Fool]

About 150 armed militia - well, let's call them what they are, fucking idiot rednecks with guns and hero fantasies - have broken into a "federal building" (a Wildlife Refuge headquarters) and apparently hope to provoke a standoff and/or die as martyrys against the tyranny of the federal government.

Apparently a couple of these pathetic treasonous brainless lowlife scumbags sprung from Cliven "Let Me Tell You About the Negro" Bundy.

I would guess 100% are Trump supporters.

Frankly, I think the federal government should surround the place, shoot them all dead, and bomb it just to make sure. This is basically an attempt at armed insurrection against the US. If 150 Muslims did something like this, what would the chances be, you think, of a peaceful resolution? What would the reaction from Republicans right wingers be -- would they be calling these guys heroes for freedom and liberty standing up to the evil federal government? Nope. They'd be called criminals and terrorists. But they're white and Christian, so they won't be. They'll probably all get off with a slap on the wrist too, because we wouldn't want to offender the highly sensitive White Christian Terrorist demographic.

Fuck these guys and fuck anyone who even slightly agrees with them. They want to start a Civil War. I'm down. Kill the assholes and let's be done with this already. I am SO sick of this fucking yee-haw redneck good old boy shit.

[TrackerNeil]

About 150 armed militia - well, let's call them what they are, fucking idiot rednecks with guns and hero fantasies - have broken into a "federal building" (a Wildlife Refuge headquarters) and apparently hope to provoke a standoff and/or die as martyrys against the tyranny of the federal government.

My goodness...if a bunch of black folks did something like this, the National Guard would already be on the way, with air support.

[Wise Fool]

My goodness...if a bunch of black folks did something like this, the National Guard would already be on the way, with air support.

And the right wing would be talking about "thugs" they are. "Troublemakers," as Trump said when he had his goons beat that BLM protester up. But they're white. So they're "patriots." You watch, you listen. The GOP, from Trump on down, is gonna gushing with masturbatory excitement about how awesome sedition is, when it's performed by angry white guys.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

http://www.infowars.com/armed-black-militants-prep-for-war/

heh.

[all swedes are racist]

wut?

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

You don't remember the national guard and the Air Force wiping out the Black Panthers back in March?

Yeah, me neither.