(06-16-2019 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----
a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.
What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.
To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.
Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.
I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.
I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.
To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

My guess is that Lad has an employer-provided plan (for which he may pay a highly-subsidized premium) and thus has not had to deal with the self-insured market. Employer plans are still out there, so he hasn't been affected.

Like you, but for a different reason, I have looked at a the self-insured market. Used to be, retirement did not bother me from a health insurance standpoint because as retired military I had CHAMPUS, now Tricare. But to make Obamacare work from a cost standpoint, one thing they did was to screw up Tricare. As a result, I no longer see retirement as a viable option for me. Not ever. Yes, I have Medicare, and I can supplement it.

What irritates the crap out of me is that republicans cannot come up with some form of Bismarck. I think it is clearly the best approach, and that it would sell politically for that reason.

I think Obamacare was a very perverse and cruel hoax foisted upon the Anerican people, and republicans are too dumb to come up with a viable alternative. Stupid party versus evil party personified.

Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.

What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

(06-16-2019 08:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----
a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.
What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.
To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.
Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.
I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.
I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.
To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

My guess is that Lad has an employer-provided plan (for which he may pay a highly-subsidized premium) and thus has not had to deal with the self-insured market. Employer plans are still out there, so he hasn't been affected.
Like you, but for a different reason, I have looked at a the self-insured market. Used to be, retirement did not bother me from a health insurance standpoint because as retired military I had CHAMPUS, now Tricare. But to make Obamacare work from a cost standpoint, one thing they did was to screw up Tricare. As a result, I no longer see retirement as a viable option for me. Not ever. Yes, I have Medicare, and I can supplement it.
What irritates the crap out of me is that republicans cannot come up with some form of Bismarck. I think it is clearly the best approach, and that it would sell politically for that reason.
I think Obamacare was a very perverse and cruel hoax foisted upon the Anerican people, and republicans are too dumb to come up with a viable alternative. Stupid party versus evil party personified.

Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.
What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.

I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."

The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

(06-16-2019 09:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----
a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.
What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.
To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.
Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.
I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.
I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.
To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

My guess is that Lad has an employer-provided plan (for which he may pay a highly-subsidized premium) and thus has not had to deal with the self-insured market. Employer plans are still out there, so he hasn't been affected.
Like you, but for a different reason, I have looked at a the self-insured market. Used to be, retirement did not bother me from a health insurance standpoint because as retired military I had CHAMPUS, now Tricare. But to make Obamacare work from a cost standpoint, one thing they did was to screw up Tricare. As a result, I no longer see retirement as a viable option for me. Not ever. Yes, I have Medicare, and I can supplement it.
What irritates the crap out of me is that republicans cannot come up with some form of Bismarck. I think it is clearly the best approach, and that it would sell politically for that reason.
I think Obamacare was a very perverse and cruel hoax foisted upon the Anerican people, and republicans are too dumb to come up with a viable alternative. Stupid party versus evil party personified.

Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.
What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.

I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."

The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

So if you go Medicare primary and Tricare secondary what do you anticipate will materially change for you as compared to your previous insurance? Specifically I'm wondering about ability to see your current doctors and your out-of-pocket expenses.

(06-16-2019 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----
a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.
What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.
To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.
Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.
I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.
I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.
To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

My guess is that Lad has an employer-provided plan (for which he may pay a highly-subsidized premium) and thus has not had to deal with the self-insured market. Employer plans are still out there, so he hasn't been affected.
Like you, but for a different reason, I have looked at a the self-insured market. Used to be, retirement did not bother me from a health insurance standpoint because as retired military I had CHAMPUS, now Tricare. But to make Obamacare work from a cost standpoint, one thing they did was to screw up Tricare. As a result, I no longer see retirement as a viable option for me. Not ever. Yes, I have Medicare, and I can supplement it.
What irritates the crap out of me is that republicans cannot come up with some form of Bismarck. I think it is clearly the best approach, and that it would sell politically for that reason.
I think Obamacare was a very perverse and cruel hoax foisted upon the Anerican people, and republicans are too dumb to come up with a viable alternative. Stupid party versus evil party personified.

Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.
What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.
I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."
The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

So if you go Medicare primary and Tricare secondary what do you anticipate will materially change for you as compared to your previous insurance? Specifically I'm wondering about ability to see your current doctors and your out-of-pocket expenses.

Before Obamacare, that would have worked and that was my plan. With the changes that Obamacare made to Tricare, I can't really see my current doctors without a major hassle, and my out-of-pockets would go up significantly. I can go to a Medicare mill pretty easily, or to the VA, but those are not attractive options to me. At best, to see quality docs, I would have to pay up front and wait months for reimbursement.

(06-16-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My guess is that Lad has an employer-provided plan (for which he may pay a highly-subsidized premium) and thus has not had to deal with the self-insured market. Employer plans are still out there, so he hasn't been affected.
Like you, but for a different reason, I have looked at a the self-insured market. Used to be, retirement did not bother me from a health insurance standpoint because as retired military I had CHAMPUS, now Tricare. But to make Obamacare work from a cost standpoint, one thing they did was to screw up Tricare. As a result, I no longer see retirement as a viable option for me. Not ever. Yes, I have Medicare, and I can supplement it.
What irritates the crap out of me is that republicans cannot come up with some form of Bismarck. I think it is clearly the best approach, and that it would sell politically for that reason.
I think Obamacare was a very perverse and cruel hoax foisted upon the Anerican people, and republicans are too dumb to come up with a viable alternative. Stupid party versus evil party personified.

Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.
What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.
I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."
The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

So if you go Medicare primary and Tricare secondary what do you anticipate will materially change for you as compared to your previous insurance? Specifically I'm wondering about ability to see your current doctors and your out-of-pocket expenses.

Before Obamacare, that would have worked and that was my plan. With the changes that Obamacare made to Tricare, I can't really see my current doctors without a major hassle, and my out-of-pockets would go up significantly. I can go to a Medicare mill pretty easily, or to the VA, but those are not attractive options to me. At best, to see quality docs, I would have to pay up front and wait months for reimbursement.

I am sure it varies region by region, but at least in Houston the vast, vast majority of quality doctors take Medicare. I haven’t really heard the term “Medicare mill” before. Are you in a smaller town?

(06-16-2019 08:09 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 12:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I forget which one of the Wonder Twins I was discussing crowds with, but just out of the blue at dinner, my GF commented on how crowded it was. Said it was the most crowded she had ever seen it.

I had not mentioned our little talks to her. She is a Trump hater and listens to CNN all day, so unlikely she was trying to credit Trump.

Remember to check the stats when they come out and let me know.

It's tiring to continue to redirect you away from this straw man where you pretend that I am telling you that Las Vegas is not crowded. It's pretty clear that you are not even reading my posts at this time.

This is from a couple posts backs:

"*sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post)."

But the point is, the crowds are bigger, and an antiTrump liberal has noticed and commented on it - multiple times. Independent confirmation. Maybe it is the smalllpox scare. Maybe it is my imagination. But it sure is hard to walk with these crowds. Check the stats and and get back to me next year.

(06-16-2019 08:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple stark and unrelenting fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple stark and unrelenting fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three relatively crap options. So please stop with the farcical song and dance how 'choice' hasnt been absolutely clobbered.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in either "progressive to a fault" eyes or to "very limited experience with insurance purchasing" eyes. That much is very obvious.

I mean you went off n OO not so long ago about being 'unhinged', and now apparently my very real world fact as being 'hyperbolic'. You are doing great there, son.

To be blunt, you seem blithely ignorant about the private insurance issue. I suggest the next time you preach about the amazing plethora of choices or how commenting abut that choice being absolutely fing flattened, that you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

As for 'your eyes' I am sure that ACA is the best thing since sliced bread or multiple orgasms. Trust me, I very much am aware that you dont give a flying fk about the issue of choice in the issue. That much doesnt affect you a single fing iota over your hardon for what is in your mind the be all and end all to healthcare insurance. You have made that very obvious.

Here's what I know about choice for self-funded medical insurance:

- In my twenties, I had a low-premium, high-deductible, unlimited-maximum plan. It covered nothing that a young, healthy, middle-class person couldn't plan for or reasonably bear, and covered everything that might be catastrophic. I called it my "hit-by-a-bus insurance". It gave me the one thing I really needed from an insurer: not discounts on eyeglasses and dermatologist visits, but peace of mind in the event of a big, unforeseeable setback -- which when you think about, is exactly what insurance is supposed to be about. It is exactly the type of insurance that every healthy young adult probably should have. Presumably the insurer that offered it also found it to be a profitable product line.

- My understanding is that the ACA made this plan (which was true insurance, rather than a health care services subscription) illegal. Why, I don't know. But last time I looked on the ACA exchange, this type of plan was definitely not available.

- I further understand that one result is that many healthy young adults, rather than purchase an expensive subscription that they don't need, are now forgoing insurance altogether, opting instead to pay the tax (which is not a tax) for not being insured. So instead of paying a modest premium in order to be covered in case of catastrophe, they are paying a modest premium to not be covered at all.

It is hard to see how any of this is a good outcome.

(06-16-2019 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:09 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 12:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I forget which one of the Wonder Twins I was discussing crowds with, but just out of the blue at dinner, my GF commented on how crowded it was. Said it was the most crowded she had ever seen it.

I had not mentioned our little talks to her. She is a Trump hater and listens to CNN all day, so unlikely she was trying to credit Trump.

Remember to check the stats when they come out and let me know.

It's tiring to continue to redirect you away from this straw man where you pretend that I am telling you that Las Vegas is not crowded. It's pretty clear that you are not even reading my posts at this time.

This is from a couple posts backs:

"*sigh* I never said there isn't an uptick of visitors to Las Vegas in June, 2019. I would have no basis to take that position. Maybe there will be 5,000,000 visitors this month. Maybe it will be consistent with previous years. I am just saying that there is no evidence that I could find that suggests that Trump's booming economy has led to more people taking their extra money to Las Vegas when you compare it to 2016 (which is what you suggested in your original post)."

But the point is, the crowds are bigger, and an antiTrump liberal has noticed and commented on it - multiple times. Independent confirmation. Maybe it is the smalllpox scare. Maybe it is my imagination. But it sure is hard to walk with these crowds. Check the stats and and get back to me next year.

Two things - it’ll be helpful to see data that bears out visual observation. Sometimes things conspire to deceive our eyes and memories. Also, with a single data point, it’s really hard to argue for causation.

(06-16-2019 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple fing fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple fing fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three absolute fing crap options.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in your either progressive eyes or very limited experience with insurance eyes. That much is very obvious.

You seem blithely ignorant about that issue. I suggest the next time you argue about the fing plethora of choices, you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

(06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple fing fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple fing fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three absolute fing crap options.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in your either progressive eyes or very limited experience with insurance eyes. That much is very obvious.

You seem blithely ignorant about that issue. I suggest the next time you argue about the fing plethora of choices, you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.

You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.

Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.

One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.

But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.

Good fing grief.

The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.

I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----

a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.

What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.

To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.

Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.

I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.

I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.

To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple fing fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple fing fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three absolute fing crap options.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in your either progressive eyes or very limited experience with insurance eyes. That much is very obvious.

You seem blithely ignorant about that issue. I suggest the next time you argue about the fing plethora of choices, you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.

You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.

Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.

One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.

But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.

Good fing grief.

The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.

I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.

Let's see - I've acknowledged that choices have been reduced. I've held that your original statement that choice is extinct is incorrect. Yes, I'm the one digging in, not you...

(06-16-2019 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe you should reread my post a little more carefully, Tanq. Perhaps the part you failed to quote could help provide some light into whether or not there are any shortcomings to the ACA in my eyes? Or perhaps you can find some other indicators in the part you did quote.

Or maybe you just want to continue to have the argument you want to have, because it fits the narrative you want to have? I see no other reason as to why you would intentionally delete a portion of a short response that directly identifies a shortcoming of the ACA, which said that it did reduce choice.

Again, I simply kept stating that you were hyperbolic in suggesting it eliminated choice. It did not do that.

When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple fing fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple fing fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three absolute fing crap options.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in your either progressive eyes or very limited experience with insurance eyes. That much is very obvious.

You seem blithely ignorant about that issue. I suggest the next time you argue about the fing plethora of choices, you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.

You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.

Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.

One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.

But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.

Good fing grief.

The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.

I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.

Let's see - I've acknowledged that choices have been reduced. I've held that your original statement that choice is extinct is incorrect. Yes, I'm the one digging in, not you...

I guess you do not understand the comment that "Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three."

I would definitely call the reduction of a population from *thousands* (if not tens of thousands) an extinction event.

Literally the vast vast vast vast vast majority of choices ceased to exist.

What the **** do *you* call that event in lad-world?

But feel free to fing downplay the scope of that event in your fing cha cha cha dissembly. You are doing such a fing rich job of it, why stop now? A 'minor reduction' perhaps?

Funny thing is that the 'extinction' terminology is precisely the term my friends and colleagues in medium sized insurance industry refer to the ACA as. Perhaps I should set up an appointment for you to lecture these 30+ year industry professionals on their word usage? Come to think of it, your approximately 1 year of being alive when they started their professions should insulate you as the crack expert on how they term it, shouldnt it. Should I forward your name on to them for their re-education?

(06-16-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Medical insurance is one of the more confusing personal budget items out there.
What is it about your current insurance that is so superior to Medicare+supplement? What would you be missing out on if you went to Medicare+supplement? Not debating you here, just trying to understand. Do your current doctors not take Medicare? Would the switch result in a massive out-of-pocket expense for you somehow?

My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.
I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."
The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

So if you go Medicare primary and Tricare secondary what do you anticipate will materially change for you as compared to your previous insurance? Specifically I'm wondering about ability to see your current doctors and your out-of-pocket expenses.

Before Obamacare, that would have worked and that was my plan. With the changes that Obamacare made to Tricare, I can't really see my current doctors without a major hassle, and my out-of-pockets would go up significantly. I can go to a Medicare mill pretty easily, or to the VA, but those are not attractive options to me. At best, to see quality docs, I would have to pay up front and wait months for reimbursement.

I am sure it varies region by region, but at least in Houston the vast, vast majority of quality doctors take Medicare. I haven’t really heard the term “Medicare mill” before. Are you in a smaller town?

Medicare/Medicaid mill (probably more predominantly Medicaid mill, my apologies) refers to low-quality, low-price health care providers that focus on making money by quick turnaround of Medicare and Medicaid patients. There are many in the Houston area. Some actually used to be clients of mine. It is a business model with generally a few adherents in every metro area. There is a unique art to doing it, particularly with respect to navigating the paperwork jungle. They make their money on throughput, not quality.

(06-16-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When it eliminates literally 98%+ of the choice and condenses the literally thousands of options or insurance plans that were available into three options, I dont think it really is hyperbolic, son.

If you are insulated by an employer -- great. The simple fing fact is that self-bought insurance did in fact become 'defined by law'. And the simple fing fact is that the choice went from the literally thousands of options into three absolute fing crap options.

I am sure that massive extinction event is a non-event in your either progressive eyes or very limited experience with insurance eyes. That much is very obvious.

You seem blithely ignorant about that issue. I suggest the next time you argue about the fing plethora of choices, you actually argue in the general context and not in some obdurate insular viewpoint context.

I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.

You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.

Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.

One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.

But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.

Good fing grief.

The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.

I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.

Let's see - I've acknowledged that choices have been reduced. I've held that your original statement that choice is extinct is incorrect. Yes, I'm the one digging in, not you...

I guess you do not understand the comment that "Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three."

I would definitely call the reduction of a population from *thousands* (if not tens of thousands) an extinction event.

Literally the vast vast vast vast vast majority of choices ceased to exist.

What the **** do *you* call that event in lad-world?

But feel free to fing downplay the scope of that event in your fing cha cha cha dissembly. You are doing such a fing rich job of it, why stop now? A 'minor reduction' perhaps?

Funny thing is that the 'extinction' terminology is precisely the term my friends and colleagues in medium sized insurance industry refer to the ACA as. Perhaps I should set up an appointment for you to lecture these 30+ year industry professionals on their word usage? Come to think of it, your approximately 1 year of being alive when they started their professions should insulate you as the crack expert on how they term it, shouldnt it. Should I forward your name on to them for their re-education?

For the fifth (?) time - you said there was no choice. That is patently false. I am insured through my employer. There are still private plans. There are plans offered on the marketplace. There are also government plans.

We are not at a point where everyone is insured the same way.

You can keep arguing against points I'm not making, and I could care less how you define extinction events, whether you think me saying that choice was reduced is not the right way to describe one of the negative aspects of the ACA, and so on. This all started with your initial statement that is patently false:

Quote:...they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual..

You're the one dancing the jig away from your statement - you've not once admitted you were wrong and just keep trying to attack my statements instead.

(06-16-2019 01:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’ve never argued for a “plethora of choices.” I’ve simply argued that choice still exists - we are not in a system where there is only a single plan available for everyone and private insurance has been eliminated.

And my statement that choice has been wiped out is strangely 'hyperbolic'. Lad-world 'cha cha cha' crap again.

You absolutely fing refuse to acknowledge the extinction event known as ACA for insurance types.

Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three.

One. Two. Three.
From. *Thousands*.

But that seems okay for you to label any comment on that reduction as 'hyperbolic'. But labeling that insurance style of genocide to three is sufficient to to say one should completely ignore the disappearance of the 'literally thousands' minus that magic three.

Good fing grief.

The Brits at Verdun have *nothing* on your abilities to dig into a position and never yield.

I guess the whole number of two more is that much important when describing 1/thousands as opposed to 3/thousands. Okey-dokey.

Let's see - I've acknowledged that choices have been reduced. I've held that your original statement that choice is extinct is incorrect. Yes, I'm the one digging in, not you...

I guess you do not understand the comment that "Yes -- choice exists. From fing thousands of options to three."

I would definitely call the reduction of a population from *thousands* (if not tens of thousands) an extinction event.

Literally the vast vast vast vast vast majority of choices ceased to exist.

What the **** do *you* call that event in lad-world?

But feel free to fing downplay the scope of that event in your fing cha cha cha dissembly. You are doing such a fing rich job of it, why stop now? A 'minor reduction' perhaps?

Funny thing is that the 'extinction' terminology is precisely the term my friends and colleagues in medium sized insurance industry refer to the ACA as. Perhaps I should set up an appointment for you to lecture these 30+ year industry professionals on their word usage? Come to think of it, your approximately 1 year of being alive when they started their professions should insulate you as the crack expert on how they term it, shouldnt it. Should I forward your name on to them for their re-education?

For the fifth (?) time - you said there was no choice. That is patently false. I am insured through my employer. There are still private plans. There are plans offered on the marketplace. There are also government plans.

We are not at a point where everyone is insured the same way.

You can keep arguing against points I'm not making, and I could care less how you define extinction events, whether you think me saying that choice was reduced is not the right way to describe one of the negative aspects of the ACA, and so on. This all started with your initial statement that is patently false:

Quote:...they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual..

You're the one dancing the jig away from your statement - you've not once admitted you were wrong and just keep trying to attack my statements instead.

I have -- I have admitted one is not three. I dont see the major league difference in the distinction of 'no choice from ten thousand' as opposed to 'three choices from ten thousand', but apparently in lad-world that is a *major* fing difference. Got it. Loud and clear.

Then the offer is made that to have a choice -- get a job-based insurance plan that has added bells and whistles.

But what is seemingly overlooked, is for private insurance offerings the three levels are *mandates* on the companies on what precisely has to be sold.

Or is the issue that it wasnt a 'mandate' but "found" to be a tax? Again, this turns to the previous comments abut taxes and wielding power, son.

*That* is a major difference you Sherlock Holmes, you. All the difference.

Yep, for private insurance the selection is a three whole ******* choices from the tens of thousands available pre-ACA --- that doesnt seem to be the major fing difference you seeingly want to preen about. But extinction seems to be hyperbolic for that reduction in population. Solution -- get a W2 job.

I mean, accept the fact that your side has no issue making industries extinct, drastically limiting choices in products, and mandating what everyone *must* purchase. Embrace it. It *is* your side.

But, dont dance on fing pinhead and say that there is anywhere near the level of fing choice pre-ACA and post-ACA. Not even close to the level. Is it that fing hard for you to do?

Or still dance on that lad-world pinhead, you know, the one that somehow expertly 'knows' that 3000 people are booing at one candidate for an absolutely fing absurd reason that it 'makes a mockery of a valued Democratic position and plays into rightie talking points' -- I am still in awe of your absolutely worldly certainty on that issue.

Being able to read the minds of 3000 people for one comment, then distinguish the same reaction to a closely related comment is impressive. When are you going to drop this board some stock tips with that Edgar Cayce-esque prescience?

But this one that is trying to cha cha cha your way out of the utter and almost absolute reduction of choice effectuated by the ACA really has to go into a lad-world top 10. <clap>

As I noted before -- good fing god.

But at least you havent invoked the 'gaziklion and fifty eight people that went in bankruptcy' argument in the last day or so. Nothing like an 'its for the kids' emotional response to defend the fing Santa Claus aspects that you push for that are borne on everyone else's back -- both financially and in the aspect of freedom of choices in commerce.

Actually lad has a neat point in his defense -- he says one way to get a 'choice' in health insurance is to essentially 'get a w2 job'.

Next time I hear any Santa Claus item that someone wants me to pay for, I guess it will be a valid and proper response to tell them 'get a fing job.'

Better yet, that might have been a good response for the 58 kajillion and 32 people who went into bankruptcy because of health issues. Funny how when everything changes, everything stays the same.

The biggest problem with the ACA is that it is a 'health' tax.

It taxes people who are healthy and make good choices in order to fund those who are not and don't.

While certainly there are many issues where people are not making choices, there are also many where they are.... especially today. It used to be 'hold my beer and watch this'.... for the amusement of my friends... NOW it's 'hold my phone and record this'... for the purpose of perhaps becoming famous/making money.

yes of course it also helps some who are not healthy through no fault of their own etc etc etc, but this is why the failure of the Obama administration to EVER do as they said they would and make the wealthy pay more for insurance becomes transparent as something said to sell it, without ever intending to actually do it.

Probably because it's far easier to charge 50mm young healthy people an extra $2,000 per year than it is to charge 2,000,000 wealthy people $50,000 per year

(06-16-2019 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 09:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My current situation is that I am teaching at a state university, so I get the Texas teachers group insurance (TTRS), which is an excellent plan. Medicare is my secondary and basically pays my copays and Tricare kicks in on top of it, primarily for expensive medications. If I retire I can keep the TTRS insurance at COBRA rates as my primary, or I could do Medicare primary and Tricare secondary (but nobody takes Tricare anymore because of the Obamacare changes), or I could move to San Antonio and use the military facilities there (getting in line behind active duty personnel), or I could goto the VA. None of those options works anywhere nearly as well as either the TTRS primary plus Medicare secondary with Tricare backup, or the old CHAMPUS/Medicare combination would have worked. Tricare is good for prescriptions, but that is about it. But heck, I teach three days a week nine months a year, so I'm not exactly killing myself. If I get to where I can't teach, then I would probably not be able to enjoy much else of my current lifestyle, so the plan would be to move to one of the USAA retirement high rises in San Antonio. But I hope that's a way down the road, if at all.
I know a number of people who celebrated Obamacare with comments like, now I can afford to retire. Many of them are finding out, "Not exactly."
The problem with Obamacare is that it combines the worst aspect of our old health care system (insurance tied to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (bureaucratic decisions replacing the doctor-patient relationship). The best thing about Bismarck is that it eliminates both.

So if you go Medicare primary and Tricare secondary what do you anticipate will materially change for you as compared to your previous insurance? Specifically I'm wondering about ability to see your current doctors and your out-of-pocket expenses.

Before Obamacare, that would have worked and that was my plan. With the changes that Obamacare made to Tricare, I can't really see my current doctors without a major hassle, and my out-of-pockets would go up significantly. I can go to a Medicare mill pretty easily, or to the VA, but those are not attractive options to me. At best, to see quality docs, I would have to pay up front and wait months for reimbursement.

I am sure it varies region by region, but at least in Houston the vast, vast majority of quality doctors take Medicare. I haven’t really heard the term “Medicare mill” before. Are you in a smaller town?

Medicare/Medicaid mill (probably more predominantly Medicaid mill, my apologies) refers to low-quality, low-price health care providers that focus on making money by quick turnaround of Medicare and Medicaid patients. There are many in the Houston area. Some actually used to be clients of mine. It is a business model with generally a few adherents in every metro area. There is a unique art to doing it, particularly with respect to navigating the paperwork jungle. They make their money on throughput, not quality.

Yes... I think I've heard that model described as a Medicaid mill as you noted.

Can you not avoid this type of practice model and find quality doctors that take Medicare?

Again... not debating here. Trying to understand how the current options are failing you.