(07-11-2019 07:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 07:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.
executive order
As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

Help me understand the pre-existing condition issue. If you had insurance before you got on a new policy, your pre-existing condition is covered under existing law. If you require new policies to provide coverage when there was no coverage before, then you invite the free rider problem. That's what the mandate was supposed to fix.
So what is the proposed fix?

Yes... the mandate was supposed to fix the free-rider problem as everybody was mandated to carry insurance or suffer a punitive tax. Therefore without any uninsured people you'd have no free-riders in the system.
Unfortunately many of these crazy-deductible plans still resulted in free-riders as many patients on these plans simply didn't (don't) pay their bills.
Not sure how to fix it. There has got to be a way, though, to make sure that cancer survivors/dialysis patients, etc. aren't kicked off of insurance plans if they suffer a lapse in coverage for some reason.

The obvious solution is Bismarck. Universal basic coverage funded or reimbursed by the government (the only way to get true universal coverage) with market-priced upgrades freely available.

(07-11-2019 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.

executive order

As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

Perhaps you can give us the specific comment(s) that evidence that "Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs." This is a pretty broad assertion, mind you. I look forward to your providing the provenance of this.

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-wh...18530f5ff/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...-some-vul/

https://theweek.com/articles/803889/all-...s-coverage

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-candi...27888.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republic...d=58597074

https://www.texasobserver.org/we-support...nate-them/

Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

(07-11-2019 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

Maybe. I was never really sure about that point of contention. Did many people lose their doctors when the ACA was enacted? Most people I know (purely anecdotal of course) had no issues when it came to that. Did you lose your doctors due to the ACA?

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

Maybe. I was never really sure about that point of contention. Did many people lose their doctors when the ACA was enacted? Most people I know (purely anecdotal of course) had no issues when it came to that. Did you lose your doctors due to the ACA?

Yes I did.

As funnily I was unable to 'keep my plan' as noted from those same speakers, even after I met the predicate of 'if I liked my plan'. I guess we can add the act of 'my ability to keep the plan that I liked' as well in the example, shouldn't I?

Have had an absolute crap experience with insurance since 2012 since working for myself. Items that were a decent product and decent price suddenly did a Bermuda Triangle. I guess you never noticed that either.

If not, you should really think about walking about in the real world some days.

(07-11-2019 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

Maybe. I was never really sure about that point of contention. Did many people lose their doctors when the ACA was enacted? Most people I know (purely anecdotal of course) had no issues when it came to that. Did you lose your doctors due to the ACA?

Yes I did.

As funnily I was unable to 'keep my plan' as noted from those same speakers, even after I met the predicate of 'if I liked my plan'. I guess we can add the act of 'my ability to keep the plan that I liked' as well in the example, shouldn't I?

Sounds like you are on-board with the idea that pre-existing conditions are in the crosshairs of the GOP? Albeit a seeming non-sequitur I agree that "If you like your doctor then you can keep him or her" was poorly thought-out.

Quote:Have had an absolute crap experience with insurance since 2012 since working for myself. Items that were a decent product and decent price suddenly did a Bermuda Triangle. I guess you never noticed that either.

If not, you should really think about walking about in the real world some days.

In my previous position, I was a partner in a small business that had > 150 employees. These were pre-ACA days. One of the worst meetings of every year was deciding just how crappy of an insurance plan we could in good faith offer our employees. With each passing year even the so-so plans became prohibitively expensive. That was my real world.

I'm not saying that the ACA is a total winner, but things were certainly looking bleak pre-2012.

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.

executive order

As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

(07-11-2019 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.

executive order

As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

People lose their insurance for all kinds of reasons.

(07-11-2019 11:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.

executive order

As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

People lose their insurance for all kinds of reasons.

I will lose mine when I die. Until then, I am good. But you are right, dying is one reason some people could lose their coverage.

On another note, I think this was a pretty good thing Trump did, something that will help thousands of people with their medical problems, especially African-Americans, and all you can think of is "Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs"? No good word for Trump, no matter what he does? I think maybe your anti Trump/Republican sentiment is running a bit strong. I could have at least given Obama credit for this, had he ever done it. I wish he had. Apparently all it takes is an Executive Order, and we know Obama knew how to do those. My kidney problems go back to age 12. My liver problems only came up in the last 10 years. Either could put me on a transplant list someday, if they don't kill me first. But for now, I am good. Healthiest I have been in years.

(07-11-2019 11:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.

executive order

As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

People lose their insurance for all kinds of reasons.

I will lose mine when I die. Until then, I am good. But you are right, dying is one reason some people could lose their coverage.

On another note, I think this was a pretty good thing Trump did, something that will help thousands of people with their medical problems, especially African-Americans, and all you can think of is "Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs"? No good word for Trump, no matter what he does? I think maybe your anti Trump/Republican sentiment is running a bit strong. I could have at least given Obama credit for this, had he ever done it. I wish he had. Apparently all it takes is an Executive Order, and we know Obama knew how to do those. My kidney problems go back to age 12. Part of the reason I flunked my draft physical, which in the eyes of the left makes me a draft dodger, like Clinton and Trump. My liver problems only came up in the last 10 years. Either could put me on a transplant list someday, if they don't kill me first. But for now, I am good. Healthiest I have been in years.

Glad you are healthy. Educate me, it is the left that is prone to anger over “draft dodgers”? I was not aware that this was a partisan issue. If you told me it was a partisan issue, I probably would’ve guessed it was right wingers who would be more likely to look down on “hippie draft dodgers”?

(07-11-2019 11:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

People lose their insurance for all kinds of reasons.

I will lose mine when I die. Until then, I am good. But you are right, dying is one reason some people could lose their coverage.

On another note, I think this was a pretty good thing Trump did, something that will help thousands of people with their medical problems, especially African-Americans, and all you can think of is "Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs"? No good word for Trump, no matter what he does? I think maybe your anti Trump/Republican sentiment is running a bit strong. I could have at least given Obama credit for this, had he ever done it. I wish he had. Apparently all it takes is an Executive Order, and we know Obama knew how to do those. My kidney problems go back to age 12. Part of the reason I flunked my draft physical, which in the eyes of the left makes me a draft dodger, like Clinton and Trump. My liver problems only came up in the last 10 years. Either could put me on a transplant list someday, if they don't kill me first. But for now, I am good. Healthiest I have been in years.

Glad you are healthy. Educate me, it is the left that is prone to anger over “draft dodgers”? I was not aware that this was a partisan issue. If you told me it was a partisan issue, I probably would’ve guessed it was right wingers who would be more likely to look down on “hippie draft dodgers”?

I am not healthy - just healthier than I used to be. You do not want to trade your health for mine.

Currently it is the left who seem upset over how/why Trump was not drafted. Of course, in a previous era, it was the Republicans who were upset over how Clinton avoided it. Nobody seemed to mind that Obama just skipped military service, as was his right, but there was a lot of left-side angst over GWB's National Guard service. Dan Rather lost his credibility after making up some fake news.

Seems to be focused on whoever is in office, and now that is Trump.

NYTimes

Try googling Trump and deferment.

Still no good word for this action?

(07-11-2019 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 06:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While Beta is fighting slavery in 1776, Trump is fighting kidney disease in 2019.
executive order
As a person with kidney and liver problems, I am happy to see that somebody finally cares.

The Republicans have pre-existing conditions in their crosshairs. I hope for your sake as well as all my loved ones with pre-existing conditions that they are not successful.

All my problems only become pre-existing conditions if I change my coverage. All are currently covered, so why would I do that?

Not exactly, not if you simply change your insurance coverage. They would be pre-existing conditions, but unless there was a gap in your coverage, they would still be covered.

I still think this pre-existing conditions thing is a sound byte made up to scare people. I would eliminate by going to Bismarck, but that is a whole different approach.

Look, republicans have to come up with something. Democrats have proved they can buy votes with "free" stuff, particularly as long as they don't have to disclose the actual cost or who will actually pay. Republicans can't ignore this, but they can come up with better and cheaper (because they can eliminate the ridiculously expensive bureaucracy) alternatives. So wy don't they.

(07-11-2019 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

Maybe. I was never really sure about that point of contention. Did many people lose their doctors when the ACA was enacted? Most people I know (purely anecdotal of course) had no issues when it came to that. Did you lose your doctors due to the ACA?

Yes I did.

As funnily I was unable to 'keep my plan' as noted from those same speakers, even after I met the predicate of 'if I liked my plan'. I guess we can add the act of 'my ability to keep the plan that I liked' as well in the example, shouldn't I?

Sounds like you are on-board with the idea that pre-existing conditions are in the crosshairs of the GOP? Albeit a seeming non-sequitur I agree that "If you like your doctor then you can keep him or her" was poorly thought-out.

Quote:Have had an absolute crap experience with insurance since 2012 since working for myself. Items that were a decent product and decent price suddenly did a Bermuda Triangle. I guess you never noticed that either.

If not, you should really think about walking about in the real world some days.

In my previous position, I was a partner in a small business that had > 150 employees. These were pre-ACA days. One of the worst meetings of every year was deciding just how crappy of an insurance plan we could in good faith offer our employees. With each passing year even the so-so plans became prohibitively expensive. That was my real world.

I'm not saying that the ACA is a total winner, but things were certainly looking bleak pre-2012.

Funny thing the ACA was sold as 'your insurance will be cheaper' and 'you can keep your plan'. Neither was the case. I am paying about 6x the cost of 2009 at this point, and the deductible has risen from 4x+ and the maximum out of pocket about 10x relative to pre-ACA.

And those are only to the in-network, considering the crapola Bronze plan here is essentially the Medicare/Medicaid providers, wow, surprise, surprise, surprise that the doctors I would go to (I moved back to Austin in in 2014) arent in that network.

For that privilege that would mean somewhere between 40% and 60% more as the monthly premium.

So in my book ACA has been the biggest fking shell game ever perpetrated. I am glad you are happy with it. But most progressives are happy with anything that makes other people pay for Santa Claus.

(07-12-2019 08:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using the rationales provided, it seems that it would be equally as correct to say "The Democrats in 2008 had 'my ability to keep my doctor' in *their* crosshairs", correct?

Maybe. I was never really sure about that point of contention. Did many people lose their doctors when the ACA was enacted? Most people I know (purely anecdotal of course) had no issues when it came to that. Did you lose your doctors due to the ACA?

Yes I did.

As funnily I was unable to 'keep my plan' as noted from those same speakers, even after I met the predicate of 'if I liked my plan'. I guess we can add the act of 'my ability to keep the plan that I liked' as well in the example, shouldn't I?

Sounds like you are on-board with the idea that pre-existing conditions are in the crosshairs of the GOP? Albeit a seeming non-sequitur I agree that "If you like your doctor then you can keep him or her" was poorly thought-out.

Quote:Have had an absolute crap experience with insurance since 2012 since working for myself. Items that were a decent product and decent price suddenly did a Bermuda Triangle. I guess you never noticed that either.

If not, you should really think about walking about in the real world some days.

In my previous position, I was a partner in a small business that had > 150 employees. These were pre-ACA days. One of the worst meetings of every year was deciding just how crappy of an insurance plan we could in good faith offer our employees. With each passing year even the so-so plans became prohibitively expensive. That was my real world.

I'm not saying that the ACA is a total winner, but things were certainly looking bleak pre-2012.

Funny thing the ACA was sold as 'your insurance will be cheaper' and 'you can keep your plan'. Neither was the case. I am paying about 6x the cost of 2009 at this point, and the deductible has risen from 4x+ and the maximum out of pocket about 10x relative to pre-ACA.

And those are only to the in-network, considering the crapola Bronze plan here is essentially the Medicare/Medicaid providers, wow, surprise, surprise, surprise that the doctors I would go to (I moved back to Austin in in 2014) arent in that network.

For that privilege that would mean somewhere between 40% and 60% more as the monthly premium.

So in my book ACA has been the biggest fking shell game ever perpetrated. I am glad you are happy with it. But most progressives are happy with anything that makes other people pay for Santa Claus.

I didn't say that I am "happy with it". It's an imperfect solution to the issue of getting additional people insured. It certainly has a lot of problems. Every proposed solution to redoing healthcare does. I'm still waiting for the GOP's amazing healthcare plan.

(07-11-2019 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  In my previous position, I was a partner in a small business that had > 150 employees. These were pre-ACA days. One of the worst meetings of every year was deciding just how crappy of an insurance plan we could in good faith offer our employees. With each passing year even the so-so plans became prohibitively expensive. That was my real world.

I'm not saying that the ACA is a total winner, but things were certainly looking bleak pre-2012.

That sounds weird. The best, most cost-effective insurance plan that I ever had was one from the pre-ACA days. It was the plan offered by a small business that I worked at one summer. I was not a benefits-eligible employee, but the firm's office manager pointed out that I could buy an identical plan directly from the insurer, which I did. The firm thought this plan was a very good deal for its employees, and I thought it was a great deal for me. That was my real world.

The ACA made this very plan illegal.

(07-12-2019 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I didn't say that I am "happy with it". It's an imperfect solution to the issue of getting additional people insured.

That is an overly favorable characterization. It basically screwed as many people as it helped. Some people who were previously uninsured were able to obtain health insurance, while some people who previously had health insurance were forced off their plans by economics.

Quote:It certainly has a lot of problems. Every proposed solution to redoing healthcare does. I'm still waiting for the GOP's amazing healthcare plan.

Obamacare combined the worst aspect of our prior system (tying health insurance to employment, a democrat idea from the post-WWII era) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (one-size-fits-all bureaucratic decision-making infringing on the doctor-patient relationship). Bismarck universal private care solves both those problems. The systems using it are generally accepted as best in the world. Why republicans won't go there is mystifying to me. I understand why democrats don't want it. It actually provides health care instead of bureaucratic micromanagement and control over people.

(07-12-2019 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I didn't say that I am "happy with it". It's an imperfect solution to the issue of getting additional people insured.

That is an overly favorable characterization. It basically screwed as many people as it helped. Some people who were previously uninsured were able to obtain health insurance, while some people who previously had health insurance were forced off their plans by economics.

Quote:It certainly has a lot of problems. Every proposed solution to redoing healthcare does. I'm still waiting for the GOP's amazing healthcare plan.

Obamacare combined the worst aspect of our prior system (tying health insurance to employment, a democrat idea from the post-WWII era) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (one-size-fits-all bureaucratic decision-making infringing on the doctor-patient relationship). Bismarck universal private care solves both those problems. The systems using it are generally accepted as best in the world. Why republicans won't go there is mystifying to me. I understand why democrats don't want it. It actually provides health care instead of bureaucratic micromanagement and control over people.

I honestly have no idea as to the number of people screwed over by the ACA as opposed to those helped by it. It strikes me, though, that the 2018 elections seemed to indicate that more people were in favor of maintaining it than doing away with it. If I remember correctly, it seemed that polls suggested that the ACA was reasonably popular.

(07-12-2019 07:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I didn't say that I am "happy with it". It's an imperfect solution to the issue of getting additional people insured.

That is an overly favorable characterization. It basically screwed as many people as it helped. Some people who were previously uninsured were able to obtain health insurance, while some people who previously had health insurance were forced off their plans by economics.

Quote:It certainly has a lot of problems. Every proposed solution to redoing healthcare does. I'm still waiting for the GOP's amazing healthcare plan.

Obamacare combined the worst aspect of our prior system (tying health insurance to employment, a democrat idea from the post-WWII era) with the worst aspect of single-payer/single-provider systems (one-size-fits-all bureaucratic decision-making infringing on the doctor-patient relationship). Bismarck universal private care solves both those problems. The systems using it are generally accepted as best in the world. Why republicans won't go there is mystifying to me. I understand why democrats don't want it. It actually provides health care instead of bureaucratic micromanagement and control over people.

I honestly have no idea as to the number of people screwed over by the ACA as opposed to those helped by it. It strikes me, though, that the 2018 elections seemed to indicate that more people were in favor of maintaining it than doing away with it. If I remember correctly, it seemed that polls suggested that the ACA was reasonably popular.

I think the blue-collar working-class voters who surprised the oddsmakers and went for Trump in 2016 were largely those who were screwed by it. I think that when republicans fumbled the ball and failed to come up with a replacement, they did not support the party in 2018. Neither you nor I knows for sure at this point, but we are both free to make our guesses.

Basically, Obamacare was a zero-sum game. It could not help anyone without screwing someone else. The only way to avoid that result is to pump money into the system. Otherwise, you are just reallocating the same resources, and you can help Paul without robbing Peter. Actually, when the delayed cost controls kick in, it will become a negative sum game. You can't artificially constrain prices below market levels without creating excess demand leading to waits and queues.

(07-11-2019 10:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  In my previous position, I was a partner in a small business that had > 150 employees. These were pre-ACA days. One of the worst meetings of every year was deciding just how crappy of an insurance plan we could in good faith offer our employees. With each passing year even the so-so plans became prohibitively expensive.

My experience was similar, yet different. our plan was never crappy. but when we started we cover the entire cost -employee AND dependents. As it grew progessively more expensive Over the years, we had to make the employees contribute , up to half.

but we always had good coverage, and since they were geoup policies, pre-existing comditioms were not excluded. I have no idea why you had to choose a crappy policy.

Pretty bad look this morning for Trump to tell four US Congresswomen to “go back where they came from” via tweet. Three of these Congresswomen were born in the United States. Not sure if this will affect him negatively from a political standpoint. It seems that this type of language is appreciated by his base.