Big Lies

[Classic-Xer]

(02-15-2017, 07:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 05:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: <snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

You need to watch the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders that was on CNN. The primary issue is the affordability of healthcare and not the availability to healthcare. Who wants the government in control of making the decisions as far as their healthcare goes? A group of  clueless blues and that's about it. The debate for single payer is pretty much dead. The Obamacare fiasco/ failure pretty much has killed the idea in it's tracks. You got to give up on single payers because there are now to many deaf ears, so to speak.

OK, I did.  Cruz is offering up the same old Neo-liberal markets are always the answer to anything.  Of course Medicare for all isn't free which is why I said use the VAT tax to pay for it. Here's the inside track. Nobody will be paying health insurance premiums anymore. Yes there will be more taxes but the government has done much much better in regard to paying for actual health care than health insurance companies.  So, let me ask you; What value do health insurance companies provide in the provision of health care? All I see is a bunch of hoops to go through.  Here's an estimate of how much we're wasting on health insurance company gross revenue.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-car...tatistics/

If you look at that link above, you'll see the dollar amount of 1.668 trillion dollars.  So if we wipe out health insurance companies and have a VAT that raises that amount of revenue, then yes, even Cruz agrees that single payer will pay for everyone's stuff.  If people want more stuff, then they can buy that on the open market. There's no ban on paying out of pocket for a nose job or whatever.  And of course, no matter what, there's rationing. That's where tort reform and getting rid of anti competitive regulations on drug procurment come in. I should have the right to get my scripts filled in Canada.  You know why I can't do this?  It's because most Republicans voted in favor of keeping non competitive regulations so they can suck big Pharma's cocks.

We need this new tax and we'll need more of that tax on top of all the other taxes that we pay in order to pay for it. The government is only paying for a percentage of the population (the ones who are 65 and over and the ones who don't have squat to their name) and subsidizing heath insurance costs for those making about minimum wage. Dude, this is what you have to do for me and everyone like me who already has health insurance paid for by themselves, by their employers, by their unions and by their parents. You have to get rid of the majority of the politicians currently residing in Washington. You have to pass a bunch of laws with really nasty punishments for future corrupt politicians, You have to pass term limits and a balanced budget amendment. After that, the government would have to show us over several years that the government can function as a whole and manage OUR money properly before we would even consider it.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-15-2017, 11:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 07:42 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

I have a job, also.  But my employer like lots of them nowadays don't provide health insurance as a benefit. The idea that health insurance should be provided by employers is way long past its sell by date.

Agreed.  Companies that provide good health benefits are at a disadvantage competing against those that don't.  With multi payer schemes, where the employee, employer and the government all throwing money into the till, someone or another is going to consider themselves as being schrod.  There is more attention being paid to not being the guy getting schrod than to providing good health care.

I bet your health insurance was always pretty good just like my health insurance has always been pretty good. Me, I'd rather have private health insurance than not have it when the government programs that the blues believe will last forever begin financially collapsing because they were not intended to last/be used forever. Rough days are coming down the road and the ideological blues are still sticking with their beliefs. I assume a healthy young female who isn't interested in having children would prefer that she be able to pay less for her health insurance as well.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-15-2017, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-16-2017, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 07:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 05:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: <snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

You need to watch the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders that was on CNN. The primary issue is the affordability of healthcare and not the availability to healthcare. Who wants the government in control of making the decisions as far as their healthcare goes? A group of  clueless blues and that's about it. The debate for single payer is pretty much dead. The Obamacare fiasco/ failure pretty much has killed the idea in it's tracks. You got to give up on single payers because there are now to many deaf ears, so to speak.

OK, I did.  Cruz is offering up the same old Neo-liberal markets are always the answer to anything.  Of course Medicare for all isn't free which is why I said use the VAT tax to pay for it. Here's the inside track. Nobody will be paying health insurance premiums anymore. Yes there will be more taxes but the government has done much much better in regard to paying for actual health care than health insurance companies.  So, let me ask you; What value do health insurance companies provide in the provision of health care? All I see is a bunch of hoops to go through.  Here's an estimate of how much we're wasting on health insurance company gross revenue.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-car...tatistics/

If you look at that link above, you'll see the dollar amount of 1.668 trillion dollars.  So if we wipe out health insurance companies and have a VAT that raises that amount of revenue, then yes, even Cruz agrees that single payer will pay for everyone's stuff.  If people want more stuff, then they can buy that on the open market. There's no ban on paying out of pocket for a nose job or whatever.  And of course, no matter what, there's rationing. That's where tort reform and getting rid of anti competitive regulations on drug procurment come in. I should have the right to get my scripts filled in Canada.  You know why I can't do this?  It's because most Republicans voted in favor of keeping non competitive regulations so they can suck big Pharma's cocks.

We need this new tax and we'll need more of that tax on top of all the other taxes that we pay in order to pay for it. The government is only paying for a percentage of the population (the ones who are 65 and over and the ones who don't have squat to their name) and subsidizing heath insurance costs for those making about minimum wage. Dude, this is what you have to do for me and everyone like me who already has health insurance paid for by themselves, by their employers, by their unions and by their parents. You have to get rid of the majority of the politicians currently residing in Washington. You have to pass a bunch of laws with really nasty punishments for future corrupt politicians, You have to pass term limits and a balanced budget amendment. After that, the government would have to show us over several years that the government can function as a whole and manage OUR money properly before we would even consider it.

1. Yes, of course the overall tax rate goes up. I admit that because there's no free lunch.  Here's the tradeoff.
Everyone just gets on Medicare at age 0, not 65 like it is now. The VAT tax gets rid of the most regressive tax there is, the medicare part of the payroll tax there is now. That tax disappears on wages. That population over 65 is going to have the highest demographic growth in the future.  So, do you want Medicare to collapse when you're 65? Btw, I use Obamacare and I like it. Sorry. I just know its fatal flaw of using extremely greedy, totally worthless private insurance companies. They are far, far worse than any government entity I've ever dealt with. Just try getting them to agree to something they decided not to pay for.  And yes, I pay for my own insurance and it's only affordable because I get a subsidy.  I do not have $750.00/month just lying around.

2. There won't be any new laws for us. The Obamacare laws can just go away when we replace that with Medicare. Then we'll have 1000+ pages of stuff that can go away. There'd be a few new lines for the VAT, but we can just borrow pretty much any of our trading partners for their laws. They already have 'em. I want the VAT 'cause it fucks people over just as much as the border tax. It hits the same people. The only difference is the WTO can't bitch about it.

3. I do not understand the balanced budget thing. Here's what I'd do. I'd chuck the FED, you know abolish it. Then I'd have the treasury do what Lincoln did. We'd just replace the debt backed money we have now with debt free money. Why should the tax payers give the FED money. I don't think that's needed. After that switch, the debt just goes poof. You'd do it a bit at a time and that's how you get rid of the debt. You'd just use the inflation rate, but get the real frakking number of course to decide how to proceed.

4. There are not much unions now.  Neo-liberalism pretty much killed them off. Now if we'd get something like 50% union workers like it was when we were young then sure unions could counter the economic power of employers.

5. The real solution instead of term limits is to cut off corporate campaign financing. If you don't do that then it's "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss". Big business is who runs Washington DC right now. The only way to fix it correctly is to reduce corporate influence. Like I'm gonna tell my 2 Senators I'm not voting for them because they both whored themselves out to Big Pharma. Oklahoma needs to if possible, limit campaign donations...

6. I think to reiterate. How well did your parents like Medicare? Mine like it just fine.

[Mikebert]

Question for Classic,

You purchase your own insurance and have for years.  Until a few years ago you were in the old market, and you favor going back to that.    Suppose you or a dependent experienced kidney failure and had to get a new one (The is has happened to three people I know, so its not super uncommon).  For the rest of their lives they will have to take anti-rejection meds that I understand run like 30K annually.  

So if this happened to you, assuming your premiums were less than 30K, you would become a continuous loss to the insurance company for the rest of the time you had a policy with that company. I assume that private plans like yours have a fixed duration and you have to sign up again when the plan expires. Why would they agree to insure you?  Why would anyoneinsure you, unless they could charge more than 30 K in premiums?

Surely you must have researched this.  What would happen if this happened to you?  I honestly don't know. I have had a corporate plan for my entire working life.

[Odin]

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 07:36 PM)Odin Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Blue's are focused on issues that are viewed as insignificant to the rest of Americans right now. Odin has his, I've got mine, what's the problem? Don't you think Odin should be forced to get a job and pay higher taxes than me to pay for his? I've had to have a job and pay higher prices to keep mine. What's unfair about that type of an arrangement?

I have a job.

Your whole mindset is "I've got mine, fuck you".

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Your post here shows exactly how you have been brainwashed by Fox News to think that we left-wingers are all lazy "takers" who are not contributing to society, which is a god-damned lie.

[Marypoza]

(02-15-2017, 07:39 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 06:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 05:58 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: <snip>

There might be two extremes in health care.  One can go single payer, government funded, universal health care.  One can go pay as you go.  Obviously a healthy young male is more apt to want to pay as you go.  Any other scheme, one way or another, the healthy young male is paying into a pool of funds that others will draw more from than him.  The single payer government funded universal scheme might be fair in the sense that everyone kicks in according to some supposedly fair tax scheme.  No matter what, though, the poor abused complaining healthy young male ends up kicking in more money than he would under a pay for what you need scheme.

<snip>

Uh, I think over a lifetime, males would need more health care due to higher cancer/accident/heart disease.

With that in mind, any sex advantages go away over an average lifetime.  So sex can be excluded on that basis.

Now, I'd prefer single payer with some add ons.

1. Use the VAT tax to pay for it.  Let's just scrap Trump's border tax with a tax that basically does the same thing, but will pass WTO muster. The VAT is better than a fair tax because you can fuck with imports and it's legal. Trump's doing it the hard way.
2. Get rid of Medicaid,VA, and merge it with the single payer plan which can be just Medicare for all.
3. Attempt to cost cut by bringing up Sander's bill about getting rid of no bid drug prices. That's corporate welfare.
4. Go for no fault torts. If ya get hurt, you get a prepaid payout and an automatic investigation. Take the lawyers out.

You need to watch the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders that was on CNN. The primary issue is the affordability of healthcare and not the availability to healthcare. Who wants the government in control of making the decisions as far as their healthcare goes? A group of  clueless blues and that's about it. The debate for single payer is pretty much dead. The Obamacare fiasco/ failure pretty much has killed the idea in it's tracks. You got to give up on single payers because there are now to many deaf ears, so to speak.

OK, I did.  Cruz is offering up the same old Neo-liberal markets are always the answer to anything.  Of course Medicare for all isn't free which is why I said use the VAT tax to pay for it. Here's the inside track. Nobody will be paying health insurance premiums anymore. Yes there will be more taxes but the government has done much much better in regard to paying for actual health care than health insurance companies.  So, let me ask you; What value do health insurance companies provide in the provision of health care? All I see is a bunch of hoops to go through.  Here's an estimate of how much we're wasting on health insurance company gross revenue.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-car...tatistics/

If you look at that link above, you'll see the dollar amount of 1.668 trillion dollars.  So if we wipe out health insurance companies and have a VAT that raises that amount of revenue, then yes, even Cruz agrees that single payer will pay for everyone's stuff.  If people want more stuff, then they can buy that on the open market. There's no ban on paying out of pocket for a nose job or whatever.  And of course, no matter what, there's rationing. That's where tort reform and getting rid of anti competitive regulations on drug procurment come in. I should have the right to get my scripts filled in Canada.  You know why I can't do this?  It's because most Republicans voted in favor of keeping non competitive regulations so they can suck big Pharma's cocks.

-- don't 4get Dems like Booker the hooker

I like your proposals Rags. Edp wrt health care. I'm thinking mebbe you should run 4 office. Bernie & the Justice Dems are looking 4 some good ppl

[David Horn]

(02-16-2017, 12:44 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We need this new tax and we'll need more of that tax on top of all the other taxes that we pay in order to pay for it. The government is only paying for a percentage of the population (the ones who are 65 and over and the ones who don't have squat to their name) and subsidizing heath insurance costs for those making about minimum wage. Dude, this is what you have to do for me and everyone like me who already has health insurance paid for by themselves, by their employers, by their unions and by their parents. You have to get rid of the majority of the politicians currently residing in Washington. You have to pass a bunch of laws with really nasty punishments for future corrupt politicians, You have to pass term limits and a balanced budget amendment. After that, the government would have to show us over several years that the government can function as a whole and manage OUR money properly before we would even consider it.

Blah, blah, blah.  Let's agree to be not-stupid for a minute, and look at this from the other side.  How much should it cost to provide healthcare for all?  The US is far and away the most expensive healthcare market in the world.  Why is that?  A lot has to do with the power of the providers: doctors, heath corporations and big pharma.  A lot has to do with skimming: insurance companies and the like.  The logical conclusion to getting better and more cost efficient care is to steal with pride.  The best systems in the world are France and Italy.  The cheapest good systems are the UK and Japan.  Literally all of the advance countries do vastly better than we do on both cost and quality ... all of them.  If you wish to look even further, try India, with decent quality and extremely cheap prices.

But for god's sake, ignore the siren call of the market that simply doesn't exist and can't exist.  How can there be a market in any place smaller than a city of enough size to allow real competetion?  Sorry, but buying your health services from a remote provider is a non-starter.  Forget emergency care.  How about the much more common chronic care that involves regular trips to the doctor, and support from hosptials, clinics and laboratories?  A larger city has several, but elsewhere, not so much.  Then there is the basic issue of buying what you need, but only what you need.  Are you ready to DIY your medical research?  After all, once a provider has you inside his or her practice, upselling in a low-price market is a given.  It's already that way today, and we have gatekeepers to prevent that.

So back to my first paragraph: why reinvent the wheel when great wheels are already developed, tested and better than anything we have now?

[David Horn]

(02-16-2017, 01:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I bet your health insurance was always pretty good just like my health insurance has always been pretty good. Me, I'd rather have private health insurance than not have it when the government programs that the blues believe will last forever begin financially collapsing because they were not intended to last/be used forever. Rough days are coming down the road and the ideological blues are still sticking with their beliefs. I assume a healthy young female who isn't interested in having children would prefer that she be able to pay less for her health insurance as well.

H-m-m-m.  The most stable systems are the ones that keep cost increases in line, and provide great care.  No insurance company holds a candle to Medicare on either parameter.  And the idea that we can parse insurance to some ideal package for everyone is nuts.  Medicare comes as close as it seems reasonable to expect.  Part A covers hospitalization.  Part B covers all other covered costs.  If you want more than that, you can buy Medigap, that comes in 10 well-defined flavors and is offered by the insurance industry.  I have a G plan.  it covers everything, but has a small annual deductable" currently $166.  I could have purchased an F plan that eliminated the deductable, but costs a bit more, or one of the others that offers less.  Many companies offer one or more of these plans, but all are identical.  Shop for the best price.

NOTE:  I didn't mention Medicare Advantage (Part C) which is offered by insurance and HMO companies, or Part D, a GWB Meidcare drug plan that prohibits negotiating for drug prices.  All Part C and Part D plans are different, so you can still shop around for your best deal if that's what you prefer. Neither is as good as the two original parts.

[David Horn]

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

[David Horn]

(02-16-2017, 07:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Question for Classic,

You purchase your own insurance and have for years.  Until a few years ago you were in the old market, and you favor going back to that.    Suppose you or a dependent experienced kidney failure and had to get a new one (The is has happened to three people I know, so its not super uncommon).  For the rest of their lives they will have to take anti-rejection meds that I understand run like 30K annually.  

So if this happened to you, assuming your premiums were less than 30K, you would become a continuous loss to the insurance company for the rest of the time you had a policy with that company. I assume that private plans like yours have a fixed duration and you have to sign up again when the plan expires. Why would they agree to insure you?  Why would anyoneinsure you, unless they could charge more than 30 K in premiums?

Surely you must have researched this.  What would happen if this happened to you?  I honestly don't know. I have had a corporate plan for my entire working life.

Most policies of that type have caps that prevent excess losses by the insurer.  Caps can be rather low for plans that cost less, so a plan with a lifetime cap of $500,000 would run up against the cap just paying for the kidney.  $1,000,000 caps were common; $10,000,000 were rare.  The ACA has no cap.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

JFK Wrote:Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

The blue mind set died a little later than JFK.  The GIs were incredibly hard working, optimistic, willing to sacrifice and willing to pay taxes to achieve great things.  The above two JFK quotes might be understood as expressing the heart of the era of tax and spend liberalism, of the time when America was Great.  The GIs, or many of them, were willing to wage war against poverty, communism, drugs, pollution, racial prejudice, and gender prejudice, while flying to the moon in their spare time.  They would throw money at anything and everything.  The younger generations have no clue as to the energy and effort of the old days.  No clue.

That is lost.  Ridiculously lost.  The first step was the National Malaise.  It came out of Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, and Nixon's Southern Strategy.  The National Malaise was America realizing that it could not fight all out and win a half dozen battles at the same time.  America was no longer perceived of as an all powerful always successful force, but as failing and sick.  The GIs gave a lot, but even they eventually reached a level where they couldn't bear any more burdens, couldn't fight any more foes, couldn't help any more friends and didn't want to pay any more taxes.

The second step was the proposition that the government wasn't the all powerful force that could and should solve every large problem, but the government was percieved of as being the problem.  Tax and spend liberalism didn't die.  Reagan and company killed it.  Cut taxes.  Cut government efforts to solve problems.  All problems shall be solved by putting a stop to problem solving efforts.

Personally, I think the tax and spend era GIs were too energetic and willing to attack problems.  It couldn't be sustained.  In attempting to sustain it, they held onto power too long and became inefficient and corrupt.  Solving every problem by throwing all sorts of money at it worked well enough for a while, but couldn't be sustained, shouldn't have been sustained.  The philosophy was extended beyond reason and crashed for good reason.

But borrow and spend trickle down has also been extended way beyond reason.  The approach of shrinking the budget to prevent problem solving projects from being affordable can and has been overdone.

Somewhere in the middle...

I'm into cyclical history.  With the crisis comes a philosophy of working together and sacrificing for the common good.  With the unravelling comes a time for selfishness, when you ask not what you can do for your country, but instead ask for a tax cut.  We rode that roller coaster to an absurd high and are now wallowing in the depths.  Time to pull up.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-16-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

I've done a helluva lot more for the country than PB, Odin and Eric. I will most likely surpass you as far as overall accomplishments and contributions as far as jobs, wages and financial contributions relating to tax revenues and the continued funding of liberal programs are concerned.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-16-2017, 05:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 03:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

JFK Wrote:Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

The blue mind set died a little later than JFK.  The GIs were incredibly hard working, optimistic, willing to sacrifice and willing to pay taxes to achieve great things.  The above two JFK quotes might be understood as expressing the heart of the era of tax and spend liberalism, of the time when America was Great.  The GIs, or many of them, were willing to wage war against poverty, communism, drugs, pollution, racial prejudice, and gender prejudice, while flying to the moon in their spare time.  They would throw money at anything and everything.  The younger generations have no clue as to the energy and effort of the old days.  No clue.

That is lost.  Ridiculously lost.  The first step was the National Malaise.  It came out of Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, and Nixon's Southern Strategy.  The National Malaise was America realizing that it could not fight all out and win a half dozen battles at the same time.  America was not long perceived of as an all powerful always successful force, but as failing and sick.  The GIs gave a lot, but even they eventually reached a level where they couldn't bear any more burdens, couldn't fight any more foes, couldn't help any more friends and didn't want to pay any more taxes.

The second step was the proposition that the government wasn't the all powerful force that could and should solve every large problem, but the government was percieved of as being the problem.  Tax and spend liberalism didn't die.  Reagan and company killed it.  Cut taxes.  Cut government efforts to solve problems.  All problems shall be solved by putting a stop to problem solving efforts.

Personally, I think the tax and spend era GIs were too energetic and willing to attack problems.  It couldn't be sustained.  In attempting to sustain it, they held onto power too long and became inefficient and corrupt.  Solving every problem by throwing all sorts of money at it worked well enough for a while, but couldn't be sustained, shouldn't have been sustained.  The philosophy was extended beyond reason and crashed for good reason.

But borrow and spend trickle down has also been extended way beyond reason.  The approach of shrinking the budget to prevent problem solving projects from being affordable can and has been overdone.

Somewhere in the middle...

I'm into cyclical history.  With the crisis comes a philosophy of working together and sacrificing for the common good.  With the unravelling comes a time for selfishness, when you ask not what you can do for your country, but instead ask for a tax cut.  We rode that roller coaster to an absurd high and are now wallowing in the depths.  Time to pull up.

The first person I ever hired, as a very young techie, was a GI. He needed a few more years of work to meet his life goals. He was one of the best workers I've ever known. It was quite a sight, seeing this "well matured" dude cranking it out on Macs and Sun workstations. He had an amazing scar. The scar was across a tattoo. Shrapnel from a Kamikaze attack while he was on deck manning a deck gun. I went out to lunch with him as much as I could, drinking in his knowledge and experience.

I had an uncle who was a deck gunner during the war in the Pacific.

[Odin]

(02-17-2017, 12:14 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

I've done a helluva lot more for the country than PB, Odin and Eric. I will most likely surpass you as far as overall accomplishments and contributions as far as jobs, wages and financial contributions relating to tax revenues and the continued funding of  liberal programs  are concerned.

Such astounding arrogance and lack of humility unbecoming of a Minnesotan. no wonder you like Trump so much, you sound just like him.

[Mikebert]

(02-16-2017, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 07:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Question for Classic,

You purchase your own insurance and have for years.  Until a few years ago you were in the old market, and you favor going back to that.    Suppose you or a dependent experienced kidney failure and had to get a new one (The is has happened to three people I know, so its not super uncommon).  For the rest of their lives they will have to take anti-rejection meds that I understand run like 30K annually.  

So if this happened to you, assuming your premiums were less than 30K, you would become a continuous loss to the insurance company for the rest of the time you had a policy with that company. I assume that private plans like yours have a fixed duration and you have to sign up again when the plan expires. Why would they agree to insure you?  Why would anyoneinsure you, unless they could charge more than 30 K in premiums?

Surely you must have researched this.  What would happen if this happened to you?  I honestly don't know. I have had a corporate plan for my entire working life.

Most policies of that type have caps that prevent excess losses by the insurer.  Caps can be rather low for plans that cost less, so a plan with a lifetime cap of $500,000 would run up against the cap just paying for the kidney.  $1,000,000 caps were common; $10,000,000 were rare.  The ACA has no cap.

I am aware of the caps. Say this happened and in the first year you racked up $150K in surgical expenses and 15K for six months of anti-rejection meds (165 K total).  By the end of the year you have completely recovered from the surgery and are back to work and living your regular life.  Now comes the time to sign up for next years insurance.  Your insurance company knows you are going to result in at least 30K worth of losses for them until you reach the 1 million cutoff--and they are out another 835K.  I would think they would refuse to renew your policy, and no insurance company would take you as a customer because you are a sure loss for them.  Why wouldn't this happen to you?

I understand how employer (group) insurance works.  The policy is an employer who purchases a policy that covers a group, say 1000 people.  When something like this happens the insurer has no incentive to refuse to drop the policy, because they would be giving up $10 million in revenue to save 30K. But with an individual by refusing insurance they give up 10K of revenue to save 30K, and come out ahead. 

Based on your response, it appears this doesn't happen in your case.  Why not?  Seems to make business sense for the insurer.

[Eric the Green]

(02-17-2017, 07:58 AM)Odin Wrote:

(02-17-2017, 12:14 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

I've done a helluva lot more for the country than PB, Odin and Eric. I will most likely surpass you as far as overall accomplishments and contributions as far as jobs, wages and financial contributions relating to tax revenues and the continued funding of  liberal programs  are concerned.

Such astounding arrogance and lack of humility unbecoming of a Minnesotan. no wonder you like Trump so much, you sound just like him.

Classic Xer's answer reminds me of Drump's answer to George Stephanopolous' question to him after Drump knocked the parents of a fallen soldier for criticizing him. "What have you sacrificed?" George asked Drump. "I have built amazing structures and have had lots of success" he said. Let's see if I can find that one.....

[pbrower2a]

(02-17-2017, 12:14 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

I've done a helluva lot more for the country than PB, Odin and Eric. I will most likely surpass you as far as overall accomplishments and contributions as far as jobs, wages and financial contributions relating to tax revenues and the continued funding of  liberal programs  are concerned.

I would have done a heck of a lot more had someone diagnosed Asperger's syndrome in me when I was young, and I might have even become a conservative Republican on economic matters. I might even have become an elected public official, and I would be just the one to deal with on matters of handicaps. With Asperger's as bad as I have it I might have a family -- with adopted children. It may be a good thing that I have sired no children who might end up institutionalized for severe autism. Like attracts like, so I might have found someone with a similar tendency (Asperger's) as a wife.

But -- I recognize the value of formal education, the need for legal precedent, and for an economic order that helps people who don't have everything going for them.

I'd rather have a well-paying job that inflicts heavy taxes on me.

[David Horn]

(02-17-2017, 12:14 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 01:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I assume that that blue mindset must have died with JFK.

Since you brought it up, what have you done for your country?

I've done a helluva lot more for the country than PB, Odin and Eric. I will most likely surpass you as far as overall accomplishments and contributions as far as jobs, wages and financial contributions relating to tax revenues and the continued funding of  liberal programs  are concerned.

FWIW, I wasn't asking about money.  That's Trump talk.  I was asking about blood and sweat.  I can't claim any greatness in those areas either, but I did serve and I have lent my hand to others needing it more often than I probably should.  I've always been tickled by the conservative/liberatrian phallange that argues it isn't important, or, worse, that it destroys their dignity or work ethic.  Are you in that group?  I sincerely hope not.

[David Horn]

(02-17-2017, 01:06 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-16-2017, 07:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Question for Classic,

You purchase your own insurance and have for years.  Until a few years ago you were in the old market, and you favor going back to that.    Suppose you or a dependent experienced kidney failure and had to get a new one (The is has happened to three people I know, so its not super uncommon).  For the rest of their lives they will have to take anti-rejection meds that I understand run like 30K annually.  

So if this happened to you, assuming your premiums were less than 30K, you would become a continuous loss to the insurance company for the rest of the time you had a policy with that company. I assume that private plans like yours have a fixed duration and you have to sign up again when the plan expires. Why would they agree to insure you?  Why would anyoneinsure you, unless they could charge more than 30 K in premiums?

Surely you must have researched this.  What would happen if this happened to you?  I honestly don't know. I have had a corporate plan for my entire working life.

Most policies of that type have caps that prevent excess losses by the insurer.  Caps can be rather low for plans that cost less, so a plan with a lifetime cap of $500,000 would run up against the cap just paying for the kidney.  $1,000,000 caps were common; $10,000,000 were rare.  The ACA has no cap.

I am aware of the caps. Say this happened and in the first year you racked up $150K in surgical expenses and 15K for six months of anti-rejection meds (165 K total).  By the end of the year you have completely recovered from the surgery and are back to work and living your regular life.  Now comes the time to sign up for next years insurance.  Your insurance company knows you are going to result in at least 30K worth of losses for them until you reach the 1 million cutoff--and they are out another 835K.  I would think they would refuse to renew your policy, and no insurance company would take you as a customer because you are a sure loss for them.  Why wouldn't this happen to you?

I understand how employer (group) insurance works.  The policy is an employer who purchases a policy that covers a group, say 1000 people.  When something like this happens the insurer has no incentive to refuse to drop the policy, because they would be giving up $10 million in revenue to save 30K. But with an individual by refusing insurance they give up 10K of revenue to save 30K, and come out ahead. 

Based on your response, it appears this doesn't happen in your case.  Why not?  Seems to make business sense for the insurer.

Those are all good points, and the answer to your central question (do they get to be insured after a major illness) apparently rested with each state's insurance law and their insurance oversight board.  When I looked into it briefly, it was all over the board, with some states that should have been really strong among the worst offenders.  California is a prime example.  I don't know what Michigan's laws and enforcement were, but you might.

I live in Virginia which is extremely business friendly.  From what I've been told by friends who had OTC health insurance, you could buy the right to not be dropped, but you had to be on the same policy for a few years.  Of course, prices could rise, but how fast was controlled somwhat by the oversight board.  In all, middle-of-the-pack guarantees.  Most of those folks want that system back, but also admit they never needed to use their insurance for anything serious enough to be an issue.

Like you, i was on a corporate plan of some kind for most of my working life.  Now, I'm on Medicare.  Everything I have on this is based on some old research I did years ago and anecdotal eveidnce from some self employed friends.