Trump to shine in the 2nd debate?

[Ron Burgundy]

You don't get a new car for the one you wrecked with the insurance you bought after you wrecked it. If you could do that, no one would buy insurance until they wrecked, which totally defeats the purpose of insurance. So what do you do...you force people to buy insurance. But what happens if for some people, the insurance itself is way, WAY more expensive than the penalty for not having insurance? Intelligent people wouldn't bother buying the insurance.

Only for a while. The BommaCare tax penalty for not having health insurance ratchets up every year, of course He will be out of office before it gets really expensive.

On a serious note, it is, exactly, my opinion that they should pay higher premiums if they are at-risk. Obama"care" prevents that now, but, prior to that, simple economics and risk theory/tolerances prevented it, as I described earlier. It isn't, really, denial, it is the realization that no one could either afford the policy or would buy it.

Before I got married to Mrs. Burgundy who has a real job with benefits, I paid my own insurance. Hella expensive with a massive deductible but it was what I could afford. Pre-existing conditions, meaning every health problem I had in the past ten years, was excluded from coverage for the next five years.

 

[Vis]

Only for a while. The BommaCare tax penalty for not having health insurance ratchets up every year, of course He will be out of office before it gets really expensive.



Before I got married to Mrs. Burgundy who has a real job with benefits, I paid my own insurance. Hella expensive with a massive deductible but it was what I could afford. Pre-existing conditions, meaning every health problem I had in the past ten years, was excluded from coverage for the next five years.

And if one of those had gone bad, the ER would still have to try to save you and we would all have paid for it in the most inefficient way.

 

[ark steel]

And if one of those had gone bad, the ER would still have to try to save you and we would all have paid for it in the most inefficient way.

I would suggest that bloated massive government agencies are the most inefficient way possible.

 

[Vis]

I would suggest that bloated massive government agencies are the most inefficient way possible.

And you would be wrong. Single payer would be the best way. Get rid of profiteers like that 32 year old ******* who raised the cost of that AIDS pill from $13 to $750 each. The free market doesn't work in medicine. People don't hear they have cancer and then start pricing different providers looking for a deal.

 

[ark steel]

And you would be wrong. Single payer would be the best way. Get rid of profiteers like that 32 year old ******* who raised the cost of that AIDS pill from $13 to $750 each. The free market doesn't work in medicine. People don't hear they have cancer and then start pricing different providers looking for a deal.

I'm never wrong...

 

[ark steel]

Why didn't you buy the rights to the AIDS pill and give it away?

You liberals don't think the free market works anywhere, why should I believe you?

 

[bermudasteel]

Me exercising my right to vote as an American citizen.
Me proving there are other qualified candidates besides who the rebloodlicans and democrypts trot out every 4 years.
Me not playing the reindeer games and being a mindless sheep that just follows the crowds, conforming to the lie and deception of choice.
Me being able to look myself in the mirror and go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.

Keep picking the lesser of two evils......it's still evil.
I'll more than likely vote for another candidate next year that won't win the nominations.
It happens.
I know we like to tell our kids today that everyone's a winner, and there's no losers.
But I personally won't contribute to putting a Purple Ribbon of Participation into the White House.

THAT'S what I'll accomplish.

Do I get to copyright my statement, "less of two evils"???

Hey Bermie, as you can see, Elfie the Enlightened One, has called your Uncle Ben an Uncle Tom. Would you agree with him?

Elfie is allow to have his opinion. It made me chuckle and I gave him a karma bump. As far relating my Uncle Ben to being an Uncle Tom---I'll say this:

African-Americans that "comply" with a majority, and that's the key, of laws and rules of the land have always been and always will be deemed as supporting the man. AKA - Uncle Tom. If that's how anyone interrupted his comment (I didn't) then so be it - you're free to your opinions...

You guys just have to trot out a black.guy(in this case Bermuda Steel) as if it will automatically validate your argument,...it must be in your DNA.,..lol

No one trotted me out. As it has been documented, Ben Carson, is a long-time family friend - he and my dad went to high school together as well as college and medical school---until my dad changed careers and became a pastor. I have another uncle who is already "in the WH" - Rear Admiral Barry Black; the current Chaplain for Congress. Don't be surprised, if Uncle Ben continues the race and excels, if you don't see Clifton Davis close by. The four men were all roommates in college. Only my dad won't be there - he died in 1988.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

No one trotted me out. As it has been documented, Ben Carson, is a long-time family friend - he and my dad went to high school together as well as college and medical school---until my dad changed careers and became a pastor. I have another uncle who is already "in the WH" - Rear Admiral Barry Black; the current Chaplain for Congress. Don't be surprised, if Uncle Ben continues the race and excels, if you don't see Clifton Davis close by. The four men were all roommates in college. Only my dad won't be there - he died in 1988.

Cool.
If Dr. Carson wins would that put you in line for Sports Czar? We need someone to lay the smackdown on Goodell and Belicheat.

 

[Vis]

Why didn't you buy the rights to the AIDS pill and give it away?

You liberals don't think the free market works anywhere, why should I believe you?

Believe me? You should have come to that conclusion yourself if you gave it any thought.

 

[ark steel]

Believe me? You should have come to that conclusion yourself if you gave it any thought.

LOL. if I gave it any thought. You are right, I haven't thought about it. At all.

I bet you just one or two Hollywood liberals could buy that patent from that evil 32 year old and give it away for free. Surely there are enough liberals to pool their money and do it. Why don't they, instead of bitching about him?

 

[oneforthebus]

And if one of those had gone bad, the ER would still have to try to save you and we would all have paid for it in the most inefficient way.

Except ER visits are way up since Obamacare was implemented. Oops.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/

 

[Vis]

Except ER visits are way up since Obamacare was implemented. Oops.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/

Except that wasn't my point. My point was uninsured people wait too long then go to the ER with a big health issue that would have been small if checkups were available and the ER can't turn them away just because they can't pay. That's expensive for everyone. People using the ER as their primary care facility with Medicaid or an ACA policy is a separate problem which the article says is due to a lack of primary care facilities.

 

[Vis]

LOL. if I gave it any thought. You are right, I haven't thought about it. At all.

I bet you just one or two Hollywood liberals could buy that patent from that evil 32 year old and give it away for free. Surely there are enough liberals to pool their money and do it. Why don't they, instead of bitching about him?

I'm sure you price shopped all of your doctors including getting a real deal on your mental health professional but you are the exception.

 

[oneforthebus]

Except that wasn't my point. My point was uninsured people wait too long then go to the ER with a big health issue that would have been small if checkups were available and the ER can't turn them away just because they can't pay. That's expensive for everyone. People using the ER as their primary care facility with Medicaid or an ACA policy is a separate problem which the article says is due to a lack of primary care facilities.

There are no studies which show that broad access to preventative care reduces medical costs. In fact it is generally more expensive. We can argue separately whether it's the right thing morally, but purely as a cost saving measure it doesn't work.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129

 

[ark steel]

I'm sure you price shopped all of your doctors including getting a real deal on your mental health professional but you are the exception.

Whether I did or not is irrelevant. What I DID do is make sure I could get a job that has group health insurance so that I don't have to worry about whether I can get it on the open market or about pre-existing conditions.

More importantly, what I DID do is find out how insurance actually works and why the pre-existing condition is used to exclude people from buying policies (Hint: It ain't insurance company greed) rather than blather liberal ideology.

I still want to know why there isn't a liberal group buying that patent from the evil AIDS patent guy. Surely, he would sell if made an offer and there HAS to be enough liberals around to scratch up enough dough.

 

[Vis]

Whether I did or not is irrelevant. What I DID do is make sure I could get a job that has group health insurance so that I don't have to worry about whether I can get it on the open market or about pre-existing conditions.

More importantly, what I DID do is find out how insurance actually works and why the pre-existing condition is used to exclude people from buying policies (Hint: It ain't insurance company greed) rather than blather liberal ideology.

I still want to know why there isn't a liberal group buying that patent from the evil AIDS patent guy. Surely, he would sell if made an offer and there HAS to be enough liberals around to scratch up enough dough.

 

[oneforthebus]

While I don't agree on principle with mandating people buy anything (we don't HAVE to buy car insurance, there is no fine or penalty for not having it if you don't drive a car), there is a huge difference between mandating that people have "adequate insurance" and mandating that people purchase the exact coverage the government tells them they must have, at prices set by the government, covering all sorts of expensive, unnecessary and optional services, and then subsidizing it heavily for large numbers of people.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

 

[Vis]

There are no studies which show that broad access to preventative care reduces medical costs. In fact it is generally more expensive. We can argue separately whether it's the right thing morally, but purely as a cost saving measure it doesn't work.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-preventive-economics-idUSBRE90S05M20130129

For that you get rid of the profit motive for ordering tests and the profit margin in the tests. But you don't say that it's just cheaper for some of you to die horribly to save on screening.

 

[Vis]

While I don't agree on principle with mandating people buy anything (we don't HAVE to buy car insurance, there is no fine or penalty for not having it if you don't drive a car), there is a huge difference between mandating that people have "adequate insurance" and mandating that people purchase the exact coverage the government tells them they must have, at prices set by the government, covering all sorts of expensive, unnecessary and optional services, and then subsidizing it heavily for large numbers of people.

The gov't didn't mandate what people have to have, they just set the minimums required to make the numbers work. Those minimums were negotiated in congress, the Dems wanted a single payer system. Not only is the ACA the Heritage foundations plan, it's the GOP's compromised version. It's a baby step.

 

[oneforthebus]

The gov't didn't mandate what people have to have, they just set the minimums required to make the numbers work. Those minimums were negotiated in congress, the Dems wanted a single payer system. Not only is the ACA the Heritage foundations plan, it's the GOP's compromised version. It's a baby step.

Nope...read above.

And yes, the government does mandate what people have to have. From birth control to psychiatric care to chiropractic to maternity care, the "minimum" plan covers a whole bunch of stuff I don't want or need and it's illegal for me to purchase less coverage. Meanwhile, it doesn't cover visits with several of our current doctors, even at a reduced rate, none of the plans on the exchanges do. What Republicans have always advocated is a nationwide insurance marketplace where true competition for subscribers would drive down premiums. I could find the level of coverage I want, find the insurer with my doctors in network, and choose to pay more or less based on my options. Obamacare doesn't even slightly resemble that idea. I have three choices...expensive, more expensive or really ******* expensive. The only real differences between the plans are deductibles and out of pocket costs.

 

[oneforthebus]

For that you get rid of the profit motive for ordering tests and the profit margin in the tests. But you don't say that it's just cheaper for some of you to die horribly to save on screening.

Again, the moral argument is a separate one. You said it would reduce ER visits. You said it would reduce costs. Both false.

 

[Vis]

Again, the moral argument is a separate one. You said it would reduce ER visits. You said it would reduce costs. Both false.

I didn't say it would reduce visits. I said it would reduce costs and it is. The article you posted is not about the ACA, it's about any and all "preventative care" And it's one study you post as truth without looking at the methodology and the assumptions. Studies show that mammograms have no benefit on an aggregate basis. I assume you wouldn't waste you money on them. But if you have a lump you go and even if it's something to worry about you save money by taking care of it early.. If you can't afford to go you wait until it's bad. Not you have to pull out the big expensive guns to treat it. The saving isn't about screening all the people who feel great, it's about people who don't feel great not waiting too long for the easy treatment.

 

[Vis]

Nope...read above.

And yes, the government does mandate what people have to have. From birth control to psychiatric care to chiropractic to maternity care, the "minimum" plan covers a whole bunch of stuff I don't want or need and it's illegal for me to purchase less coverage. Meanwhile, it doesn't cover visits with several of our current doctors, even at a reduced rate, none of the plans on the exchanges do. What Republicans have always advocated is a nationwide insurance marketplace where true competition for subscribers would drive down premiums. I could find the level of coverage I want, find the insurer with my doctors in network, and choose to pay more or less based on my options. Obamacare doesn't even slightly resemble that idea. I have three choices...expensive, more expensive or really ******* expensive. The only real differences between the plans are deductibles and out of pocket costs.

Do you have a plan from an exchange?

Republicans argue that your boss gets to pick the plan and deny you the coverages he wants to deny you.

 

[oneforthebus]

Do you have a plan from an exchange?

Republicans argue that your boss gets to pick the plan and deny you the coverages he wants to deny you.

I get to decide who I want to work for. My boss gets to decide what benefits he can afford to offer. If I want a job with better benefits, I am motivated to work harder and improve my skills in order to get one. If he wants better employees he is motivated to offer better pay and benefits in order to attract them. We all get to decide based on free market principles.

Or, we did, I should say.

 

[ark steel]

No idea how that is relevant. Have you bought out the evil corporatist, yet?