View Full Version : So grateful for today's Supreme Court Decision.....
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 11:10am
I'm sure most of you have heard by now that the Supreme Court has ruled to uphold subsidies nationwide for health care insurance under the exchanges. I can't begin to say how relieved I am.....with any luck there will be no major lawsuits against ObamaCare going forward and we will have at least this basic framework for access to health care for all going forward. I know it's not without it's issues - but does anyone really want to go back to the 24/7/365 econonic terrorism or preexisting conditions clauses? I for my part could not and would not do that, to reinstate such would be a sign that I'm best off leaving the United States.
I have to admit I'm even a little surprised by this decision - I really expected ObamaCare to get gutted. I wonder if the Supreme Court decided this way due to fear that people really would take to the streets if their insurance was taken away? This is my guess - those justices can't be so foolish as to not understand that there are millions of Americans with really no stake in the system and little to nothing to lose. Take away access to health care for such people and logically, why shouldn't they take to the streets? I doubt this take will ever make it to the media, and who knows, I could be wrong, but this is my instinct as to why ObamaCare did not get gutted. But really, as long as the law stands in some form, I guess it doesn't matter why......what is important is that basic human rights over preexisting conditions clauses triumph over corporate profits. And it looks like I'm getting that so I for one am happy. Rob
Probably so they could push through a trade bill that's going to allow big pharma to charge the people of emerging world nations American pharmaceutical prices. Win some lose some, right? >8)
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/trade-winners-losers_n_7649378.html:
WINNERS
3. PhRMA: The intellectual property terms in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership will require a host of countries to grant long-term monopolies to big drug companies on prescription medications. That means members of the industry's biggest lobbying group can charge much higher drug prices without having to deal with competition from generics.
LOSERS
5. Sick Poor People: Hello, five-figure prescription drug prices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/obamas-health-policy-global-health-reform_n_1659742.html)! Those long-term drug monopolies mean big profits for pharmaceutical firms, but they have deeply troubling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/obama-doctors-without-borders_n_6068634.html) public health implications (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/aids-trade-regulations-patent-law_n_994940.html) for the global poor, who can't foot the bill. Doctors Without Borders has called (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/tpp-trade-deal-will-be-devastating-access-affordable-medicines) TPP "the most damaging trade agreement we have ever seen in terms of access to medicines for poor people."
The decision shows that we've reached a point where laws, as written, have no meaning. We can now interpret plain language to mean something else if it meets the political requirements of the day. Our Republican form of government is no more and the pure Democracy we're replacing it with cannot stand. :(
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 11:43am
The decision shows that we've reached a point where laws, as written, have no meaning. We can now interpret plain language to mean something else if it meets the political requirements of the day. Our Republican form of government is no more and the pure Democracy we're replacing it with cannot stand. :(mmmm.....so you are OK then with 24/7/365 economic terrorism via preexisting conditions clauses? You get to believe as you wish, Alan, certainly.....I'm a 180 from you on this one based on my belief in basic human rights. I can't condone the 24/7/365 economic terrorism that preexisting conditions clauses cause for so many people. I'm just grateful this ruling came down this way. Rob
I wonder if the Supreme Court decided this way due to fear that people really would take to the streets if their insurance was taken away?
Now there's an interesting theory of jurisprudence.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 11:48am
Probably so they could push through a trade bill that's going to allow big pharma to charge the people of emerging world nations American pharmaceutical prices. Win some lose some, right? >8)
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/trade-winners-losers_n_7649378.html:
WINNERS
3. PhRMA: The intellectual property terms in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership will require a host of countries to grant long-term monopolies to big drug companies on prescription medications. That means members of the industry's biggest lobbying group can charge much higher drug prices without having to deal with competition from generics.
LOSERS
5. Sick Poor People: Hello, five-figure prescription drug prices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/obamas-health-policy-global-health-reform_n_1659742.html)! Those long-term drug monopolies mean big profits for pharmaceutical firms, but they have deeply troubling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/obama-doctors-without-borders_n_6068634.html) public health implications (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/aids-trade-regulations-patent-law_n_994940.html) for the global poor, who can't foot the bill. Doctors Without Borders has called (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/tpp-trade-deal-will-be-devastating-access-affordable-medicines) TPP "the most damaging trade agreement we have ever seen in terms of access to medicines for poor people."KIB, this is horrendous, I won't disagree with you one bit on this and I have no excuse for it. All I can say is that more and more people overseas will see America for what it truly is and will reject it - the American way of doing things and the American way in general. I can't say this is a bad thing - certainly we have proven to the world for years how little human rights mean via how health care has worked in the US, and also via how the police have militarized and how they until very recently have been above the law for their illegal actions. In many ways America is something not to be emulated but avoided - and I believe the world is waking up to this. I'm only afraid of more terrorist acts against the US due to greedy pharma companies, and I'm afraid if this happens, it will be spun in the US any way but how it really is - that it was greedy pharma making life saving meds inaccessible to the poor that caused such attacks. Rob
The decision shows that we've reached a point where laws, as written, have no meaning. We can now interpret plain language to mean something else if it meets the political requirements of the day. Our Republican form of government is no more and the pure Democracy we're replacing it with cannot stand. :(
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 11:51am
Now there's an interesting theory of jurisprudence.Many people in the US these days have no real reason not to take to the streets as they have little to nothing to lose. Welcome to America as it really is is all I can say. I don't see this aspect of America changing or getting better - there is too much downward pressure on wages overall and too many good jobs have been offshored to keep the rich that much richer. Those on the edge of taking to the streets are not total fools, they understand the basics of what I have posted here. Rob
mmmm.....so you are OK then with 24/7/365 economic terrorism via preexisting conditions clauses? You get to believe as you wish, Alan, certainly.....I'm a 180 from you on this one based on my belief in basic human rights. I can't condone the 24/7/365 economic terrorism that preexisting conditions clauses cause for so many people. I'm just grateful this ruling came down this way. Rob
You're conflating two different things. It's great for you that your neighbors must continue to subsidize your life choices but that's not what I lamented. My point that if plainly written laws can be interpreted to meet the desires of the moment, what form of legal protection does anyone have?
Many people in the US these days have no real reason not to take to the streets as they have little to nothing to lose. Welcome to America as it really is is all I can say. I don't see this aspect of America changing or getting better - there is too much downward pressure on wages overall and too many good jobs have been offshored to keep the rich that much richer. Those on the edge of taking to the streets are not total fools, they understand the basics of what I have posted here. Rob
So you think we've entered the era of "Give us stuff or we'll hurt you"? If I believed that, I wouldn't just be talking about leaving.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 12:02pm
You're conflating two different things. It's great for you that your neighbors must continue to subsidize your life choices but that's not what I lamented. My point that if plainly written laws can be interpreted to meet the desires of the moment, what form of legal protection does anyone have?Alan, I've just realized something here, and I don't post this with any trollish intentions or to stir anything up. Seriously, I don't. So what did I realize, you ask? One reason we don't see eye to eye on issues - one big reason - you have had the luxury to think these things out in a non-fear based environment. I'm not being critical here - I'm just stating this. For me, so much has been about survival for so long and "what if" "what if" "what if" - under these conditions you don't have any real faith or trust and it is all about getting to the next day. Funny thing here is that I have reached a point in my life where I am not jealous of those who have not lived in fear - with America being in decline and living standards plunging for all but those at the very top, I see myself as ahead of the curve in how I think of and process America. But I digress. Naturally I am not going to trust the United States and naturally I am going to reduce things down to everyday practical survival. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 12:04pm
So you think we've entered the era of "Give us stuff or we'll hurt you"? If I believed that, I wouldn't just be talking about leaving.I think this era is not far off at all, no. And if I were one of the ones at the top of society, I'd be leaving the United States or at least buying some safe property overseas somewhere to flee to when necessary. There is truly that level of anger out there. Rob
I think this era is not far off at all, no. And if I were one of the ones at the top of society, I'd be leaving the United States or at least buying some safe property overseas somewhere to flee to when necessary.
Then who would pay for your "basic human rights"?
iris lilies
6-25-15, 2:14pm
The decision shows that we've reached a point where laws, as written, have no meaning. We can now interpret plain language to mean something else if it meets the political requirements of the day. Our Republican form of government is no more and the pure Democracy we're replacing it with cannot stand. :(
Today's ruling personally benefits me since I am now retired but not yet on the government teat for health insurance. The ACA has attractive prices that I will now explore.
But I do not mistake personal gain for the good of the nation.I agree with you, laws as written now have no meaning.
Communicable diseases do not care about how much money one has or what ones political ideals may be.
They are out there and I don't want to catch them.
I'll happily pay a few extra bucks into the system to increase the chances a poor sick person will get the care they need so they don't spread it to others.
Most notably, me :)
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 2:40pm
Today's ruling personally benefits me since I am now retired but not yet on the government teat for health insurance. The ACA has attractive prices that I will now explore.
But I do not mistake personal gain for the good of the nation.I agree with you, laws as written now have no meaning.You'd rather that over 6 million people on the exchanges suffer so that laws can have meaning? Normally I'd say nothing but with health care we are talking about access to human dignity and basic human rights for over 6 million people.....what would it say to the world about America if this access were suddenly yanked for a technicality? Would you as a foreigner trust America enough to do business here or to even visit America for tourism? Like it or not, not only were the fate of health care access for six million people plus at stake, but so was our international reputation, which at the moment can use all the help it can get. Life is not so easy as to say the laws as written now have no meaning - the situation we are in now is much too complex for such a statement. And perhaps too the law from the get go should have been drawn up more airtight, I'd agree with that. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 2:40pm
Communicable diseases do not care about how much money one has or what ones political ideals may be.
They are out there and I don't want to catch them.
I'll happily pay a few extra bucks into the system to increase the chances a poor sick person will get the care they need so they don't spread it to others.
Most notably, me :)I really respect your take here, just wanted to post that. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 2:42pm
Then who would pay for your "basic human rights"?Probably I'd have to flee too to have such rights - not an answer most people want to hear nor one that I want to hear but I'm thinking this is so anyway. In the future, it might be best, if America continues to stand as is, for most people to leave. Regardless of station in life. Rob
In the future, it might be best, if America continues to stand as is, for most people to leave. Regardless of station in life. Rob
Certainly I have plenty of Acoma friends who think that :-)
What happens, though, to the poor country all us Americans invade like devouring locusts, in our attempt to flee the hell that is America?
ApatheticNoMore
6-25-15, 3:32pm
Really I think the Supreme Court responded the way it did because there is too much money involved in the ACA. Big big players, the insurance companies WANT the ACA. I'm entirely sure it has absolutely nothing to do with people in the streets. I also suspect it has less to do with legal interpretations than money.
Probably so they could push through a trade bill that's going to allow big pharma to charge the people of emerging world nations American pharmaceutical prices. Win some lose some, right?
I think it might raise pharmaceutical prices in the U.S. as well. Of course they are already quite high. And don't they want to pay for the joke that is Trade Adjustment Assistance by cutting Medicare as well?
The decision shows that we've reached a point where laws, as written, have no meaning. We can now interpret plain language to mean something else if it meets the political requirements of the day.
That point is already reached. I think it was reached when the Supreme Court refused to take up the indefinite detention issue (Hedges versus Obama). I know you can parse and parse and parse but when indefinite detention is not taken up and overruled on Constitutional grounds, it's hard to say they are paying much attention to the Constitution.
Will they take up the trade agreements? They seem rather unconstitutional to me, but I suspect not.
KIB, this is horrendous, I won't disagree with you one bit on this and I have no excuse for it. All I can say is that more and more people overseas will see America for what it truly is and will reject it - the American way of doing things and the American way in general.
But the trade agreements wont' purely have been signed by "America" but by their OWN governments, every single government that abides by them signs on. You can get a trade agreement with just the U.S. government signing. Now I suppose you could ask if U.S. leadership put certain pressure on them, and it would not surprise me. But it takes more of an argument than that to declare them just helpless puppets of the U.S.
Really I think the Supreme Court responded the way it did because there is too much money involved in the ACA.
Because the Justices are worried about financing their re-election campaigns?
What is the point of pressure on the Supreme Court?
iris lilies
6-25-15, 3:52pm
You'd rather that over 6 million people on the exchanges suffer so that laws can have meaning? Normally I'd say nothing but with health care we are talking about access to human dignity and basic human rights for over 6 million people.....what would it say to the world about America if this access were suddenly yanked for a technicality? Would you as a foreigner trust America enough to do business here or to even visit America for tourism? Like it or not, not only were the fate of health care access for six million people plus at stake, but so was our international reputation, which at the moment can use all the help it can get. Life is not so easy as to say the laws as written now have no meaning - the situation we are in now is much too complex for such a statement. And perhaps too the law from the get go should have been drawn up more airtight, I'd agree with that. Rob
Yes, I would like laws to have meaning. Generally speaking the law of the land must be respected by all,or we have chaos, and no one's "dignity" is respected.
And its not a technicality in the ACA that was the point of today's ruling, that's the huge problem. The law was written as intended and the supremes know it.
If if it were a simple typo, I would be more accepting of the ruling today.
Teacher Terry
6-25-15, 4:03pm
Everyone deserves affordable healthcare. I think it is a basic human right. If we ever quit being self-employed p.t. I would definitely look into it as our health insurance is costing us $10,000/year. Right now we don't qualify for subsidies which is fine.
Everyone deserves affordable healthcare. I think it is a basic human right.
I guess the question we usually get to at this point is "what is a right?"
There are clearly different sorts of "rights". Some of them seem to require other people to provide you with something. Some of them simply require other people not to do things to you. Some conflict there.
Rob's "human right" to healthcare seemingly requires Alan to have a real job and pay for Rob's needs. And mine too! Thanks Alan. Does Alan have any "rights"?
iris lilies
6-25-15, 4:28pm
I guess the question we usually get to at this point is "what is a right?"
There are clearly different sorts of "rights". Some of them seem to require other people to provide you with something. Some of them simply require other people not to do things to you. Some conflict there.
Rob's "human right" to healthcare seemingly requires Alan to have a real job and pay for Rob's needs. And mine too! Thanks Alan. Does Alan have any "rights"?
i guess Alan has the right to stop working, kick back, and jump on some version of the dole. Kinda like me.
i do not know what happens when all of the Alans take this route. But tra la,tea la, I won't think about that.
I guess the question we usually get to at this point is "what is a right?"
There are clearly different sorts of "rights". Some of them seem to require other people to provide you with something. Some of them simply require other people not to do things to you. Some conflict there.
Rob's "human right" to healthcare seemingly requires Alan to have a real job and pay for Rob's needs. And mine too! Thanks Alan. Does Alan have any "rights"?
I pay more in taxes than what many people earn in a year, and if my contribution is enabling Rob to choose being tethered to an employer vs starting his own business, I support that. The employer-linked healthcare that we have in this country just doesn't make sense. Surely we can come up with a more creative way to provide access to all our brothers and sisters under the flag. Oh, wait a minute--it's called a single payer system. Many countries have it, and oddly, it seems to work! In fact some of those countries have been rated as having the happiest people.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11350403_1016510035040941_4977756558465368399_n.jp g?oh=0be84bc24b372cfb0fd235d5c47a81c3&oe=5622724B
I guess the question we usually get to at this point is "what is a right?"
There are clearly different sorts of "rights". Some of them seem to require other people to provide you with something. Some of them simply require other people not to do things to you. Some conflict there.
Rob's "human right" to healthcare seemingly requires Alan to have a real job and pay for Rob's needs. And mine too! Thanks Alan. Does Alan have any "rights"?
Under the Constitution as written, rights tended to be negative, with unpleasant language like "Congress shall make no law...". In our more enlightened time, skilled jurists are able to trace through emanations, penumbrae and contextualization to create positive rights to goods and services. Think of it as a form of legal cold fusion. I would agree with you that this process requires a growing supply of Alans, and that if we reach the point of "peak Alan" there may be issues similar to those currently being dealt with by the Greeks.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 5:10pm
I guess the question we usually get to at this point is "what is a right?"
There are clearly different sorts of "rights". Some of them seem to require other people to provide you with something. Some of them simply require other people not to do things to you. Some conflict there.
Rob's "human right" to healthcare seemingly requires Alan to have a real job and pay for Rob's needs. And mine too! Thanks Alan. Does Alan have any "rights"?Now that I am moving forward with an online business, let's say I have a little success. i for one will not be complaining about the taxes I am liable for as I understand I am not the only Rob out there and I have a moral and ethical obligation to pay taxes so the many other Robs out there can have access to health care. I will not be going turncoat even if the taxes I end out paying are high - I've lived in fear of America too long to ever resent paying taxes so that someone else can have access to health care. How could I live with myself if I ever thought differently? Rob
SCOTUS read it right. They understood the intent of the law and the framers intent of the law.
Only Republicans would try to capitalize on the extreme small minded hatefulness of other republicans (states refusing to set up an exchange...stomp foot!!) to press their agenda. I have always said the biggest mistake Obama and the dems made in crafting this law was to assume republicans actually cared about their constituents enough to try to make this work for their people. BIG MISTAKE.
I'm sure republican leaders are breathing a sigh of relief tonight. Thank goodness this conservative court saved them from themselves. Plus, a bonus, I'm also sure all you good republicans will be getting your letter soon in the mail from your representative declaring to 'fight to the end...if only you could send me something...$20..$50..whatever you can spare"
Whew! The cash cow is saved and all the 'useful idiots' will open their wallets.
Now that I am moving forward with an online business, let's say I have a little success. i for one will not be complaining about the taxes I am liable for as I understand I am not the only Rob out there and I have a moral and ethical obligation to pay taxes so the many other Robs out there can have access to health care. I will not be going turncoat even if the taxes I end out paying are high - I've lived in fear of America too long to ever resent paying taxes so that someone else can have access to health care. How could I live with myself if I ever thought differently? Rob
you have been enlightened since 14, and your now in your 50's and just now thinking about maybe paying more than you have been taking? Why have you waited so long?
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 5:24pm
SCOTUS read it right. They understood the intent of the law and the framers intent of the law.
Only Republicans would try to capitalize on the extreme small minded hatefulness of other republicans (states refusing to set up an exchange...stomp foot!!) to press their agenda. I have always said the biggest mistake Obama and the dems made in crafting this law was to assume republicans actually cared about their constituents enough to try to make this work for their people. BIG MISTAKE.
I'm sure republican leaders are breathing a sigh of relief tonight. Thank goodness this conservative court saved them from themselves. Plus, a bonus, I'm also sure all you good republicans will be getting your letter soon in the mail from your representative declaring to 'fight to the end...if only you could send me something...$20..$50..whatever you can spare"
Whew! The cash cow is saved and all the 'useful idiots' will open their wallets.Peggy, the ill-will and pettiness and blatant lack of concern for poorer constituents some of these Republican governors have displayed is mind boggling. It really shows how little some Republicans care about human life and how money is all to them (not to say that Dems are immune to this, but with these Republicans it's blatantly obvious). Some of the people I have the most respect for after all of this though are Republicans - those who went against their party and got Medicaid expanded in their states regardless. Examples would be former Arizona governor Jan Brewer and John Kasitch (sp?) of Ohio. To me these two people are class acts, regardless of what their political beliefs on other issues may be. So I'm going to refrain from broad brushing ALL Republicans a certain way out of respect to these two.
Good to see your pixels here again Peggy, BTW! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 5:25pm
you have been enlightened since 14, and your now in your 50's and just now thinking about maybe paying more than you have been taking? Why have you waited so long?I'm 48....lol....please get the age right. No offense, i realize you meant no harm, but as a gay man I'm touchy about advancing age.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 5:28pm
you have been enlightened since 14, and your now in your 50's and just now thinking about maybe paying more than you have been taking? Why have you waited so long?To answer your question - fear and terror of the system that you believe in and firsthand knowledge of how said system doesn't work well for everyone and how it has huge huge huge gaping cracks in it. Basically, seeing America for what it is as someone who has for a long time been vulnerable to it. Not the answers you wanted to hear probably, but the truth anyway, and I felt you could handle some honesty after your hard hitting question. Rob
To answer your question - fear and terror of the system that you believe in and firsthand knowledge of how said system doesn't work well for everyone and how it has huge huge huge gaping cracks in it.
So, 34 years of fear, since the age of 14?
Next question: presumably your new business will require you to leave the house to visit these garage/estate sales to locate the books you wish to resell. How are you going to get over your concern that the police may stop you without reason and execute you on the spot? Will you hire someone to do that part for you? Small businesses create jobs, so go for it!
Sorry, I thought I read in one of your post that you were older. But still, sounds like your just making excuses instead of working to support yourself. The system that I do believe in enabled me to work and succeed in life. I did have to work and study, and even take some risks now and again. But it also enabled me to retire early.
I also realized early that if I wanted to get ahead I had a much better chance by planing and working toward that goal. Not by waiting for my neighbors to give me stuff.
And except for some traffic issues , well not really issues, I was in the wrong, I have never had any problem with the police. I even golf accationally with a former Miami detective. He's a great guy.
To answer your question - fear and terror of the system that you believe in and firsthand knowledge of how said system doesn't work well for everyone and how it has huge huge huge gaping cracks in it. Basically, seeing America for what it is as someone who has for a long time been vulnerable to it. Not the answers you wanted to hear probably, but the truth anyway, and I felt you could handle some honesty after your hard hitting question. Rob
I guess I don't understand your " fear and terror" . I would be much more concerned with my safety traveling in Mexico, or the poor areas in the big city's. Than most places.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 6:50pm
So, 34 years of fear, since the age of 14?
Next question: presumably your new business will require you to leave the house to visit these garage/estate sales to locate the books you wish to resell. How are you going to get over your concern that the police may stop you without reason and execute you on the spot? Will you hire someone to do that part for you? Small businesses create jobs, so go for it!I will be running around town looking for books during daylight hours and in more upscale areas where I am statistically safer. Though no one is ever completely immune to the police, this is what I can do to reduce the risk. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 6:51pm
I guess I don't understand your " fear and terror" . I would be much more concerned with my safety traveling in Mexico, or the poor areas in the big city's. Than most places.Live on the other side of the tracks since about 1990 and you'll figure out "fear and terror" soon enough. Rob
Live on the other side of the tracks since about 1990 and you'll figure out "fear and terror" soon enough. Rob
I was always told to stay away from the wrong side of the tracks. When I go somewhere and I start seeing bars on the windows I figure it's not the place to be.
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 6:56pm
Sorry, I thought I read in one of your post that you were older. But still, sounds like your just making excuses instead of working to support yourself. The system that I do believe in enabled me to work and succeed in life. I did have to work and study, and even take some risks now and again. But it also enabled me to retire early.
I also realized early that if I wanted to get ahead I had a much better chance by planing and working toward that goal. Not by waiting for my neighbors to give me stuff.
And except for some traffic issues , well not really issues, I was in the wrong, I have never had any problem with the police. I even golf accationally with a former Miami detective. He's a great guy.I'm sure not all police are horrible. I'll give you that. The fact does however remain that some cops are horrible such as the ones that illegally attacked my Guatemalan neighbors. You really are rolling the dice with the police as you never know if you will get trash or not if you invite them into your life. Best to record all as that way you have power and can retain some control over the dialouge if they abuse their power/break the law.
Not all people have the same results in the United States and this country certainly is not for all people. I'm glad it worked for you - notice that I don't judge you for that but you judge me for the fact it doesn't work for me? I'm not you.....and you are not me. One size does not fit all here. And I do work - I'm doing banquet set up for a hotel client downtown right now and I also volunteer at a food bank, the latter so I can give something back for being on Medicaid. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-15, 6:58pm
I was always told to stay away from the wrong side of the tracks. When I go somewhere and I start seeing bars on the windows I figure it's not the place to be.What happens if the wrong side is where you find yourself starting from through no fault of your own? Though i will say the fear you speak of when seeing bars on windows - I feel brushed with that when I am in upscale areas - just a sense of general distrust and a sense I'd better watch my back. Rob
Not to dissuade you, but do people still buy that many books? I know my wife reads quite a lot, but downloads most of it.
I would think that prices would be low and you would have to sell in large quantities to make much money at it. I would think that while you are shopping the yard sales you should look at all the items there and not limit yourself to books.
ApatheticNoMore
6-25-15, 7:12pm
I just thought of all the books I've gotten used off Amazon for a penny plus shipping, true not all books cost a penny. I suspect they must charge more for shipping on those penny books than it actually costs, otherwise there is literally no profit in it.
Not all people have the same results in the United States and this country certainly is not for all people. I'm glad it worked for you - notice that I don't judge you for that but you judge me for the fact it doesn't work for me? I'm not you.....and you are not me. One size does not fit all here. And I do work - I'm doing banquet set up for a hotel client downtown right now and I also volunteer at a food bank, the latter so I can give something back for being on Medicaid. Rob
What has kept you from getting a full time job and advancing over the years? The problem I have is your feeling of entitlement. Unless you are unable to work, it appears that you have chosen to coast thru life and expect the Allen's to foot some of the bills. It's nice that you are putting in some hours at the food bank, but why didn't you work a second job or longer hours when you were younger so you could pay for your own health insurance?
I have no problem with those who just chose to live simple. But you come across as someone who expects others to support some of your needs. You may call them rights, but someone else is paying for yours.
visit America for tourism?
There is a huge amount of foreign tourists...even here in the middle of the country (and it's hard to get here from anywhere). They come, they shop. Can't be that bad, a lot of them make it an annual trip.
I am happy that the Supreme Court has upheld the contested part of the ACA. Many people now have health insurance now who did not have it before. But I still think a single-payer universal system would be better. IMHO.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 12:46am
I am happy that the Supreme Court has upheld the contested part of the ACA. Many people now have health insurance now who did not have it before. But I still think a single-payer universal system would be better. IMHO.I agree but at least we don't have to face pre-existing conditions clauses now. I'm very grateful for that. Back in 2006 when I was making halfway decent money at an upscale pizza restaurant, I applied for an independent high deductible policy and was turned down for having high blood pressure. That right there was when I started getting more vocal about my take on US Healthcare. I'm just glad that can't happen now, and if it did, you'd never have to work again based on the settlement you'd win. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-15, 1:21am
There are some reports of screening out preexisting conditions going on in other ways though, by limiting the number of specialists etc.. Suppose an insurance plan really didn't want cancer patients to sign up for their insurance because they push up costs etc.. Well you have almost no oncologists in the plan and they won't, or maybe diabetes patients have almost no endocrinologists I guess.
The system as is is such bad patchwork that it's almost destined for failure. Some states, have expanded Medicaid some haven't. In the states without it, you can get a subsidy for the ACA exchanges I guess if you make enough money, but not if you are so poor you qualify for Medicaid which was not expanded in your state, then you are too poor for subsidy. And the whole ACA plan could get worse (more penalties, increased cost, less subsidy). I'm not going to argue it could get better, as the glass seldom seems to be half full with our governance these days :~) (by which I mean the laws etc. are getting worse for the most part).
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 1:30am
There are some reports of screening out preexisting conditions going on in other ways though, by limiting the number of specialists etc.. Suppose an insurance plan really didn't want cancer patients to sign up for their insurance because they push up costs etc.. Well you have almost no oncologists in the plan and they won't, or maybe diabetes patients have almost no endocrinologists I guess.
The system as is is such bad patchwork that it's almost destined for failure. Some states, have expanded Medicaid some haven't. In the states without it, you can get a subsidy for the ACA exchanges I guess if you make enough money, but not if you are so poor you qualify for Medicaid which was not expanded in your state, then you are too poor for subsidy. And the whole ACA plan could get worse (more penalties, increased cost, less subsidy). I'm not going to argue it could get better, the glass is not half full with our governance these days :~) (by which I mean the laws etc. are getting worse for the most part).Realistically, I see the ACA long term as protection against sudden life or death situations. Other chronic conditions - I see more and more Americans offshoring their healthcare for moral, ethical, and financial reasons and I could not applaud such more. Little good this will do one section of the economy that still has jobs and some growth - I would not count on growth in health care long term due to offshoring. My take is that things will get to the point where there is no sane alternative but to offshore health care - I've already found myself in this situation and I believe it will be good for America as more people experience this, more will start asking the hard questions I have. Since I know I can find quality health care (and much cheaper too) by simply crossing a border, I look forward to the day that more people are forced to learn this. But at least the ACA is good for things like strokes and heart attacks and such where speed is of the essence. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-15, 5:15am
Well that's not much of a sales pitch for the ACA. No wonder anyone who has half decent employer provided health care would fear losing it if what's left is "a healthcare system good enough to deal with an immediate emergency, otherwise leave the country".
Will people lose employer provided plans due to ACA now or later? I don't know, the "cadillac" plans (really good plans) yes and if the adjustment for what is "cadillac" isn't adjusted for health care inflation this will be many more plans. But also the employer mandate has been ... indefinitely detained :laff: But seriously, it kind of has been indefinitely tabled, hasn't it?
Oh I'm sometimes actually infinitely philosophical about the whole mess and uncertainty I view as the future of U.S. healthcare (healthcare stocks are up not just on this news but also because health insurance companies are thinking of consolidating more! this can't be good for uh affordability of care so to speak). Maybe the main thing is not to get sick, and if one does get sick, well maybe we all have a natural lifespan anyway, and it's just one's time to go. But truthfully I would get what care I could if I was sick, now that's with an employer provided plan that isn't terrible.
Under it all I have a moral disgust and rage with the idea that baseline human existence is a for-profit enterprise. I can't get beyond the emotion-based disagreement with the general concept of it. Somehow in creating a business model that includes staying alive as a potential goldmine of opportunity, a negotiating point, we've crossed the line, we've let an inhuman monster into our midst. The one thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our belief in the sanctity of life, and yet this is how we behave when some shiny gold coins are on the table.
Granted, healthcare goes well beyond 'staying alive' and it becomes a very swimmy gray area when we get into the expense of specialized modern treatment of physical ailments, who should pay for that, where the line of entitlement lies. But allowing our laws to start with the premise that people's desire to stay alive is a resource to be capitalized upon is a complete moral failure and a sand foundation upon which to build any sort of meaningful, useful protocol.
Under it all I have a moral disgust and rage with the idea that baseline human existence is a for-profit enterprise. I can't get beyond the emotion-based disagreement with the general concept of it. Somehow in creating a business model that includes staying alive as a potential goldmine of opportunity, a negotiating point, we've crossed the line, we've let an inhuman monster into our midst.
Granted, healthcare goes well beyond 'staying alive' and it becomes a very swimmy gray area when we get into the expense of specialized modern treatment of physical ailments, who should pay for that, where the line of entitlement lies. But allowing our laws to start with the premise that people's desire to stay alive is a resource to be capitalized upon is a complete moral failure and a sand foundation upon which to build any sort of meaningful, useful protocol.
Do you feel the same disgust and rage toward agriculture, textiles, construction, or any other industry involved in providing the things that we use to stay alive?
Except that people can grow their own food, build their own homes with their own hands, etc. Treat yourself for cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes? Probably not.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 10:08am
Under it all I have a moral disgust and rage with the idea that baseline human existence is a for-profit enterprise. I can't get beyond the emotion-based disagreement with the general concept of it. Somehow in creating a business model that includes staying alive as a potential goldmine of opportunity, a negotiating point, we've crossed the line, we've let an inhuman monster into our midst. The one thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our belief in the sanctity of life, and yet this is how we behave when some shiny gold coins are on the table.
Granted, healthcare goes well beyond 'staying alive' and it becomes a very swimmy gray area when we get into the expense of specialized modern treatment of physical ailments, who should pay for that, where the line of entitlement lies. But allowing our laws to start with the premise that people's desire to stay alive is a resource to be capitalized upon is a complete moral failure and a sand foundation upon which to build any sort of meaningful, useful protocol.+10,000 Rob
I don't want to be drawn into a black and white "answer the question yes or no" argument. My point is that we're starting with a premise that's so wrong it's evil, not that there should be no personal responsibility or opportunity for negotiation anywhere on the spectrum of human desire and acquisition. Starting with a belief that it's ok to hold human life for ransom is simply wrong.
Except that people can grow their own food, build their own homes with their own hands, etc. Treat yourself for cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes? Probably not.
Well, if Americans skipped the drive through and stopped by the produce aisle instead... The most efficient and effective health care is a healthy and preventative lifestyle. Unfortunately it has very limited profit potential compared to other models.
Under the Constitution as written, rights tended to be negative, with unpleasant language like "Congress shall make no law...". In our more enlightened time, skilled jurists are able to trace through emanations, penumbrae and contextualization to create positive rights to goods and services. Think of it as a form of legal cold fusion. I would agree with you that this process requires a growing supply of Alans, and that if we reach the point of "peak Alan" there may be issues similar to those currently being dealt with by the Greeks.
I think the Ponzi scheme could limp along indefinitely since the upcoming generations are larger than the current crop of victims. It will be problematic, however, if the millennials decide to maintain their minimum participation levels regarding the economy. At least for now the can's been kicked.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 10:28am
Well, if Americans skipped the drive through and stopped by the produce aisle instead... The most efficient and effective health care is a healthy and preventative lifestyle. Unfortunately it has very limited profit potential compared to other models.Here I agree with you 100% Greg.....a lot of health care bills could be cut down just by skipping the drive through and by eating more fruits and veggies. The only problem with this is the pace of life in the US and other western countries - to have more people eating the fruits and veggies people in general would have to slow down and make eating better a priority. Some rejection of the American/Western always on/multitasking life would have to happen with people unplugging long enough to love and respect themselves enough to eat cleanly (I think cleanly is the trendy was of saying this now?). I have made that choice (for the most part, I'm not 100%) already - but as you have seen my stances on many issues are not exactly mainstream. It shouldn't suprise anyone at this point that I am very willing to unplug and put myself first and eat better. But the average person, drowning in debt and on the hamster wheel and as constant victim of turbo charged global capitalism? Not so much able to break free and love and respect themselves by taking the time to eat better. I sometimes wonder if this is by design.....Rob
... But allowing our laws to start with the premise that people's desire to stay alive is a resource to be capitalized upon is a complete moral failure and a sand foundation upon which to build any sort of meaningful, useful protocol.
Our medical-industrial system is shamefully perverted by greed. Pharma has a stranglehold on doctors with bribes and intimidation. Insurance sellers, rather than doctors, control every facet of patient care, with the bottom line all that matters. We should start over with a single-payer system and tear the old for-profit model out root and branch.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 10:37am
Our medical-industrial system is shamefully perverted by greed. Pharma has a stranglehold on doctors with bribes and intimidation. Insurance sellers, rather than doctors, control every facet of patient care, with the bottom line all that matters. We should start over with a single-payer system and tear the old for-profit model out root and branch.+10,000. I agree completely with what you have posted here, Jane. But I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just starve the beast by having more and more Americans vote with their feet and offshore their healthcare, thereby denying the US health care system all those dollars it to this day arrogantly believes it can't ever lose? That would be one way to effect some change - massive American citizen offshoring of their health care needs, even to the point of surgery rehab and nursing home care being offshored. I can see this happening very easily in the future as wage continue to stagnate/decline and costs continue to rise. Something will have to give somewhere, and it's just too easy to offshore health care these days. Really, all you need is a small amount of courage and some savings for the much lower costs elsewhere.....I can even see health care offshoring rising to the point where employers are forced to give time off to employess so they can offshore their health care issues and have a job when they return to the US. Rob
Well, if Americans skipped the drive through and stopped by the produce aisle instead... The most efficient and effective health care is a healthy and preventative lifestyle. Unfortunately it has very limited profit potential compared to other models.
I'm all in favor of a "healthy lifestyle," (but not to the extent of shaming people who miss the mark) but what is a healthy lifestyle? It's a moving target. Yesterday's prescription for good health--the lipid theory--has been (or will be) proven disastrously wrong. And every individual is different. Restorative sleep; whole, untainted food; solid relationships; regular exercise; stress management--certainly beat entanglement with the for-profit medical establishment. I like to use the people of Roseto, PA as an example of what works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect
Well, if Americans skipped the drive through and stopped by the produce aisle instead... The most efficient and effective health care is a healthy and preventative lifestyle. Unfortunately it has very limited profit potential compared to other models.
Indeed there are plenty of things that we can do to help avoid the need for medical care, but not everything is a matter of diet, exercise and all that. My sister in law would've died from breast cancer a decade ago were it not for modern medical care to name but one example.
Except that people can grow their own food, build their own homes with their own hands, etc. Treat yourself for cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes? Probably not.
It's hard to imagine us dropping down to that sort of pre-industrial level of civilization, and still expecting heart surgery.
The other day I read the statement, "Our society needs to end its love affair with money." I know 'lust of money is the root of all evil' is not exactly a new idea, but somehow stated so boldly it just hit home ... what a difference it could make if individuals, and by proxy governments and corporations, could get past this stage of infatuation with the almighty dollar. Most of us move beyond the case of nonstop sex for sex's sake as our hormones calm down - albeit after many decades for some of us. Might we not move beyond acquisition for acquisition's sake, certainly a more learned behavior than sex, might we not "grow up" as a species? Might today's young people actually lead us there, since we're not really giving them much opportunity to get in bed with capitalism in the first place?
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of diet as the biggest key to avoiding chronic western disease, but I think a bit of that "utopian" shift away from greed will have to happen first, before healthy eating is implemented as a basic tenet of our public lives. Imagine walking out your door expecting healthy affordable organic food to be available wherever you are, sort of like you anticipate there will be a public restroom. We're just not there yet. Or should I say, we're just not back there yet. 80 years ago, that's pretty much exactly what you expected when you walked out your door.
I don't want to be drawn into a black and white "answer the question yes or no" argument. My point is that we're starting with a premise that's so wrong it's evil, not that there should be no personal responsibility or opportunity for negotiation anywhere on the spectrum of human desire and acquisition. Starting with a belief that it's ok to hold human life for ransom is simply wrong.
I take a different view. If something can be produced profitably, people will produce more of it, whether it's a necessity or a luxury. Why fixate on one particular necessity and treat it as being somehow different from the rest that must be produced and rationed by some sort of special authority? Resources are finite, and we put a price on human life for all kinds of reasons. What makes one particular industry qualitatively different?
I take a different view. If something can be produced profitably, people will produce more of it, whether it's a necessity or a luxury. Why fixate on one particular necessity and treat it as being somehow different from the rest that must be produced and rationed by some sort of special authority? Resources are finite, and we put a price on human life for all kinds of reasons. What makes one particular industry qualitatively different?
sigh. I have already stated that complex industrial health care is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about starting with the premise that life itself is a negotiable business proposition.
It's hard to imagine us dropping down to that sort of pre-industrial level of civilization, and still expecting heart surgery.
I guess my point is that of all the things that keep us alive we can provide everything for ourselves if we have to, or want to, except for medical care. While there is indeed a difference between living in a modern, contractor built, home and something one has built by themselves (although there are plenty of examples of really nice hand built homes on youtube) the difference between hand built and contractor built home is miniscule compared to the difference of self medicalized cancer patient and modern medical cared for cancer patient. The average person can choose to go pre-industrial in home choice and still live. The same is not the case with a lot of medical care.
sigh. I have already stated that complex industrial health care is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about starting with the premise that life itself is a negotiable business proposition.
Of course it is. Always has. Even before the rise of sordid capitalism began to help extending it. We price it all the time for insurance, for legal liability, in product design, in military strategy, in safety regulations. If economics is about making optimal use of finite resources, then applying the tools of economics to health care strikes me as a moral act.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-15, 12:01pm
sigh. I have already stated that complex industrial health care is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about starting with the premise that life itself is a negotiable business proposition.
i think you can say it's unique in that healthcare as a market has failed so uniquely badly in the modern world in being affordable and humane to most people. Now you could say industrialized agriculture has failed as badly and be on really solid ground in terms of long term impacts etc.. but food here and now is broadly affordable (and some people still go hungry). With the ever massively increasing homeless, more and more and more tent cities under every bridge, though there might be an argument there as well. It's possible if wages and jobs had kept up with the cost of all these things (probably have with food) it would be less of a problem. I think so for housing, I'm not so sure about healthcare because:
The very market ITSELF refutes the "healthcare is not unique" argument. People do not have food or shelter insurance, they do have health insurance. There must be something unique about that market.
catherine
6-26-15, 12:28pm
We should start over with a single-payer system and tear the old for-profit model out root and branch.
+1
ETA:
So say Pharma Company X develops a new high tech drug that has taken lots of R&D, staff, clinical trials, applications to FDA etc etc to bring to the market. They only have 7 years to recoup that money. Of course they are interested in getting that money back fast and the best way to do it is to find out out what is the maximum amount of money they can charge for it. The only thing that matters is, how much can we get away with?
So if this new Product Y is available, and can increase the survival of a man with a wife and 3 children and 4 grandchildren by 4 months, but the family has to sell their house to pay for it, should Pharma Company X charge that much?
Yes, in free market economics, all's fair in love and war. But isn't there a better approach than emotional blackmail to recoup your investment? We need to revisit the patent system and we need to take out the middlemen and we need to centralize healthcare.
I'm eligible for our existing single payer system, the VA, although I don't use it. Mainly because it's hard to get an appointment and wait times are atrocious. If you guys get your way and the whole medical system goes single payer, would it be possible for some of us to not participate, or must we all suffer together?
I'm eligible for our existing single payer system, the VA, although I don't use it. Mainly because it's hard to get an appointment and wait times are atrocious. If you guys get your way and the whole medical system goes single payer, would it be possible for some of us to not participate, or must we all suffer together?
In my system, certainly. ;) The moneyed class--and others--could go fee-for-service, or buy (increasingly marginalized) private insurance. If I were going to see a doctor, I think fee-for-service or a concierge plan would be the way to go, if only to avoid having a bunch of busybodies having veto power over my care.
In my system, certainly. ;) The moneyed class--and others--could go fee-for-service, or buy (increasingly marginalized) private insurance. If I were going to see a doctor, I think fee-for-service or a concierge plan would be the way to go, if only to avoid having a bunch of busybodies having veto power over my care.
But if I like my current plan, can I keep it? No, wait, I'm not falling for that again.
You could have kept it if the insurance cabals hadn't yanked it out from under you. (And in some cases your insurance wasn't worth squat to begin with.)
It's a crime the VA is so underfunded. My father and a friend's son received excellent care from the Oregon VA system. Veterans' health should be a priority.
You could have kept it if the insurance cabals hadn't yanked it out from under you. (And in some cases your insurance wasn't worth squat to begin with.)
Really? I thought it was because the government had to approve each plan and wouldn't allow us to keep the ones that didn't cover things we didn't need.
It's a crime the VA is so underfunded. Be careful what you wish for, since more resources were allocated after last years coverage of the VA, wait times have increased. I suspect it has something to do with the nature of bureaucracies.
...
Be careful what you wish for, since more resources were allocated after last years coverage of the VA, wait times have increased. I suspect it has something to do with the nature of bureaucracies.
Maybe. Or the nature of entrenched mismanagement. Which may be one and the same. There's no excuse for that, and I'm not making one. We could do much better.
Gardenarian
6-26-15, 1:25pm
Well, I'm pleased about the decision :)
Is it really accurate to refer to what we have now as a market system? We enforce different forms of price controls, rationing, cost-shifting and endless regulation on our medical industry, and then sanctimoniously declare that "the market has failed".
I think we've got a hybrid that's the worst sort of compromise, which may be the whole problem. The medical industry is not exactly 'managed' for the benefit of the populace as much as it is 'manipulated', not for the benefit of the people it serves but for its own sake. And it's discovered that the easiest way to make obscene profit is to whisk the awareness of cost away from the consumer, to basically make no one responsible. Take any other for-profit industry and show me the same level of detachment. Our PCP recommended physical therapy for my DH's calf pain. Copay $30. I get a bill for the copay and realize that this 45 minutes of observation, massage, stretching and running on an ordinary treadmill, no specialized equipment, tests or medicines here, is billed to our ins co for $1000. Really? Really? In a "free market", would this be tolerated, or would this node of the medical industry find itself dealing with the truth, that this is not a price point anyone with half a brain and a middle class bank account would support. My take on it is, an honestly managed system that was transparent and run at true cost would benefit the populace. This nonsensical "free market" with no price tags is not that.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-15, 3:05pm
I think we've got a hybrid that's the worst sort of compromise, which may be the whole problem. The medical industry is not exactly 'managed' for the benefit of the populace as much as it is 'manipulated', not for the benefit of the people it serves but for its own sake. And it's discovered that the easiest way to make obscene profit is to whisk the awareness of cost away from the consumer, to basically make no one responsible. Take any other for-profit industry and show me the same level of detachment. Our PCP recommended physical therapy for my DH's calf pain. Copay $30. I get a bill for the copay and realize that this 45 minutes of observation, massage, stretching and running on an ordinary treadmill, no specialized equipment, tests or medicines here, is billed to our ins co for $1000. Really? Really? In a "free market", would this be tolerated, or would this node of the medical industry find itself dealing with the truth, that this is not a price point anyone with half a brain and a middle class bank account would support. My take on it is, an honestly managed system that was transparent and run at true cost would benefit the populace. This nonsensical "free market" with no price tags is not that.I'm often amazed at how much more transparent medical costs are for me in Mexico - at the hospital Almeter I have been to in Mexicali, they have a department that deals with Americans and Canadians and other foreigners and they will give you an estimate for whatever you have done and guarantee final costs for whatever procedure within 3% of the estimate unless complications arise and in my experience with them, they don't use the complications clause to extract more money.
Here is my question - since I am a cash paying customer - similar to concierge medicine on the US side of the border - is this why medical costs are so much more transparent for me in Mexico? Or is this cultural - both on the Mexican side and on the US side (a culture of non-transparency of medical costs on the US side I mean?) I have wondered about this before. One of the reasons I dearly love Mexico for health care is the fact that medical costs are indeed transparent on el otro lado and I feel much more trust due to this. Rob
Came back to ask - do cash paying customers on the US side enjoy the same transparency of costs that I enjoy in Mexico?
Teacher Terry
6-26-15, 3:47pm
Most European countries seem to think that having health care is a right! Most people want to work & will if they can find jobs. The Welfare Queen is a convenient myth. Yes some people will take advantage but that will be a very small minority. It is interesting that some people want to take from the poor but not the very rich who have often cheated, etc to get there. I guess they deserve their $.!thumbsup!.
I think we've got a hybrid that's the worst sort of compromise, which may be the whole problem. The medical industry is not exactly 'managed' for the benefit of the populace as much as it is 'manipulated', not for the benefit of the people it serves but for its own sake. And it's discovered that the easiest way to make obscene profit is to whisk the awareness of cost away from the consumer, to basically make no one responsible. Take any other for-profit industry and show me the same level of detachment. Our PCP recommended physical therapy for my DH's calf pain. Copay $30. I get a bill for the copay and realize that this 45 minutes of observation, massage, stretching and running on an ordinary treadmill, no specialized equipment, tests or medicines here, is billed to our ins co for $1000. Really? Really? In a "free market", would this be tolerated, or would this node of the medical industry find itself dealing with the truth, that this is not a price point anyone with half a brain and a middle class bank account would support. My take on it is, an honestly managed system that was transparent and run at true cost would benefit the populace. This nonsensical "free market" with no price tags is not that.
I agree. Do we want a healthcare system that serves the people, or serves the stockholders? If a group of people set out to inflate the price of purple potatoes, we'd just stay away from buying purple potatoes. But it's hard to do that with healthcare. What's our alternative? The way the system is, we can't be educated consumers because they keep us in the dark.
Here's a GREAT analogy that was in a very good article in HuffPo
A patent on a prescription drug can mean that a pharmaceutical company controls the patient's access to something that is essential to their health or even their life. In such circumstances they will pay pretty much whatever they have to, or are able to, in order to get the drug. This creates a situation analogous to negotiating payments for firefighters at the point when they show up at your burning house with your family inside. Most of us would pay whatever was necessary to get the firefighters to rescue our families and be thankful for their help.
If we actually did pay our firefighters this way, not only would we have some extremely rich firefighters, we would also get poor quality fire protection and prevention. We would expect the firefighter companies to set up stations near rich people's houses so that they would be best situated to get to a fire first. They may even take to sabotaging competitors by deliberating creating traffic jams to obstruct their path to especially lucrative fires. And needless to say, our firefighters would have very little interest in doing anything to promote fire safety, since they don't get paid for fire prevention.
Firefighting and police work is a public service, and I believe that healthcare should be regarded the same way.
I agree. Do we want a healthcare system that serves the people, or serves the stockholders? If a group of people set out to inflate the price of purple potatoes, we'd just stay away from buying purple potatoes. But it's hard to do that with healthcare. What's our alternative? The way the system is, we can't be educated consumers because they keep us in the dark.
Here's a GREAT analogy that was in a very good article in HuffPo
Firefighting and police work is a public service, and I believe that healthcare should be regarded the same way.
Well said! ++1:thankyou:
flowerseverywhere
6-26-15, 5:37pm
Most European countries seem to think that having health care is a right! Most people want to work & will if they can find jobs. The Welfare Queen is a convenient myth. Yes some people will take advantage but that will be a very small minority. It is interesting that some people want to take from the poor but not the very rich who have often cheated, etc to get there. I guess they deserve their $.!thumbsup!.
Can you back up you claim with statistis?
I know a lot of really wealthy people and they sacrificed a whole lot, worked hard, were frugal with their money, and made good investments.
i am glad the ACA was upheld. It is not perfect but someone had to do something to try to get healthcare under control.
Teacher Terry
6-26-15, 5:56pm
As my consulting business has been exploding i don't have time right now to look them up. However, after working in employment programs as a professional for years both for people on welfare & disabled people most people want to work. There are not enough jobs. Sure you have the occasional loser that does not want to but they are the exception. i have seen mothers on welfare get job training, community college or even 4 year degrees with student loans and then they can take care of their families. WElfare provided a meager existence via daycare, food stamps & a small subsidy to help these people get on their feet. Sure some rich people got there by hard work but there are many that did not.
iris lilies
6-26-15, 6:39pm
Most European countries seem to think that having health care is a right! Most people want to work & will if they can find jobs. The Welfare Queen is a convenient myth. Yes some people will take advantage but that will be a very small minority. It is interesting that some people want to take from the poor but not the very rich who have often cheated, etc to get there. I guess they deserve their $.!thumbsup!.
The Welfare Queen is too easy a trope, let's talk about the people I see every day.
what about all ofthe people who simply have refused to pay for mandated health insurance. From what I can see of the lifestyle of persons I KNOW who are not paying, they are leading a middle class life.
wht if they are working part time--should they get a full,time job? What if they own a vacation house inCabo, free and clear and worth $300,000' should,Alan continue to,support their use of health services in emergency rooms? What about the people who have more electronic devices and services than I have, yet claimtheynvantnafford ACA premiums?
I think the biggest issue is that we've got a for-profit vacuum cleaner with no governor, no conscience, and no incentive to limit itself on one side of this equation, and a socialist pay-in system with absolutely no power to adjust costs on the other side. The socialist setup which gives citizens police and fire services can be debated, some say too much some say too little, but there is no Provider ransoming their services to the general population for maximum profit.
The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that there should be no such thing as a health insurance company. Not who is going to pay the health insurance company, but why. This uneasy mix that gives us the vulnerability of socialism to greed, and melds it with the worst thing about capitalism, namely that it is greed personified, is a terrible idea. I support Obamacare only because we need some umbrella for everyone, but it's about the worst compromise I can think of.
We can point to the nickel and dime larceny of the poor and middle class while completely ignoring the grand theft committed by corporations. I understand that the former is easier to see, but I wish more attention were paid to the latter. I agree with kib that a good, comprehensive single-payer system would go far to solve the problem.
flowerseverywhere
6-26-15, 8:39pm
Terry, I agree the wefare queen is a myth and so on. It is your statement about rich people being cheats I take exception too. I just know too many very well off people who did not use others as steppingstones and are honest hard workers. That was the statement I wanted you to back up.
gimmethesimplelife
6-27-15, 11:36am
Well that's not much of a sales pitch for the ACA. No wonder anyone who has half decent employer provided health care would fear losing it if what's left is "a healthcare system good enough to deal with an immediate emergency, otherwise leave the country".
Will people lose employer provided plans due to ACA now or later? I don't know, the "cadillac" plans (really good plans) yes and if the adjustment for what is "cadillac" isn't adjusted for health care inflation this will be many more plans. But also the employer mandate has been ... indefinitely detained :laff: But seriously, it kind of has been indefinitely tabled, hasn't it?
Oh I'm sometimes actually infinitely philosophical about the whole mess and uncertainty I view as the future of U.S. healthcare (healthcare stocks are up not just on this news but also because health insurance companies are thinking of consolidating more! this can't be good for uh affordability of care so to speak). Maybe the main thing is not to get sick, and if one does get sick, well maybe we all have a natural lifespan anyway, and it's just one's time to go. But truthfully I would get what care I could if I was sick, now that's with an employer provided plan that isn't terrible.APN - your first sentence? This is the reality of US Health Care for many. Not a day ever goes by when I don't realize I'm so so so lucky to live close to the Mexican border for health care - as I understand the reality that although I support the ACA - it's better than the nothing that was in effect for the masses before - there is nothing in the ACA that I am aware of to control escalating costs. Given that I am the cold blooded realist I am about such issues, of course I support offshoring of health care - overall, as costs become prohibitive, completely prohibitive for what it left of the middle class, there really is no other option on the table at the moment other than offshoring health care. Not a pleasant reality perhaps but so is life in America today.
I look at this as positive. There is not a day that goes by that I don't look in the mirror and smile as my nice teeth - courtesy of Mexico. I'd never have nice teeth at US prices, such is beyond my social class unless I flee the United States for dental work. And the experiences I have had during these mini fleevacations have been great - just think as more people offshore health and dental, with lower costs elsewhere overall, some people will get to take vacations and have experiences that they would not have had if they stayed in the US for care (and positive experiences let me add). Health care is so overpriced in the US now that down the road I can see major legal workplace issues with employees demanding leave with their jobs waiting for them when they return as they are forced to offshore various medical issues. Truly I can see major lawsuits protecting the rights of the masses to flee the country for healthcare and have their job waiting for them when they return. Things are just that out of control now. I'm just glad I saw through all of this years ago - it must be rough to be middle class and to be awakening to these realities. Rob
Teacher Terry
6-28-15, 6:29pm
IL-I don't know any middle class people now without health insurance. It's interesting that you know so many.
iris lilies
6-28-15, 6:51pm
IL-I don't know any middle class people now without health insurance. It's interesting that you know so many.
And to add to examples:
After I wrote that post,there was a case posted on MMM about someone who had some pretty significant resources I'm thinking $450,000 ish in net worth, who has been unemployed since January 2015. He lost employer insurance then. He was fairly young I believe. His wife, a Thai woman, Has come down with a virulent form of cancer.
he said they didn't have health insurance for reasons of arrogance and stupidity.
His request for advice was posted on Reddit.
luckily for him, after "arrogantly" ignoring the gubmnt mandate, the good old u.s. Taxpayer will be helping him out in his quick qualification for an ACA policy. Too bad he couldn't have paid into the pool when he would be considered a giver, not a taker. i guess he doesn't wish to help others, just himself.
It's not much of a mandate if people are just going to ignore it.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-15, 7:00pm
Oh I suspect the penalty will be raised, that mandate is going to come back and bite. Penalties will be raised and yet the insurance product offered will get ever worse probably.
As for whether middle class people are going without health insurance, it's such a hard question to answer as it's so hard to define middle class, because first of all many people who seem middle class are actually quite poor (in terms of income and I mean really so - they earn near minimum wage) and so no they probably don't have health insurance. Then there are only so many actually middle class people, it's very limited. And then there are upper middle class people. But if employers cover less and less (what happened to the employer mandate?) more middle class people will be without health insurance. I do know middle class people who by NO MEANS could afford to cover a spouse on their work provided insurance, spouse has to get their own insurance even if it's taking a job they are otherwise way overqualified for for it.
IL-I don't know any middle class people now without health insurance. It's interesting that you know so many.
We have actually come across multiple people who are toward the lower end of what's left of the middle class that do not have health insurance. I'm working with an organization that helps provide quality housing for folks that might not have much of a chance of getting it otherwise because their income is just a little too low. I'm talking about entry to middle management job holders, manufacturing job holders, etc. The question of health insurance comes up as part of the screening process and its difficult for them to qualify without it, even through our non-profit organization. Its not overstating it to say these folks have been marginalized.
Teacher Terry
6-30-15, 12:06pm
If people are making minimum wage they qualify for Medicaid in most states. If they make a little ore they qualify for the subsidies.
ApatheticNoMore
6-30-15, 1:41pm
If people are making minimum wage they qualify for Medicaid in most states. If they make a little ore they qualify for the subsidies
most, just a little more than a bare majority. 22 states have not expanded Medicaid. That's a lot of people that aren't covered by anything, too poor for exchange subsidies and no Medicaid. The fact that everyone now thinks everyone has access to affordable coverage must be almost as much of an insult to all those people as the not having access. (the quality of the coverage when people have it, is it's own issue).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.