OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

I'm very appalled by that and embarrassed by that. Is the new setup going to help you out or not?

I got out of that problem when I was able to find an actual job and get health coverage through an employer (which btw, is the state government).

 

I very nearly had to quit grad school and find an actual job just to try to find some business that provided health coverage.

 

However, had this program existed as is currently operating well in the state of California...yes, this would have been a near life-saver for me.

[DukeNukeEm]

I very nearly had to quit grad school and find an actual job

 

[Balta1701]

And you know what Duke? When people have to leave grad school and find low-paying jobs, or when people can't get an education because they can't get health care, or when people are locked into jobs they don't want becuase they have to keep health care coverage...these things are all bad for everyone. These things hurt the economy, deeply. People can't get the education they need. People can't get the kind of jobs they'd be capable of. People don't start small businesses.

[Jake]

And you know what Duke? When people have to leave grad school and find low-paying jobs, or when people can't get an education because they can't get health care, or when people are locked into jobs they don't want becuase they have to keep health care coverage...these things are all bad for everyone. These things hurt the economy, deeply. People can't get the education they need. People can't get the kind of jobs they'd be capable of. People don't start small businesses.

 

Duke has been one of the more open-minded about this issue, as he acknowledged that healthcare almost violates free market principles. You can't be a rational chooser when it's your life on the line. What's the price for that?

 

Let's ask Friedrich Hayek, the most influential economic libertarian of all time:

 

The preservation of competition is not incompatible with an extensive system of social services — so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields.

 

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

[greg775]

Been reading some national columnists really coming down hard on Obama. One guy wrote that he said to an aide, "I've got one more campaign in me," meaning he'd go out and talk to Americans about Obamacare. the columnist ripped him a new one saying Obama's rhetoric and talking is so old and ineffective and insulting. The columnist said all Obama can basically do is give speeches. He said he flat out lied in his campaign about Obamacare and just thinks he can go out and smooth things over by talking (which is probably true in our country of absent minded voters who only vote on good looks and speeches).

 

Been reading about how ineffective he is, yet on here he still has his defenders. You guys disagree with me, but I still say he'll go down as the worst president in the last 50 years. My theory about voting for pretty people and good speech givers will be put to the test by Hillary. She does not give a good speech and she's not Obama-like to the eye. We shall see.

Edited November 10, 2013 by greg775

[pettie4sox]

You guys disagree with me, but I still say he'll go down as the worst president in the last 50 years.

 

That's laughable. The president's recent predecessor did some shady things that's still affecting the economy today but you're entitled to your own opinion. I think Obama at least tried to help Americans. I just think he didn't really count the costs of doing so. Trying to give Americans access to the healthcare is a noble gesture, it just seemed rushed and not clear cut and now things are started to look dismal. You could argue Obama was probably a bit over his head a bit but all in all I really think he had good ideas on paper but just could not execute them. He still has a couple years left to salvage whatever he can but to say he's the worst president is just disingenuous.

 

Since Obama raised the age to 26, I was able to get some important healthcare services done while I was still in school and not having to rely on my s***ty university one. So I'm grateful.

Edited November 10, 2013 by pettie4sox

[Jake]

It seems to me that a lot of journalists who are tired of hearing about their supposed bias are taking this chance to show that they criticize everyone.

[greg775]

It seems to me that a lot of journalists who are tired of hearing about their supposed bias are taking this chance to show that they criticize everyone.

 

That's a very good point.

But like I've said before, there's no harm for some of the liberal columnists to blast their Democratic president right now. He's safely in office. Now when we get close to the next election, that's when the angles will come out that the Republican party is outdated, has no chance of winning; it's Hillary-time, etc. This is the time of the presidency all columnists can blast Obama a bit, cause like you said, they can camoflage their bias for a little while. If anybody calls them on it, they can point out these columns and say, "What are you talking about; I have been hard on Obama." We see through the ruse.

Edited November 10, 2013 by greg775

[Balta1701]

That's a very good point.

But like I've said before, there's no harm for some of the liberal columnists to blast their Democratic president right now. He's safely in office. Now when we get close to the next election, that's when the angles will come out that the Republican party is outdated, has no chance of winning; it's Hillary-time, etc. This is the time of the presidency all columnists can blast Obama a bit, cause like you said, they can camoflage their bias for a little while. If anybody calls them on it, they can point out these columns and say, "What are you talking about; I have been hard on Obama." We see through the ruse.

Of course.

 

When the press criticizes a republican, they do so because they're democrats.

 

When the press criticizes a Democrat, it's a ruse to hide their real feelings.

 

And of course, there's no logical disconnect or complete irrational paranoia in there.

[Jenksismyhero]

Duke has been one of the more open-minded about this issue, as he acknowledged that healthcare almost violates free market principles. You can't be a rational chooser when it's your life on the line. What's the price for that?

 

Let's ask Friedrich Hayek, the most influential economic libertarian of all time:

 

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

 

Isn't that the system we have right now? Where does he say "free health care for all?"

 

[StrangeSox]

No, that security is not guaranteed to all.

[Jake]

Does it provide for all but the "few" that can make adequate provision?

 

The idea here is that markets work when the actors within it can act rationally. Nobody acts rationally in practice, and this is especially true in regard to health. People are bad at preserving their health, because we are biologically programmed to put short term gains (hamburger) over long-term ills (type 2 diabetes) - being fat simply wasn't an evolutionary problem.

 

On the other hand, behavioral economics (and experience) tells us that we are generally over-optimistic. About everything. 90% of drivers say they are better than the average driver. You do the math on that one. Imagine if car insurance was optional. Even better, get in a car crash and see if both of you have adequate insurance to deal with it. The same holds true with our personal health. People don't believe they will get sick and thus don't feel the need to buy insurance/adequate insurance. This is why we don't understand/like insurance in general; I don't need all that coverage! I'm healthy! People that smoke, of all things, believe they personally are less likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers.

 

People are imperfect. If we want to make this capitalism thing work, we have to give people a chance to make rational choices. Providing social insurance to make sure people have the resources to choose means a strong welfare system as well as not having the looming prospect of bankruptcy and life-changing debt over an unexpected hospital stay.

[Jenksismyhero]

Does it provide for all but the "few" that can make adequate provision?

 

The idea here is that markets work when the actors within it can act rationally. Nobody acts rationally in practice, and this is especially true in regard to health. People are bad at preserving their health, because we are biologically programmed to put short term gains (hamburger) over long-term ills (type 2 diabetes) - being fat simply wasn't an evolutionary problem.

 

On the other hand, behavioral economics (and experience) tells us that we are generally over-optimistic. About everything. 90% of drivers say they are better than the average driver. You do the math on that one. Imagine if car insurance was optional. Even better, get in a car crash and see if both of you have adequate insurance to deal with it. The same holds true with our personal health. People don't believe they will get sick and thus don't feel the need to buy insurance/adequate insurance. This is why we don't understand/like insurance in general; I don't need all that coverage! I'm healthy! People that smoke, of all things, believe they personally are less likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers.

 

People are imperfect. If we want to make this capitalism thing work, we have to give people a chance to make rational choices. Providing social insurance to make sure people have the resources to choose means a strong welfare system as well as not having the looming prospect of bankruptcy and life-changing debt over an unexpected hospital stay.

 

Car insurance isn't to protect you against yourself, it's to protect other people. Health insurance doesn't have that concern. Your health issues are your own. You choose your treatment plans. You choose how much medical attention you want to obtain. You should also be able to choose the type of coverage that you get.

 

And I agree with the second bolded sentence. What doesn't fit with that is telling a young male of sound mind who doesn't use drugs or alcohol that he HAS to get coverage for pregnancy, mental health and substance abuse. He has no choice. He has no option. It's a federal mandate.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

What doesn't fit with that is telling a young male of sound mind who doesn't use drugs or alcohol that he HAS to get coverage for pregnancy, mental health and substance abuse. He has no choice. He has no option. It's a federal mandate.

Because no fine, upstanding young men ever suddenly have mental issues or try drugs/alcohol, and everyone who comes down with depression or starts abusing drugs comes up with a 5 year plan saying "you know what I'm going to do, I'm going to get hooked on crack and become the mayor of Toronto".

 

It's like how everyone who develops cancer comes up with that 5 year plan saying "i'm going to develop cancer and so I should really get insured for it".

[Jake]

Health insurance is to protect against yourself, sure, but in many cases it isn't like you have much say about the illnesses or injuries you get. Much like driving a car, you can be a great, defensive driver...but sometimes you get slammed. You can maintain your car, but sometimes its parts fail.

 

You need to disavow yourself that mental illnesses only can affect certain people. There are environmental factors and genetic factors, certainly. It remains hard to predict and the attitude that "I am of sound mind and shouldn't have to have mental health screenings on my plan" is the very reason that men in particular are highly underdiagnosed across the spectrum of mental health conditions. Also, my understanding is that the only thing in the mandatory coverage is screening for clinical depression, which I'm guessing entails a talk with your primary care physician.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because no fine, upstanding young men ever suddenly have mental issues or try drugs/alcohol, and everyone who comes down with depression or starts abusing drugs comes up with a 5 year plan saying "you know what I'm going to do, I'm going to get hooked on crack and become the mayor of Toronto".

 

It's like how everyone who develops cancer comes up with that 5 year plan saying "i'm going to develop cancer and so I should really get insured for it".

 

The vast majority will not suffer from either. And unless it's a 100% certainty, it shouldn't be a mandate, it should still be up to people to decide.

 

Please though, explain the pregnancy care requirement.

[Jenksismyhero]

Health insurance is to protect against yourself, sure, but in many cases it isn't like you have much say about the illnesses or injuries you get. Much like driving a car, you can be a great, defensive driver...but sometimes you get slammed. You can maintain your car, but sometimes its parts fail.

 

You need to disavow yourself that mental illnesses only can affect certain people. There are environmental factors and genetic factors, certainly. It remains hard to predict and the attitude that "I am of sound mind and shouldn't have to have mental health screenings on my plan" is the very reason that men in particular are highly underdiagnosed across the spectrum of mental health conditions. Also, my understanding is that the only thing in the mandatory coverage is screening for clinical depression, which I'm guessing entails a talk with your primary care physician.

 

If you get in a wreck that isn't your fault, your insurance doesn't pick up the tab. Nor would the insurance pay for the maintenance on your vehicle. Car insurance is not similar in anyway to health insurance.

 

I'm not saying you can't get mental health issues, but it's not like it suddenly happens either. It's not the same as a sudden ER visit as a result of a accident. But more importantly, the vast majority of people will never have those issues. 25% I believe is the statistic I read in the last couple of weeks. So why are we making that a requirement instead of an option?

Edited November 12, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

If you get in a wreck that isn't your fault, your insurance doesn't pick up the tab. Nor would the insurance pay for the maintenance on your vehicle. Car insurance is not similar in anyway to health insurance.

 

I'm not saying you can't get mental health issues, but it's not like it suddenly happens either. It's not the same as a sudden ER visit as a result of a accident. But more importantly, the vast majority of people will never have those issues. 25% I believe is the statistic I read in the last couple of weeks. So why are we making that a requirement instead of an option?

 

How many people get cancer? Should you not get covered for that? I don't understand the argument that unless you will definitely get something, it shouldn't be part of the risk pool.

 

Again, it was bad for society when people were getting completely hammered for pre-existing conditions. Likewise, it was bad for society when women had to pay 50% more than men of equal health and age. They did nothing wrong except for be women and be more likely to see a doctor when they are sick. You're paying for pregnancy services so that babies can be healthy, mothers can be healthy, and so women all over the USA are not getting f***ed by the insurance system.

[Jenksismyhero]

How many people get cancer? Should you not get covered for that? I don't understand the argument that unless you will definitely get something, it shouldn't be part of the risk pool.

 

Again, it was bad for society when people were getting completely hammered for pre-existing conditions. Likewise, it was bad for society when women had to pay 50% more than men of equal health and age. They did nothing wrong except for be women and be more likely to see a doctor when they are sick. You're paying for pregnancy services so that babies can be healthy, mothers can be healthy, and so women all over the USA are not getting f***ed by the insurance system.

 

You should have the option of buying insurance that may or may not cover those issues. Look, here's my issue: a 27 year old should not have to buy a policy that covers those things. He should be able to buy a catastrophic policy that protects himself against a sudden accident in the ER so he's not financially ruined. He shouldn't have to pay higher premiums for care he will never, ever use at his age.

 

I fail to see why we should be making these types of coverages mandatory in every policy that is offered. Make it so you can't DENY people that coverage. Regulate it so that insurance companies can't make it unaffordable for everyone and thus not really an option. I have no qualms with that. Do NOT restrict someone's right to buy coverage the think best fits their situation in life, both financially and medically.

 

[Balta1701]

I fail to see why we should be making these types of coverages mandatory in every policy that is offered. Make it so you can't DENY people that coverage. Regulate it so that insurance companies can't make it unaffordable for everyone and thus not really an option. I have no qualms with that. Do NOT restrict someone's right to buy coverage the think best fits their situation in life, both financially and medically.

And that setup is a path to destroying the insurance industry. You can't allow people to not be covered for things and then purchase insurance when they actually have that problem. That's not insurance, that's requiring a private company to pay for treatment, which no private company will do because that's stupid.

[Iwritecode]

Car insurance isn't to protect you against yourself, it's to protect other people.

 

Not if you have full coverage. Because there are about a million other things that you can run into that will wreck your car besides another driver. A tree, a guardrail, a deer, a telephone pole, a ditch... You are basically paying for the insurance company to replace/repair your car if you hit one of those things. Not to mention medical coverage for your injuries.

 

If you get in a wreck that isn't your fault, your insurance doesn't pick up the tab.

 

Actually, they might. I had a guy pull out of a parking lot and hit me while I was sitting in the turn-lane to go into the lot. It was totally his fault and he got the ticket, but he made up some BS story and his insurance company refused to pay for my damages.

 

I had to actually pay my deducible and have my insurance company pay for the repairs and then they went after the other driver's insurance to get the money back. If I had to do that on my own, I would've been completely screwed.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Not if you have full coverage. Because there are about a million other things that you can run into that will wreck your car besides another driver. A tree, a guardrail, a deer, a telephone pole, a ditch... You are basically paying for the insurance company to replace/repair your car if you hit one of those things. Not to mention medical coverage for your injuries.

 

 

 

Actually, they might. I had a guy pull out of a parking lot and hit me while I was sitting in the turn-lane to go into the lot. It was totally his fault and he got the ticket, but he made up some BS story and his insurance company refused to pay for my damages.

 

I had to actually pay my deducible and have my insurance company pay for the repairs and then they went after the other driver's insurance to get the money back. If I had to do that on my own, I would've been completely screwed.

 

You buying full coverage is an option though. You're not legally required to have it.

[Jenksismyhero]

And that setup is a path to destroying the insurance industry. You can't allow people to not be covered for things and then purchase insurance when they actually have that problem. That's not insurance, that's requiring a private company to pay for treatment, which no private company will do because that's stupid.

 

Most insurance policies cover 90% (made up statistic) or the majority of problems you will ever encounter in life. Most employer-based policies also allow you to add certain coverages at a higher price on an annual basis. Having a kid for example. You shouldn't have to buy a policy to cover that cost every single year. However, if you and your wife decide you're going to have a kid, you can buy up the year before. That's what my wife and I did, and we saved a decent chunk of change by doing so.

[Iwritecode]

You buying full coverage is an option though. You're not legally required to have it.

 

I'm required to have it because I have a loan. Although I'm not sure if that's a law or if it's the bank that requires it.

[Iwritecode]

Most insurance policies cover 90% (made up statistic) or the majority of problems you will ever encounter in life. Most employer-based policies also allow you to add certain coverages at a higher price on an annual basis. Having a kid for example. You shouldn't have to buy a policy to cover that cost every single year. However, if you and your wife decide you're going to have a kid, you can buy up the year before. That's what my wife and I did, and we saved a decent chunk of change by doing so.

 

Insurance is based on family size. Of course covering 2 people is going to cost less than covering 3.

 

Unless you are talking about pre-natal care. But even then there are people that don't plan pregnancies or don't realize they are pregnant for months.