|
Post by v9733xa on Mar 27, 2018 17:23:26 GMT -5
So, like, she didn't quality for any subsidy at all? She fell into the group that got no financial assistance but made too much money to qualify for state-sponsored health plans? A little context. I mean, anecdotes are nice, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. The ACA was done on the context of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Yeah, okay, some people fell into a group where insurance cost a lot, and some people got a lot of help who were previously never going to be able to afford anything. It's just a fact that providing insurance coverage that at least guarantees preventative care saves money in the long run, as long as those patients take the time to get a primary care provider. It's better than the alternative, expensive emergency and walk-in care. Yeah, like I said, anecdotal so obviously take it with a grain of salt. She was in that shitty middle ground where she didn't make enough to afford it, but made too much to qualify. My beef wasn't at all with the plan itself... just the fact that it punished struggling individuals such as my sister who it cost her less to just pay the 2k each year come tax time than buy health insurance. And that is precisely what was mislabeled in the video above, this administration got rid of that penalty. Seems like a good thing to me? No it's not, it's stupid thing, because it will create a death spiral for the rest of people that are paying for the plans. Since now you aren't "forced" to buy it (you never were, just taxed), obviously less people will do so, and then also there will be less income made from the tax penalty that doesn't exist now and the premiums that won't be paid by the people who gave up. And that's all well and good for them. If we lived in an Ayn Rand paradise where everyone did everything beneficial to themselves and never hurt anybody else in the process, that'd be great. But that's called Imaginationland. Instead, we have the makings of an insurance death spiral, where the people who previously had coverage but didn't want it (and paid anyway just for the hell of it) drop out, taking money from the pot (the "pot" being the hypothetical insurance pool). And also people who were healthy and felt forced to get the plans. And those who didn't buy it but paid the penalty. So what does that mean? It means that the people now on the fence about the plan, who still paid for it even though theoretically the penalty is gone, will have their premiums increased, because the pool of the insured just got a little smaller, so the insurance companies/government (not really government since these were all private companies that just get reimbursed by government payments) will have to make up for that difference somehow. And then we have this, gloriously illustrated by Vox: See? That's bad. It's just a way to sabotage the exchange market, because plans are expensive when pre-existing conditions can't be taken into account and many preventative examinations and procedures are paid for (short term it's a lot of money up front, long term is a huge savings).
|
|
|
Post by thenuge on Mar 27, 2018 21:30:09 GMT -5
Been doing some research on this, admittedly I am not even close to being an expert on the healthcare situation - take that for whatever it is. I just enjoy discussions like these because it keeps me on top of the issues and helps me form my own opinions... even if I'm just playing devil's advocate. But here are some things I found:
The official penalty for being uninsured last year (2017) was $2,085 for a family of four OR 2.5% of that family's income, whichever is higher. Over 6 million people ended up paying this fine last year. Almost 80% of them earned less than 50k. And roughly 30% earned less than 25k. So I don't know what your definition is of poor. But less than 50k and less than 25k certainly isn't what I would call wealthy or even middle class in the US economy. Basically the poor is being taxed out the ass for a plan they can't afford. Sounds like trash to me.
"And that's all well and good for them. If we lived in an Ayn Rand paradise where everyone did everything beneficial to themselves and never hurt anybody else in the process, that'd be great. But that's called Imaginationland."
I am not sure how you think that is the case. Basic economics dictates that people act in their own interest. If someone's interest is not to spend a few thousand on healthcare each year because they are young and healthy, why should anyone make them? Or why should someone punish them for not doing so? Just because the government mandates something does not make it right. Surely you believe that. We don't force people to buy spinach even though we know it is a healthy thing to consume. But somehow we believe forcing people to buy healthcare is the right thing to do. I'm of the opinion forcing people to do anything is not the right thing to do unless they are causing someone else harm.
And sure, by overcharging the healthy you can undercharge the sick (healthy buyers keep costs down for everyone). That's obviously how the system is designed given your infographic from a news source that is basically buzzfeed. But now you have a small percentage of the population providing healthcare for everyone else. To you that may sound ideal, after all, it is basically a form of privatized socialism which seems to be a pretty popular idea this past election, but I can assure you that that small percentage won't be too happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Mar 28, 2018 17:37:32 GMT -5
You're forced to pay for all sorts of shit you don't use, or only use a portion of. Do you think Social Security should be banished? Because you're contributing more into it than you'll use, on average, because you seem like a healthy intelligent working man who will be putting money in for a long time and not using it for years. What about Medicare? You pay for that every 2 weeks too, but only if you develop Alzheimer's will you really end up using more than you put in because that's such a huge chunk of CMS spending right now and will only increase.
My point is you/we pay taxes and fees and other things that we don't all individually need or use. But we live in what's called a society with an implicit social contract that we help each other out. "...in order to form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare," etc. (i think i got that right). I don't like the military. I want about 80% of it to go away. I don't want bases in fucking Germany, Guam, and Greenland, but they're there and most people do want that nonsense so i have to pay those taxes.
What if i just said "you know what, i'm young and healthy, and i'm going to stay young and healthy, or i'll just kill myself, i shouldn't have to pay Medicare or Social Security taxes." Should i be allowed to just stop paying them? Do you feel that's government abuse in levying those taxes too?
|
|
|
Post by thenuge on Mar 29, 2018 8:18:16 GMT -5
I feel ya man. I think we are going to have a fundamental disagreement when we boil things down here. I'm all about small government in the first place - I'd probably identify myself as libertarian on most days... but small "l" not Libertarian, that political party is a joke. I obviously understand the need for government but I am similar to you in that I think our military is way too invested in everyone else. I was in the military and saw a lot of waste myself. But I still love our military. Interestingly, if you boil that concept down... our military policing and providing aid all over the world, why don't we let countries take care of themselves and their own defense, aid, etc... you can apply that same thought process to the United States and say why can't we cut back our own government and some ridiculous spending and let the people and their own communities get back to defending, looking out for themselves etc.
I find it interesting that you quoted the constitution to back your argument when I get the feeling you might say in other circles that it is a dead document and should be considered obsolete. (Not trying to be a dick here)
When Jesse Ventura (don't consider this an endorsement, even a broken clock is right twice a day) was the governor of Minnesota, there was a townhall meeting and a woman began explaining to him all of her issues as a single parent, particularly financial issues... and she wrapped it up saying "what will you as governor do for me and others in my situation". Ventura said something to the effect of "it's not the government's fault you're a single mom." I couldn't agree more. It doesn't discount that the woman needs help and I think people SHOULD help her but I don't think people should be FORCED to help her via more and more taxes. That is what family is for, if you don't have family, be part of your community - be a functioning member of society. To me that doesn't exactly equate to "pay your taxes" but actually be invested in others in your community whether it is a neighborhood, small town, or an apartment complex. It all functions from the smallest unit. If we have family members that won't even help each other out, why do we expect to put the onus on everyone else?
To answer your question, yes. Taxation is theft. I know that's meme shit but if you define theft as taking something of yours without consent or by forced consent... then yeah. Sounds a whole lot like theft to me. We live in a county of "innocent until proven guilty"... the only time that is NOT the case is when dealing with the IRS. If the IRS says you owe them money, you owe them money now and the burden of proof is entirely on you and not on them to say whether you actually owe or not.
Like I said, we just have a fundamental disagreement here.
|
|
|
Post by thenuge on Mar 29, 2018 8:26:24 GMT -5
I got completely misdirected here reading back through the thread. We were originally talking about the whole healthcare mandate/plan. You brought up how the system would work and provided the chart. I pointed out how detrimental the plan can actually be and how it winds up that the vast majority of people paying this fine are people that can't afford a plan in the first place. You didn't respond to that at all and instead just said "you're forced to pay for all sorts of shit you don't use..."
So you have zero issue with paying for shit that you don't use that is a bad, inefficient system? Shouldn't we be fighting for a better system instead of just taking what we can get? I just find it sad how the relationship of government and people has basically been flipped upside down. We have the vast majority of people with the mindset of us against the man... yet we gave the man that power over, and over, and over.
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Mar 29, 2018 17:48:10 GMT -5
Well, true, but my point was that taxes are useful to SOMEONE (hopefully), and even though it's not me for certain things, i get why it's done. I don't plan on using Medicaid but i know why it's there, and i see patients at the doctor's office in which i work who might be dead without Medicare or Medicaid. I'm paying, in a way, for these old people to stay alive, because they sure as shit are using more money from the healthcare system than i anticipate ever using - but i guess you never know.
I also don't think Medicare or Social Security are bad or inefficient. I think they're great, especially Medicare, who is a pleasure to deal with in verifying coverage or confirming payments and reimbursement. They're clear in their regulations, fair across the board, and give ample explanation in all their rules and payment decisions. Hell i think the exact opposite of you and i think Medicare should be an option for all - the so-called public option - because as a health insurer, it's awesome, and my experience working with it the last 3 years has been exceptional. I'd love it if the clowns at Aetna or Blue Cross were as efficient and professional as CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid).
So, no, the private insurance market sucks. I in fact would be happy with higher taxes (really) so everyone could have the choice for the government-sponsored option. Ha, i'm gonna bet we disagree on that. Now of course there are lots of wonky topics about the fee-for-service model versus quality payment plans and value-based care, but i've had to dive pretty deep into that working for a primary care office and running the billing department with the data CMS requests, so i won't bore you with it. But yeah, we need to cut costs AND get more people on Medicare so it's an affordable option for all.
Anyway.
Article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. So, there's some good and bad there.
Again, that's just one study, but it's showing what i was talking, spending money up front to save money in the long term. That's why you invest in infrastructure, schools, etc., even though it's expensive, because the cost to society in NOT spending that money is more than the initial investment.
In other words, yeah, i know we have buying stuff we don't want, but no one is holding a gun to your head to pay for it. The tax comes instead. Again, i'm taxed for things i hate but because so many other people benefit from them, i suck it up and pay. The taxes from the ACA pay other people's premium subsidies and other care. By paying the tax, you're literally paying for a child's healthcare. Or something. Trying to find the silver lining for you.
|
|
|
Post by thenuge on Mar 29, 2018 21:35:03 GMT -5
I will have to dig into this more later. Just burnt out between this and the gun control debate in the other thread haha "In other words, yeah, i know we have buying stuff we don't want, but no one is holding a gun to your head to pay for it. The tax comes instead." This isn't true though. Taxes are heavily enforced. If you do not pay taxes and become a tax dodger, guess who is coming for you. Someone with a gun who is going to take you away. So no, someone isn't standing there holding a gun to your head to pay taxes, but there is someone waiting with a gun to enforce unpaid taxes. We both know you don't get to choose if you want to pay taxes. And the IRS, for some reason, has decided they need to purchase guns and ammunition. Why on earth would they need to do that?
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Jun 21, 2018 17:40:36 GMT -5
This is America.
|
|
|
Post by chocollama on Jun 21, 2018 20:05:27 GMT -5
This is America. as someone who is religious, I feel like a lot of religious conservatives aren't looking at these issues with the love and compassion they profess to have, and it's been making me feel pretty sick. fuck anyone who isn't disgusted by the shit-show this is becoming.
|
|
|
Post by stringypoo on Jun 22, 2018 0:34:42 GMT -5
This is America. as someone who is religious, I feel like a lot of religious conservatives aren't looking at these issues with the love and compassion they profess to have, and it's been making me feel pretty sick. fuck anyone who isn't disgusted by the shit-show this is becoming. Although I'm not religious, what I find puzzling is how many religious parties continue to support him all in the name of good conservative Christian politics. How could people be so blind? The things he has said and done are not appropriate on any level, and yet what? Christian folk just forgive him constantly because he's human and not perfect? He's a fucking ball of slime that always slips through the cracks because he's apparently invincible. But really, what good Christian can look at him and continue to follow and support him? This is what I just cannot understand.
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Jun 22, 2018 17:23:53 GMT -5
Couldn't pass this up either. That's the First Lady, a model who doesn't walk outside with a hair out of place or an entire wardrobe correctly configured, with a $39 jacket which reads "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?" as she visited a containment center for undocumented minors. They're just trolling us at this point.
|
|
|
Post by trashgrind on Jun 29, 2018 16:55:40 GMT -5
this ones so funny, its the little shit. also this may be me but I thought Malania's "i don't care do you" jacket was directed at the big D himself
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Jul 2, 2018 17:45:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by v9733xa on Jul 13, 2018 16:58:26 GMT -5
Oh we sure as shit have to post photos from the UK protests today:
|
|
|
Post by stringypoo on Jul 13, 2018 19:07:50 GMT -5
Beautiful. "Feed him to the corgis." Is this some sort of popular meme? I just assumed after finding references to corgis on TDM recently that it was some TDM lore I missed out on.
|
|