Printable View
I guess now we know why there aren't any funny republican comedians. I doubt most people find it funny to think about people dying because rich people needed a tax cut. Although now that I think about it, Reagan's press secretary thought people dying was something to make jokes about. But since they were just gay men I guess it was ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
i thought it was great.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It's nice to know that you think it would be funny if trump's wealthcare bill passes and my friend Amy's breast cancer reoccurs that she would be forced to either die or go bankrupt paying entirely out of pocket for treatment for a pre-existing condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
I bet you and paul ryan have a blast together at kegger parties.
I have to wonder if your local officials take their role of protecting public safety seriously or if they are more interested in making a social justice statement at the cost of victimizing those they took an oath to serve.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
They obviously don't realize the security threat caused by such policy and the exposure of taxpayers to the expense of dealing with repeat offenders of the criminal alien kind. To say nothing of the risk of monetary settlements for the victimization of citizens killed, injured or otherwise fallen prey to an illegal who was recently in local police presence and failure to determine status when reasonable suspicion existed or worse....ignored at the order of officials information that would lead a trained officer to learn the status through one simple query of NCIC.
By the way, that simple query is routinely made on minor traffic infractions. As part of that query....the Immigration Violator File identifies criminal aliens whom immigration authorities have deported and aliens with outstanding warrants of removal.
Local and State Law Enforcement are the eyes of ICE and force multipliers. Without them....the Mission of INS cannot be fulfilled. The Supreme Court has upheld the cooperative nature of immigration enforcement and supports the Federal Right to preempt local policy on this.
It is both financially wreckless and ethically indefensible to foster sanctuary policy. The fact is, law enforcement would have to not only turn a blind eye.....they would actually have to intentionally neglect to do their job in order to obey sanctuary policies that forbid providing information or detaining for 48 hrs on emergency commitment.
On the other hand, california experienced a 10% drop in hit and run accidents after we started allowing undocumented people to get driver's licenses. Having a whole group of people terrified of interacting with law enforcement might not be the best in terms of them doing their jobs of keeping people safe.
Ya think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Especially as this county is *right on the border*, and has historically been a major smuggling route for goods and people.
When ICE set up their checkpoints at the ferry landing on the mainland a few years ago, so they checked every single person here travelling "to the USA" from here, they caught a *lot* of people with outstanding warrants who had figured this was a good place to hide. They also irritated a lot of law-abiding citizens who were trying to go about their daily business travelling entirely within the US on state highway facilities...
my wife had breast cancer. I just plan to keep paying the health insurance premiums. or I'll pay out of pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I don't remember people dieing in the streets 8 years ago.
Several studies have shown that among people who lose their health insurance roughly 1 in 1,000 die every year d to lack of healthcare. You can do the math for what that means if 24 million people lose their insurance.
I'm glad you can afford to pay out of pocket if pre-existing condition exclusions come back. As a freelance journalist I doubt that my friend has that option.
Have you looked? Poor people dying doesn't make the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
I have friends who have had to go bankrupt because they couldn't afford their medical bills. My BIL was admitted to the hospital with extremely high blood pressure (220/120). If he didn't have Obamacare he wouldn't have been able to afford the treatment.
I'm sure there are a million stories.
On the topic of entitlements, here's an article that was posted on CNN today about First Daughter speaking up for paid family leave
I heartily endorse Ivanka Trump's argument that the real test of an entitlement program is whether it is an investment in the security and prosperity of all Americans. From my point of view, that is a far better use of resources than adding to the nest eggs of the children of the super-rich, who are already quite entitled enough.
Everyone makes choices. I never expected others to provide for me, so worked and saved to take care of myself and family. I would have much prefered to be a golf pro or porn star, but I wouldn't have been able to pay the bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
How many of that 24 million number are people that chose not to have healthcare? How many were going to die soon anyway? Nobody lives forever. How many choose to pay for cell phones, beer and weekends off instead of working and saving?
The rich have always had a quirky sense of humor--witness "dead peasant insurance." Hahaha, oh rolling on the floor with laughter. So funny.
The mass of us are just "peasants" and "useless eaters" to them.
according to this article, the top eight reasons for high blood pressure are lifestyle choices. I'm sure many of the million stories are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
So if you have high blood pressure, and you--in part--caused it, you should just die. Got it.
One, and I think arguably the most important, reason for high blood pressure is stress. And poor people have that in spades.
Some minorities are prone to HBP, possibly exacerbated by the afore-mentioned stress.
When did we sink to the point that finger-pointing and judging replaced actual health care? Not a world I'm happy to live in.
So one of my friends who went bankrupt with a heart attack actually is a golf pro, a teaching pro. Gee, if ALL the golf pros decided to get a REAL job and stop being 50-hour-a-week-working deadbeats, who the heck would be around to teach all the rich people how to play?Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
ETA, as far as your accusing my BIL of not being deserving of healthcare because he probably did it on himself, he had this emergency AFTER spending a year of his life watching his diet, adopting a running program, and losing 60 lbs. But he *is* completely stressed out about losing his home. Let's make him feel even worse and take away his ability to deal with a huge, expensive, unanticipated medical event, so that when he sells his home and get a small windfall, he can just pass that along to the hospital.
It'll be sure and castigate my friend for choosing to get breast cancer the next time I talk to her.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
I bet this guy has said the same thing plenty of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ton_state.html
Yet there he is gratefully thanking the government employees who are paid by taxpayers subsidizing his decision to live in a fire zone.
I'm troubled by this idea that those who will die without adequate access to healthcare are somehow improvident and lazy. When I had my sudden, life-threatening illness, I was working three jobs and my husband was working two jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
Yes, I did make a lifestyle choice and leave my first husband, who had threatened to kill his first ex-wife. He was mentally unstable, but he was pulling in four hundred thousand dollars a year and owned his own private plane. The bills were paid while we were there--but when we left, he wasn't going to buy health insurance for the children, even though he was court ordered to do so. Dealing with him over the years of the divorce definitely raised my blood pressure, especially when he stalked me and I had to get a protective order.
The lifestyle choice that resulted in the life-threatening illness? Uh, wrong grandparent with family history of lung disease? Father who smoked three packs of day when I was growing up, and now has emphysema, and by the way, I am expected to use my resources to care for him, as well?
I think this kind of social Calvinism will lead either to universal health care or assisted/encouraged suicide program for Americans. And my money is on the latter.
Each time the government makes major policy like the ACA, there are winners and there are losers. A lot of people considered themselves losers when the ACA went into effect because they actually lost something--a service, a good price, etc. And a LOT of people didnt even sign up for ACA health insurance even though IT WAS THE LAW!!! Why is that if the ACA is such a good thing? I don't u derstand, hmmm.
Just shows how THE LAW works as a stick, not so good.
Personally, we find that the ACA/public exchange policy we have works fine in that the premiums are half the cost of our COBRA policy. But we havent really tested the health care services it covers, so who really knows if it is adequate in that regard.
The point of the "People will die" video is to suggest that perhaps reason as well as empathy should guide public policy. I see no reason or objectivity in Senator Warren's declarations from the podium that PEOPLE WILL DIE!!! Is perfect fodder for parody.
Many illnesses run in families. If you get hit by a bus when you are young and are paralyzed from your neck down you are not going to have the resources to provide for your family. Some of you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that many people work hard and still have horribly bad things happen to them that is beyond their control. Many jobs now don't even come with health insurance. I have seen people go bankrupt even with medical insurance if they have cancer due to inability to work, large deductibles, co-pays, etc. Especially if the cancer keeps coming back. I had friends where her insurance came back 8x's and then he got cancer. Eventually they lost a paid for home because they took $ out of it to pay for medical expenses and then other expenses when too sick to work. They had health insurance. She first wqas unable to work due to being too sick. She loved to work so went back as soon as she was well. Unfortunately, her brain no longer worked right and after 2 years was fired. The doctors thought she had chemo brain but eventually after man years realized she had early onset alzheimer's. These people did everything right yet died broke. He sold everything they had before dying to pay all creditors. I eventually had to apply for Medicaid to pay for her nursing home care because her monthly pension and SS did not pay the whole bill. So this couple did everything right but it did not matter.
EVEN IF they were it hardly seems a Death Penalty worthy crime, not when so much else that is far worse goes unpunished. At best you can say such things are anti-social (not that we really need as much work as is done but it's fair enough to want widespread participation in what work is necessary) but a lot of other things are MUCH MORE anti-social (most anything that pollutes our shared environment surely is) and yet people get rich off that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
I can't say I would know what it is like to date (never even mind marry) someone earning 400k as I doubt I've ever dated anyone making 6 figures period. But he sounds like a really horrible person, so good you got away.
chose wrong parents obviously.Quote:
The lifestyle choice that resulted in the life-threatening illness? Uh, wrong grandparent with family history of lung disease? Father who smoked three packs of day when I was growing up, and now has emphysema, and by the way, I am expected to use my resources to care for him, as well?
---
as for those who want to be porn stars, noone stopped them from getting into that career if they really think it is all that, of course that is assuming they have the qualifications. :laff:
Also, frankly, it doesnt help my empathy to hear ad nauseum how one member of our group here despises the taxpayers of the U.S.A. for their lack of "human dignity" and yet sucked down a good quarter of a million $ in hospital care in recent years with no charge to him.
While I don't expect groveling thanks, I do expect simple recognition that he was taken care of. But his drumbeat of "not good enough, never good enough, despicable" leads me to think that there are a lot of people out there with unrealistic expectations of how much things cost and how much the taxpayer is willing to give. This attitude is extremely wearing.
This topic really burns me, and points out the flaws in the whole system. A system where you have a choice of wearing the golden handcuffs and get employer-based healthcare, or starting a business and being lucky enough to make the money to pay the exorbitant premiums on your own. These two choices demand a Plan C. In my mind that Plan C is one which provides an equal safety net to ALL people regardless of source of employment. The employer-based insurance system is a vestige of the end of 19th century/beginning of the Industrial Age when insurance was something brand new and it gave manufacturers a good perk for their employees. But it makes no sense now in an economy where those very jobs in manufacturing are dwindling fast, and where technology and lack of transparency in healthcare has driven costs exponentially higher.
There are flaws in the ACA, but there are also serious flaws in the foundation of the healthcare system, which poorer or unluckier people shouldn't have to pay for. We are creative and innovative people--we can come up with something better.
Yes, if you work for a company and reap their benefits, that's great, but it doesn't make you better or more deserving of a healthy life.
This is a lot of story, but I am not sure it relays the point you think you are making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Isnt the main point: your friends were ill, your friends were taken care of? The end.
For more detail, they spent their own momey on their own care services before the taxpayers kicked in to take care of them.
if we all expect to blow our money on beer, weed, fast cars and fast women OR ELSE save it up for our legacy death gift, using none of it on our own health care, then taxes will have to be raised on everybody, not just The Rich. That level of support isnt built into the current system. Teresa May looked across the pond, at us, and suggested something similar in the U.K. And she was shouted right down. Once Nanny G. gives out a big soft blanket gift, it is dastardly jard to take it back. Thats what the Republicans in Congress and finding out. There are many enemies if the ACA but everyone wants to keep their gift piece and chuck the rest.
First of all, working for a company that picks up the cost of "exorbatant premiums" is just part of negotiated compensation. Either you, the employee, eats the $10,000 annual premium per person or the company eats it, its not magic accounting. I wouldnt term that simple computation of compensation " golden handcuffs."Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
The "handcuff" part comes in for pre-existing conditions, in a work encirnment where health screening is not required to get health insurance. So yeah, people with pre existing conditions may be stuck in that corporate role for the sake of their healt insurance. That is not an enviable position. But it IS the reality of life in these United States.
I actually would like to have a serious conversation about "pre existing conditions" because I have questions, but I have learned this is not the place for that, I would be assured almost immediately of the "people will DIE!" type of rhetoric. Sigh.
Anyway, in the general, I agree with you that our health system could be changed, and possibly for the better. But because all change agents dont talk abput the effect on the bottom li e of the U.S. budget, I am skeptical that we can afford their desired changes.
I've always wondered why Republicans aren't more in favor of a non-employer-based single-payer system, because I truly believe a lot more people would start small businesses if they weren't glued to their jobs because it's the only way they can afford healthcare. Sure, a lot of people also just like the steady paycheck, but I know other people who feel tied to their jobs because of the healthcare benefits--especially if they have families.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
you are more than welcome to give them as much of your money as you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Health care is a service. You should pay for that service.
I would joyfully pay more taxes to provide basic health care for everyone. (Of course, that's a pretty hollow statement now that I pay much less in taxes than I used to--but I would have joyfully paid then, too.) We could cut the defense budget to make that happen. Haha. But seriously, if we got the (expletive deleted) insurance companies out of the mix, went back to not-for-profit health care, arm-wrestled greedy Pharma CEOs to bring drug costs down (and surely we could cut drug costs in a major way by just saying no to the mostly useless and harmful potions that make up the bulk of pharmaceuticals fouling our waterways), used expensive tests judiciously, and took a more practical and less profit-driven approach to health care, we could certainly make it happen.
(Geez--run-on sentence, much? I think that's a record.)
Before profits and greed got in the way, most people could and did pay for medical services. I'm old enough to remember those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
like colleges, it was before the government got involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
As a lapsed Republican, and a lapsed employer, I've always wondered why the heck people want employers involved in their healthcare, or their health insurance. They don't (or typically didn't) ask that the employer provide their food, shelter, transportation, energy, or most of the other essentials of modern life. (I understand historically how we ended up in this place, it just seems absurd.)Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
When I budgeted for a new employee, I budgeted a certain total amount for the position. I wasn't providing health benefits out of magic money, it was money that otherwise would have gone into salary. In fact, I issued every employee a statement of benefits with their paychecks, breaking down the dollar cost of all the "free" benefits they were receiving.
On the "people are going to die" front - bad news for y'all: everyone's going to die, sooner or later.
If you'd ever been in a back room of a focus group to find out how much families would be willing to sacrifice for 3 months of their loved ones lives (could we charge $10k a treatment? Would they take out a second mortgage? Let's do a cost analysis on the # of people who would be willing to pay $14k a treatment vs $10k), you'd know you can't just pin it all on the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
If the families wanted to pay, that is fine. But I read somewhere that the majority of healthcare cost were from the final few months. Maybe we need to accept that we can't afford to keep everyone alive for that last month or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Medical bills are the number one cause for American families to declare bankruptcy. Here's an article about this:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...to-expect.html
Here is a relevant quote:
But medical bankruptcy doesn’t just happen to the uninsured. In fact, research shows that many people who file for bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs have existing health insurance.
“It’s not just the medical bills it’s really everything around the bills that insurance won’t cover,” says Ethan Austin, co-founder of Internet-based fundraising service GiveForward. He says 78% of people that file for medical bankruptcy had insurance.
To be fair, I believe he was willing to put in a few hours at his local charity to give back. If he put in 8 hrs a week for this at $15 an hour, he would be all square after 40yrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
How many people have an emergency Fund? Wasn't there a study that said even the poor spend 40% of their money on luxury items.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
I am not familiar with that study-- can you remember when you saw that, so we can look for a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
Here's an article from 2016 about emergency funds:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/66-mi...y-savings.html
It's focused on a 3 months fund, that could cover 3 months. They talk about percentages of people who have saved that much-- but of course, if you get hit with a life threatening illness, 3 months savings is going to go fast, and you have lost wages, lost abilities, lost future income, along with the medical bills.
First, I expect that quarter of a million figure was wildly inflated on paper, but still--how the hell do medical "care" providers get off charging such exorbitant amounts? I'd love to see an accounting of actual costs, minus profit margins, kickbacks, and padding. The one time I had an operation, some forty years ago, I was charged $70 for a light used in the surgical theater. Really? But back then, I could have easily paid for the whole thing. Not any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
My father-in-law passed away last month, in his 90s. He had quite good insurance. He had terminal cancer, and was in good shape when he passed away. He decided to go out while still in possession of some dignity and intellect, and so out out strength of will simply stopped eating and drinking to precipitate the end. I talked with him quite a lot over this decision. If he had engaged in heroic treatments, he would have lived another 6-12 months likely. One of the factors, though not the main one, was when he saw how much his final months were going to cost, even with his insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
He was frugal to a fault. He had accumulated a significant estate over the years, though his only employment throughout his life was as a college professor. He left the bulk of his estate to a research institution he founded, an organization that meant a great deal to him, and when he saw that he'd burn through a huge pile of assets during his last months on Earth, he thought he'd rather preserve the capital for them, than "waste" it on himself.
My mother-in-law passed away the previous year, and her decision and actions were quite similar.
I don't know that I disagree with their actions. If you are elderly, the last months of your life can be very very expensive. Both parents were in hospice care, but the expenses are still heroic. And if the patient wishes treatment instead, I imagine the costs are even more special - the dose of the cutting-edge cancer medication that they were arranging for my father-in-law was going to be > $20k. (And it would be easy to shriek "Greed! Profits!", but I simply have no foundation to analyze the cost situation for that medication.)
With all due respect, dmc, do you know how hard it is for someone making subsistence wages to build up an emergency fund that will cover a heart attack? How do they cover that, and also save for a house? For their children't education? Let's take me for example, in 1995. I earned 28k, and I was the breadwinner, essentially. My net pay twice a month was $1008. I had $27.74 taken out for federal tax, $51.82 for SS, $12.12 for Medicare, $12.58 for NJ state income tax, and $11.34 for SDI. I also "chose" to have $172.22 deducted for my family health plan, $2.65 for LTD, 5.51 for STD, and I parted with $20.16 for my 401k. That left me with a net of 691.93, or $1383.86/mo. Out of that, I had to pay rent. I had to buy food. My husband's income was sporadic, so we couldn't count on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
First of all, as you can see, there's no way I could have found 40% of that pay to blow on stuff. And I'd really like to see the source for the statistic you quoted. Do you know how hard it is to even save a couple of hundred bucks when you're living like this? And how many couple of hundred bucks a month does it take to pay for a heart attack? 10 years worth.