d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2020 > Trump Vs. Pack O' Dems
Prev1966967968969970983Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Sep 9 2021 11:59pm
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/donald-trump-13-military-members-killed-afghanistan/index.html


Yet more evidence Donald Trump is running a shadow presidency
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 6:29 PM ET, Thu September 9, 2021

although it’s been nearly 9 months since President Trump finished his term, the mainstream media is still obsessed with their own 5+ year old conspiracy theory about his supposed ability to control the executive branch and the entire universe from his private residence :lol:
Member
Posts: 92,913
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Sep 10 2021 07:00am
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 9 2021 03:36pm)
If you don't want to have insurance, you don't need to, right? Last time I had insurance, I was paying $900/month. That was NOT for the top tier plan. Do the math based on a year: 900*12=$10,800. Now, tell me, what would a healthy 20 year old come down with that would cost $10,800? I can actually provide an answer. Not playing "gotcha" here. The average healthy 20-40 year old would be most likely to end up with an appendectomy, assuming they still have an appendix. So, that surgery, if you pay 100% out of pocket, all costs included, ranges from $10,000-$35,000. Now, tell me, why would someone spend $10,800/year for 20 years ($216,000), for a surgery with an out the door cost of $10K-$35K?

The problem with your assertion regarding risk pools is that the prices went UP for insurance with the mandates, not down, and a whole ton of elective shit was thrown in. Like, why does every plan have to cover transitioning, or live birth, or pre and post natal care? Why does every plan have to cover anything not tailored to the individual? Now, a big thing to note regarding my prior insurance plan: It was a group plan via the employer. The "marketplace" aka non-group plan for the same exact thing would have been $1500/month. Why? Now, I can look up properties all across the country for under $216,000. Why am I spending a house on somebody else's health, and what, if anything, is my eventual return. Let's take that 20 year old, and make them 65. They're now retirement aged, and have dropped (assuming no price differences ofc, which is also naïve), 45*$10,800=$486,000 into the financial services industry (insurance). What have they received in return? Literally, have they received a half a million worth of care or product? I'm guessing not, as according to the National Institutes of Health, the average LIFETIME healthcare cost per capita is $268,700 for men and $361,200 for women. And let's not forget, just because you've retired doesn't mean you don't still have to pay for insurance.

So, where's the return on investment, exactly? You're telling me that it'll cost less. What I'm telling you is that the medical supply and pharmaceutical companies will have a captive market that disallows most forms of foreign competition and will promptly raise prices, and healthcare workers will unionize for immediate higher prices. Meanwhile, financially savvy people who avoid insurance at all cost, and at most use an HSA, otherwise have, you know, like a savings account? Will find that they're being taxed as much or likely more than what they had been saving.

End result? Young people spend their working life to pay for the healthcare costs of old people, literally giving up the opportunity to buy a HOUSE so that some boomer they don't know or care about can sit around and watch CNN while talking about "Damned kids these days". How about the boomers pay for themselves. They certainly forced the Greatest Generation to cover their own costs, waiting until the majority of them died before introducing the ACA to steal from their own children and provide for themselves. :)


thats not a problem thats proof, when a massive number of risky people were forced by law to be accepted on insurance the risk rose, substantially. many premiums were outrageously expensive for individuals, but a lot of the cost was differed elsewhere through the provider.

i see a lot of text but not any sources showing your side, just assertions. i can link how risk pools work or even worked under the ACA if you'd like to read them. if u have something that makes the argument in M4A costs go up, post it, i'd like to read it.

also, young people invest in healthcare they will then be a burden on at an old age. but we're talking less or more costs under medicare for all, not a trend of cost-benefit analysis for single young people that's present in both systems. i think you're doing that thing u so often do, where u cling to single lines of responses to formulate a tersely disagreeing response to what amounts to a throwaway line to avoid the larger (and harder for you to back up) disagreement. this kind of disassociation is something u should avoid imo. stay focused.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 07:03am
Member
Posts: 33,921
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Sep 10 2021 07:30am
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2021 03:29pm)
analysis ive seen shows that most people who have healthcare now arent looking at a tax thats much if any more than their current plan. the main group affected are the uninsured and young people. and on the same line in a single payer i dont even understand how costs couldnt go down given our gap in what we pay for the exact same services or prescriptions as other first world nations that have socialized healthcare. in short i dont see how we could pay more, it seems unlikely costs would remain the same, and i can see a clear path for it to cost less.

the greatest concern has always been and remains that m4a essentially triples the federal budget overnight, potentially forever throwing the federal/state balance of power into a perilous place.


the big issue is the shift away from excluding pre-existing conditions.

there has to be some sort of middle ground. you shouldn't get full coverage unless you pay into the system for at least 12 months, at coverage that ramps up from ~40% to ~95%. If you lapse your coverage for between 2 to 11 months, you should have to follow a 6 month catch up schedule.

Right now you see a lot of freeloaders who only sign up for insurance when it becomes an emergency. Forcing these freeloaders to be in the system the whole time will make the costs go down for everybody.

Trump also signed "favored nations" protections to force pharmaceutical companies to charge the same price as they do overseas. Biden reversed this because he is a corporate stooge.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Sep 10 2021 07:34am
Member
Posts: 92,913
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Sep 10 2021 07:33am
Quote (EndlessSky @ Sep 10 2021 08:30am)
the big issue is the shift away from excluding pre-existing conditions.

there has to be some sort of middle ground. you shouldn't get full coverage unless you pay into the system for at least 12 months, at coverage that ramps up from ~40% to ~95%. If you lapse your coverage for between 2 to 11 months, you should have to follow a 6 month catch up schedule.

Right now you see a lot of freeloaders who only sign up for insurance when it becomes an emergency. Forcing these freeloaders to be in the system the whole time will make the costs go down for everybody.


i agree somewhat, and m4a forces everyone into the system.

like i said im more scared of the fed holding that much power than i am the costs or coverage being worse.
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Sep 10 2021 07:39am
Quote (EndlessSky @ 10 Sep 2021 13:30)
the big issue is the shift away from excluding pre-existing conditions.

there has to be some sort of middle ground. you shouldn't get full coverage unless you pay into the system for at least 12 months, at coverage that ramps up from ~40% to ~95%. If you lapse your coverage for between 2 to 11 months, you should have to follow a 6 month catch up schedule.

Right now you see a lot of freeloaders who only sign up for insurance when it becomes an emergency. Forcing these freeloaders to be in the system the whole time will make the costs go down for everybody.

Trump also signed "favored nations" protections to force pharmaceutical companies to charge the same price as they do overseas. Biden reversed this because he is a corporate stooge.


They are doing it right, the system is already unfair so only registering when things are getting serious is fine. They are free, this is a clean strategy.
People with real pre-existing condition ? Bad luck. I see no reason to pay for the unlucky. Do you see ANY good reason to pay for the unlucky ?

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Sep 10 2021 07:39am
Member
Posts: 54,061
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Sep 10 2021 07:59am
Quote (thesnipa @ 9 Sep 2021 21:29)
analysis ive seen shows that most people who have healthcare now arent looking at a tax thats much if any more than their current plan. the main group affected are the uninsured and young people. and on the same line in a single payer i dont even understand how costs couldnt go down given our gap in what we pay for the exact same services or prescriptions as other first world nations that have socialized healthcare. in short i dont see how we could pay more, it seems unlikely costs would remain the same, and i can see a clear path for it to cost less.

the greatest concern has always been and remains that m4a essentially triples the federal budget overnight, potentially forever throwing the federal/state balance of power into a perilous place.


The thing is that you don't necessarily need "socialized healthcare" or Medicare for All/single payer, coupled with a ballooning federal budget, to get universal healthcare with a better cost-benefit ratio. Plenty of European countries have a healthcare system in which private insurers keep competing with each other and overseeing their own budgets, yet strong regulations mean that everyone has decent coverage. The competition coupled with the regulation also keeps costs low.

So no, following the plans of Bernie, emulating the British NHS or throwing off the balance between federal government and states is not even necessary to get a much better healthcare system.
Member
Posts: 33,921
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Sep 10 2021 08:04am
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 10 2021 09:33am)
i agree somewhat, and m4a forces everyone into the system.

like i said im more scared of the fed holding that much power than i am the costs or coverage being worse.


The increased federalization has been going on for a real long time. Employer mandated insurance started in the 50's. Medicaid in the 60's. Obamacare in the 00's. Each step jacked up prices by creating an artificial demand.

If m4a passes, it'll probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Prices will skyrocket and supply will dwindle for all but the rich.

At that point, intelligent yuppies would start moving to Singapore, Switzerland, etc.
Member
Posts: 92,913
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Sep 10 2021 08:16am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 10 2021 08:59am)
The thing is that you don't necessarily need "socialized healthcare" or Medicare for All/single payer, coupled with a ballooning federal budget, to get universal healthcare with a better cost-benefit ratio. Plenty of European countries have a healthcare system in which private insurers keep competing with each other and overseeing their own budgets, yet strong regulations mean that everyone has decent coverage. The competition coupled with the regulation also keeps costs low.

So no, following the plans of Bernie, emulating the British NHS or throwing off the balance between federal government and states is not even necessary to get a much better healthcare system.


massive regulation means massive insurance lobby underwriting. thats how we got the fucked up mess that was the ACA.

i'm not saying im for m4a, but the "just do what X country did" shit doesnt work in america where we have massive corporate lobbies to corrupt regulations for their profit and against public health, which is already an order of magnitude less healthy than X country.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Sep 10 2021 09:04am)
The increased federalization has been going on for a real long time. Employer mandated insurance started in the 50's. Medicaid in the 60's. Obamacare in the 00's. Each step jacked up prices by creating an artificial demand.

If m4a passes, it'll probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Prices will skyrocket and supply will dwindle for all but the rich.

At that point, intelligent yuppies would start moving to Singapore, Switzerland, etc.


that "artificial demand" gap of the uninsured is about 8.5% atm, some of which im sure want insurance but cant afford it.

im more worried about the burden america faces if we all of a sudden greenlight healthcare for a populace thats put off doctors visits and procedures for decades. right not we're holding back a flood of healthcare needs with a dam of cost burdens.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 08:19am
Member
Posts: 42,679
Joined: Jul 8 2008
Gold: 8,000.00
Sep 11 2021 05:11pm


Trump enters the building at #TrillerFightClub
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Sep 11 2021 05:26pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 10 2021 09:16am)
im more worried about the burden america faces if we all of a sudden greenlight healthcare for a populace thats put off doctors visits and procedures for decades. right not we're holding back a flood of healthcare needs with a dam of cost burdens.


Over the long term it will drastically reduce demand since preventative treatments will be attainable.

Honestly though, we're pretty much experiencing that now. Lots of doctors are still backed up for months. I've been with my PCP that is right next to my work as part of the hospital I work at and it still takes 3 months to get an appointment.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1966967968969970983Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll