- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 2/3/14 at 3:31 pm to dcrews
Posted on 2/3/14 at 3:31 pm to dcrews
quote:
The country isn't going to go under by people coming to the realization that they need to utilize portion control
Portion control is a small part of the bigger picture of consuming for the sake of consuming, and isn't the only factor affecting health.
1
Posted on 2/3/14 at 3:37 pm to moneyg
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 1:38 am
Posted on 2/3/14 at 3:50 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Indeed. While most believe "the rich" have the most to tax, the reality is far different. The $250k/yr have more gross income than "the rich" do.
It is astounding that so many Americans out there have no idea where money comes from
This is why the debt is such a liability and future threat to the middle class, rather than "the rich". Unfortunately many believe that taxing "the rich" is a viable solution. It isn't.
quote:
The quickest way to get a (fiscal) liberal to change their stripes is to have them start up and run their own business.
Indeed. I have family in hat category. It's funny how it changes your perspective on so many things. It's easy to tell posters that have had to make payroll, pay quarterly taxes--and those that haven't. For example... The posters that talk about "loopholes" and "write offs".
Posted on 2/3/14 at 3:58 pm to The Baker
quote:Ok, but higher rates are what they are complaining about. For someone with PECs their premiums (correctly underwritten by actuary) will approach the outright cost if care. Why bother?
This was the preface: What do people think we should do.
quote:you are correct. The reality is a person with PECs has very few options. If we want to cover them, it needs to come from the side that continually says they should be covered. People are quick to say they should be covered. They are NOT quick to open open their checkbooks. (Who has those anymore?)
a Person with a PEC =/= those ardently believing that people with PEC's
quote:Mostly. We seem (as a culture) to have blurred the lines between government, insurance and charity. The three have nothing in common when it comes to providing for the poor.
If you think it is impossible without individual mandate that is fair.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 4:00 pm to Zed
quote:I don't think it matters. The cost is shifted to those paying premiums.
Are the uninsured typically middle class or are they young and/or poor?
quote:Not sure how that matters either. You may not write a check for your benefits, but, it is a determining factor in your salary.
Most middle class people should have employer provided health insurance.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 4:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Portion control is a small part of the bigger picture of consuming for the sake of consuming, and isn't the only factor affecting health.
Agreed, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. As of today, anyone who isn't truly paying for the health care doesn't know what their cost is when they go to do the doctor nor do they care to know.
Eliminate people going to the ER for colds and sniffles or find a way to encourage people to pay out of pocket for minor illnesses (or not be a hypochondriac).
It's exactly because insurance acts as a coupon of sorts, that people just up and head to the doctor if they sneeze more than once.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 4:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Then you do not understand what insurance is.
This.
I can't drop my current auto insurance today, go out and total my car tomorrow, and then buy an Allstate policy the next day and tell them to buy me a new car. Doesn't work that way.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 4:41 pm to Godfather1
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 1:38 am
Posted on 2/3/14 at 5:06 pm to The Baker
Pre-existing conditions are one of the more difficult issues regarding healthcare.
Look at it from a practical standpoint, however.
Would you buy a car for $5000 knowing it was going to need $80,000 worth of repairs per year?
Answer honestly rather than sitting on your unicorn on top of Mount Pious.
Look at it from a practical standpoint, however.
Would you buy a car for $5000 knowing it was going to need $80,000 worth of repairs per year?
Answer honestly rather than sitting on your unicorn on top of Mount Pious.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 7:38 pm to Scoop
PECs are a problem but they did NOT warrant they federal government taking over our health care delivery system that is going to affect every man, woman & child, well over 300,000,000 people in the US.
Focus on those with the PECs first.
With that said, a way that we could have handled folks with PECs was to beef up the states high-risk pools.
Many states had high-risk pools in place.
Louisiana HAD a high-risk insurance pool. Notice I used the word 'had'. As of Dec 31, 2013, that insurance pool is no longer available under the so-called ACA.( I refer to it as obama-scam because thats what it is).
LINKY
I posted this link a few years ago and a less than stellar poster on TD remarked 'I can't afford that', the heck with that.
Well, if a person is in dire need of a medical procedure that could save his life, I don't think it too unreasonable for a person to dig down deeper and purchase the high-risk insurance to get that life saving procedure.
Regardless, I fear that we are going to be stuck with this sham of a law and the quality of health care is going to suffer immensely unless something substantial happens in the next few years.
But with obama as President, I think we are going to be stuck with this abortion of a law for a long time.
I have blessed with good health so far in my life, I take good care of my self and try to live a life-style that is conducive to being healthy.
Focus on those with the PECs first.
With that said, a way that we could have handled folks with PECs was to beef up the states high-risk pools.
Many states had high-risk pools in place.
Louisiana HAD a high-risk insurance pool. Notice I used the word 'had'. As of Dec 31, 2013, that insurance pool is no longer available under the so-called ACA.( I refer to it as obama-scam because thats what it is).
LINKY
I posted this link a few years ago and a less than stellar poster on TD remarked 'I can't afford that', the heck with that.
Well, if a person is in dire need of a medical procedure that could save his life, I don't think it too unreasonable for a person to dig down deeper and purchase the high-risk insurance to get that life saving procedure.
Regardless, I fear that we are going to be stuck with this sham of a law and the quality of health care is going to suffer immensely unless something substantial happens in the next few years.
But with obama as President, I think we are going to be stuck with this abortion of a law for a long time.
I have blessed with good health so far in my life, I take good care of my self and try to live a life-style that is conducive to being healthy.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 8:25 pm to Reubaltaich
I'm sorry for another analogy but this situation is just ripe for them.
Liberals love to tell other people what they should do with their money.
You own a house.
You have an extra bedroom and want to rent it out for $300 a month and the renter promises to do $1800 a month damage to your property.
You say no because it makes no sense and then a city official forces you to take the $300 in rent and eat the $1800 in damage.
You go bankrupt and lose your house.
Liberals love to tell other people what they should do with their money.
You own a house.
You have an extra bedroom and want to rent it out for $300 a month and the renter promises to do $1800 a month damage to your property.
You say no because it makes no sense and then a city official forces you to take the $300 in rent and eat the $1800 in damage.
You go bankrupt and lose your house.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 9:25 pm to Scoop
You have to let people buy something. We always hear the argument "what if you get hit by a bus and you're uninsured--then society has to pay your ER bill?" Well, what happens if you can't get insurance because you have a medical condition, and then you have a completely unrelated emergency? Same problem...the ER has to at least stabilize you before they worry about identification and billing.
You could have condition-specific deductibles and exclusions for a certain period of time. Or, since the individual mandate has no chance of going anywhere before January 2017, build that in as a penalty. Keep guaranteed issue, and if you try to buy insurance after you get sick, a 3% deductible is applied for every month over the past 3 years that you were uninsured. That penalizes people who game the system while opening insurance to everyone.
You could have condition-specific deductibles and exclusions for a certain period of time. Or, since the individual mandate has no chance of going anywhere before January 2017, build that in as a penalty. Keep guaranteed issue, and if you try to buy insurance after you get sick, a 3% deductible is applied for every month over the past 3 years that you were uninsured. That penalizes people who game the system while opening insurance to everyone.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 9:30 pm to The Baker
If we just got the government out of insurance altogether, the market would sort it out for us. It's only screwed up because people want to get more benefits than they want to pay for.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 6:17 am to The Baker
Back to your original point, the individual mandate as it is written is not a strong enough punishment to force the behavior it seeks.
The fine is comically low, IRS cant use criminal or civil means to force you to pay it, and it probably will never be implemented. So what has happened is insurance companies charge higher premiums to cover PEC's (which are on the rarer side of medium rare, anyway), the non PEC enrollees pick up the cost, and people with PECs or who make decision not to buy insurance win.
Well them and the insurance companies who now have more revenue without the yet added increased risk.
So in sum, the individual mandate is too weak to support PEC exclusion "subsidy"
The fine is comically low, IRS cant use criminal or civil means to force you to pay it, and it probably will never be implemented. So what has happened is insurance companies charge higher premiums to cover PEC's (which are on the rarer side of medium rare, anyway), the non PEC enrollees pick up the cost, and people with PECs or who make decision not to buy insurance win.
Well them and the insurance companies who now have more revenue without the yet added increased risk.
So in sum, the individual mandate is too weak to support PEC exclusion "subsidy"
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News