Our New President - President Donald Trump
Page 187 of 214 [ 3415 posts ]
Go to page Previous 1 ... 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 ... 214 Next
13 Nov 2017, 11:51 am
cathylynn wrote:
the ONLY reason we don't have the more efficient single-payer is that insurance companies make huge campaign donations to lawmakers.
Most Americans get mostly free/low cost health care now.
Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare subsidies/"Cadillac" union healthcare, state/federal retiree "gold plated" health care, Fortune 100 company "gold plated" health care ....
From what I see, it's the working class people, working for Tier III+ employers that are the only ones stuggling with it.
13 Nov 2017, 12:08 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
the ONLY reason we don't have the more efficient single-payer is that insurance companies make huge campaign donations to lawmakers.
Most Americans get mostly free/low cost health care now.
Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare subsidies/"Cadillac" union healthcare, state/federal retiree "gold plated" health care, Fortune 100 company "gold plated" health care ....
From what I see, it's the working class people, working for Tier III+ employers that are the only ones stuggling with it.
What is a tier 3 salary and do you know the number or percentage of people who are T3?
13 Nov 2017, 12:34 pm
EzraS wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
the ONLY reason we don't have the more efficient single-payer is that insurance companies make huge campaign donations to lawmakers.
Most Americans get mostly free/low cost health care now.
Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare subsidies/"Cadillac" union healthcare, state/federal retiree "gold plated" health care, Fortune 100 company "gold plated" health care ....
From what I see, it's the working class people, working for Tier III+ employers that are the only ones stuggling with it.
What is a tier 3 salary and do you know the number or percentage of people who are T3?
It's not about "salary"; it's these smaller companies that can't bargain for cheaper health plans, and can't afford more expensive ones.
They face the full brunt of price increases, and they respond by providing cheaper or no plan at all.
My mom works for such a place, they offered "family health insurance" (covering children too) for a $1000/month premium, which is impossible for bus drivers who make, maybe $25,000-$30,0000 / yr to pay $12,000 /yr towards health care premiums.
I don't know how many people that is, but I think it's growing.
13 Nov 2017, 12:40 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
it WASN'T an argument against single payer. it was a call to rein in overall health care costs to not bankrupt existing programs. he goes on to say that increasing costs would lower the living standard of privately-insured citizens, too. you tend to read things in an idiosyncratic way. i'm referencing your folk-lore definition of mental illness and you thinking your definition is better than that of doctors. it's hard to reason with an unreasonable person.
13 Nov 2017, 12:48 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
It's not about "salary"; it's these smaller companies that can't bargain for cheaper health plans, and can't afford more expensive ones.
This is the classic result of leftist "progressive" policies. The left rants and raves against "big corporations" and then enacts policies that favor big corporations and drive small mom-and-pop companies out of business.
_________________
There Are Four Lights!
13 Nov 2017, 12:55 pm
Darmok wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
It's not about "salary"; it's these smaller companies that can't bargain for cheaper health plans, and can't afford more expensive ones.
This is the classic result of leftist "progressive" policies. The left rants and raves against "big corporations" and then enacts policies that favor big corporations and drive small mom-and-pop companies out of business.
how is having fewer employees, therefore needing fewer policies, thus having less financial pull on insurance companies ANYTHING to do with government positions, left or right. it's your revered free market.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia
13 Nov 2017, 5:07 pm
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
Well that's one kind of democracy, they vote with their dollars. The more dollars they have, the more votes they get.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia
13 Nov 2017, 5:15 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
When he made that speech in 2009 and he said "Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America", was he referring to Obamacare or was he referring to the system that existed at the time he was making the speech?
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
13 Nov 2017, 7:19 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
When he made that speech in 2009 and he said "Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America", was he referring to Obamacare or was he referring to the system that existed at the time he was making the speech?
He was referring to Medicare. Obamacare didn't exist yet.
13 Nov 2017, 9:51 pm
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
it WASN'T an argument against single payer. it was a call to rein in overall health care costs to not bankrupt existing programs. he goes on to say that increasing costs would lower the living standard of privately-insured citizens, too. you tend to read things in an idiosyncratic way. i'm referencing your folk-lore definition of mental illness and you thinking your definition is better than that of doctors. it's hard to reason with an unreasonable person.
Aren't doctors supposed to have a good "bedside manner"?
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,700
Location: the island of defective toy santas
13 Nov 2017, 11:39 pm
EzraS wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Really? I think people working in the low end of manufacturing, retail and service industries constitute the working class. People who have jobs that don't require a college degree or even a high school diploma in many cases. People who live paycheck to paycheck. It seems like to you, anyone who rents a half way decent apartment and drives an economy car and makes around 2k per month are the middle class. I guess, I'm not sure. But it seems like you think only the absolute indigent deserve a break and everyone else owes them. And that the government should force mandates on people, while you bemoan facism.
people working in the low end of manufacturing, retail and service rarely got benefits with their mcjobs in the first place. I have never said only the indigent deserve social services, far from it. that is the case right now [street people getting tertiary medical care without having to pay for it, while the working poor are left to suffer or suffer a lifetime of ruined finances. hang together or separately. I am for the working poor. somebody who clears, as you said, 2k/month is hardly working poor, that is LOWER MIDDLE CLASS. real working class folk lack job benefits or even regular hours. regular working class nowadays can't even describe their own roof over their own head, they more often than not must couchsurf with friends, or sleep in their cars. THAT is today's working class, not somebody with a regular gig with benefits. the "working class" people you are talking about existed in ralph kramden's day, but not for the last few decades here. indigent are those who lack even what little the real working class have. homeless AND carless are the indigent. but it seems me and thee will never agree on this or anything else.
The average rent for 600 sq ft apartment is 1000$. The average car payment for lets say a Corolla is 250$. Car insurance at least 100$ Utilities is about 150$. 200$ for gas and cheap food. Now add a mandatory 250$ healthcare premium for 10,000$ deductible insurance. 2k per month is hardly a good wage these days. It's a base salary for a common laborer working a sh***y deadend job 40 hours a week.
still way above minimum wage which is all I ever rated 'cept for the time of being a civil servant. I don't know any "laborers" who made that much above minimum wage. I never had much healthcare at work but I never had to pay $250 for it [group plan] either.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,700
Location: the island of defective toy santas
14 Nov 2017, 1:24 am
RetroGamer87 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
When he made that speech in 2009 and he said "Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America", was he referring to Obamacare or was he referring to the system that existed at the time he was making the speech?
the latter.
14 Nov 2017, 1:26 am
EzraS wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
So who's fault is this and why didn't they opt for a European style healthcare system?
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
Were they able to change employers and keep their coverage under the old system?
Forgive me for asking so many questions but I don't live in America.
President Obama went on tv and said we couldn't afford it.
He said our government run health care is a "ticking time bomb", and thus, it would be foolish to expand it.
Obama: Health Care a 'ticking time bomb'
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31366944/ns/p ... time-bomb/
that's not what he said. he said escalating health care costs, in general, are a ticking time bomb. https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smit ... yer-019106
He said: "It's a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. ", so he was speaking about gov. run health care.
He was saying the gov. can't control costs, so single-payer won't work.
it WASN'T an argument against single payer. it was a call to rein in overall health care costs to not bankrupt existing programs. he goes on to say that increasing costs would lower the living standard of privately-insured citizens, too. you tend to read things in an idiosyncratic way. i'm referencing your folk-lore definition of mental illness and you thinking your definition is better than that of doctors. it's hard to reason with an unreasonable person.
Aren't doctors supposed to have a good "bedside manner"?
there's a time and a place for everything.
14 Nov 2017, 3:01 am
auntblabby wrote:
EzraS wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Really? I think people working in the low end of manufacturing, retail and service industries constitute the working class. People who have jobs that don't require a college degree or even a high school diploma in many cases. People who live paycheck to paycheck. It seems like to you, anyone who rents a half way decent apartment and drives an economy car and makes around 2k per month are the middle class. I guess, I'm not sure. But it seems like you think only the absolute indigent deserve a break and everyone else owes them. And that the government should force mandates on people, while you bemoan facism.
people working in the low end of manufacturing, retail and service rarely got benefits with their mcjobs in the first place. I have never said only the indigent deserve social services, far from it. that is the case right now [street people getting tertiary medical care without having to pay for it, while the working poor are left to suffer or suffer a lifetime of ruined finances. hang together or separately. I am for the working poor. somebody who clears, as you said, 2k/month is hardly working poor, that is LOWER MIDDLE CLASS. real working class folk lack job benefits or even regular hours. regular working class nowadays can't even describe their own roof over their own head, they more often than not must couchsurf with friends, or sleep in their cars. THAT is today's working class, not somebody with a regular gig with benefits. the "working class" people you are talking about existed in ralph kramden's day, but not for the last few decades here. indigent are those who lack even what little the real working class have. homeless AND carless are the indigent. but it seems me and thee will never agree on this or anything else.
The average rent for 600 sq ft apartment is 1000$. The average car payment for lets say a Corolla is 250$. Car insurance at least 100$ Utilities is about 150$. 200$ for gas and cheap food. Now add a mandatory 250$ healthcare premium for 10,000$ deductible insurance. 2k per month is hardly a good wage these days. It's a base salary for a common laborer working a sh***y deadend job 40 hours a week.
still way above minimum wage which is all I ever rated 'cept for the time of being a civil servant. I don't know any "laborers" who made that much above minimum wage. I never had much healthcare at work but I never had to pay $250 for it [group plan] either.
Those making less than 24k a year but too much for a subsidy are even more screwed. And remember, thats 3,000$ a year in premiums, plus a 7,500$ to 10,000$ deductible.
So if a laborer racks up a 5,000$ in medical bills in a year, that means he pays the entire 5,000$ out of pocket, plus the exra 3000$ in premiums, bringing his total to 8,000$.
Thanks for making healthcare affordable obamacare.
Not to mention mandatory.
Page 187 of 214 [ 3415 posts ]
Go to page Previous 1 ... 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 ... 214 Next
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
| The courts will not save us from Donald Trump |
21 Mar 2024, 8:06 am |
| Donald Trump told to pay six-figure costs of firm he sued |
08 Mar 2024, 5:51 am |
| Nikki Haley walks back pledge to support Donald Trump if he' |
04 Mar 2024, 1:08 am |
