|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions.
A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system.
|
On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system.
Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage.
|
Yes if the low probability event happens to you you're fucked, but it's low probability for a reason. Most Americans won't end up in ER for their working life. Whatever, we have an individual mandate anyway. So this is really a question of "How long is penalty cheaper than health insurance for you?"
Also, the notion of inserting people with pre-existing conditions like cancer into our health system is a joke. So much for insurance.
|
On February 23 2016 06:20 Deathstar wrote:
Yes if the low probability event happens to you you're fucked, but it's low probability for a reason. Most Americans won't end up in ER for their working life. Whatever, we have an individual mandate anyway. So this is really a question of "How long is penalty cheaper than health insurance for you?"
Insurance only works if low risk people also pay into it. Insurance would not function if everyone was 55+.
On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage.
No, he pays 5k and insurance pays 45k.
|
United States43181 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage.
You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again.
|
29 year old single males are "an underrepresented demographic" on a video game forum for an over 10 year old game?..... whooosh
|
On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage.
That sounds like the lowest level of car insurance that even the insurance broker tells you never to buy because it doesn’t do anything. My fiancee has some junk insurance, but it isn't that terrible.
On February 23 2016 06:22 puerk wrote:
29 year old single males are "an underrepresented demographic" on a video game forum for an over 10 year old game?..... whooosh
This post is top tier. Top tier.
|
On February 23 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:43 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 05:25 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress). Would they though? The US was not attacked by another state, it was attacked by a stateless group with a stateless ideology. That doesn't automatically mean you're at war, even if you seem to think it does. I appreciate you jumping to the conclusion that what you said was stupid because it was and it saves me time. However even if we accept that the act of being attacked by a stateless group automatically means you're at war (although with whom is unclear because again, stateless group), that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for who you designate this war with. In some kind of weird alternate reality where every hostile act (like the US bugging German politicians for example) automatically means that Germany must declare war on someone that still doesn't mean Germany should declare war on the wrong people. Couldn't they just go "you know what, let's declare peace" or better yet question this convention that whenever anyone does anything to you war must be immediately declared on someone. You can have a military solution, such as bombing training camps, without deciding to throw darts at a map of the Middle East and declare war based on the result. I'm amazed you cannot see this. Just because 9/11 merited a military reaction does not mean that war had to be declared on someone and certainly doesn't mean war had to be declared on people who had nothing to do with it. It was a choice and it was a fuckup. "Stateless" does not mean "ethereal." Al-Qaeda had physical roots in Afghanistan thanks to Taliban control of the country. I appreciate the need to show you're an enlightened person who doesn't advocate frivolous violence, but 3,000 civilians dying in one day is about as far as you can get from a wiretapping scandal between allies. If there were ever a better opportunity to abandon symbolic pacifism and accept that there are battles in the world that are worth fighting... There were also independent reasons for intervention in the places the US-led coalitions did go, which I think you understand at some level - if perhaps only in the sense that if the dart had landed on Egypt it would have qualified for a re-throw. It was predominantly a Saudi group, in manpower, in funding and in ideological roots. This report https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.htmlputs the total cost of the military adventurism at around 4-6t. That works out at about 1.3b-2b per death in 9/11. You can't really argue "if there were ever a day to spend $6,000,000,000,000 then 9/11 was certainly it". 9/11 was a bad day but it was nowhere near as devastating to America, let alone the rest of the world, as Bush's response to 9/11. And before you argue that it doesn't really work like that and you can't look at it in such clinical terms, that's exactly what his job is. Any idiot from Texas can say "someone attacked us, declare war" and then leave the details on who to declare war on to Cheney. It's the job of the leader to do things which are good ideas and will actually make things better. If 9/11 happened once a year, every year, it would have still been better to do nothing than to do what Bush did. The magnitude of the fuckup really cannot be understated.
Yes, Wahhabi oil money goes far in funding militant extremists. I'm really lost as to what you're saying here - the cost of a 13 year war goes beyond one day. You're tallying the cost of wars like blood money or something, like it's a simple matter of the price to avenge each death from 9/11, and all I can say is that was never the, or my, point.
On February 23 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:Incidentally Egypt was a stable dictatorship which had a secure peace with Israel and had Islamic extremist under control, much like Iraq.
Ba'athist Iraq supported both Abu Nidal and the PLF. And Islamic extremism, ironic as it is that I'm the one saying this from this "side" of the discussion, is not as such the only face of violence and evil in the region. I can see you enjoy accounting. I don't personally consider a country that starts wars with two of its neighbors (killing hundreds of thousands), develops and uses weapons of mass destruction, persecutes and commits genocide against people on its own territory - I don't consider mass graves containing the remains of hundreds of thousands of people to be a fair price for stability. I don't even consider it to be stability - where do you get off saying "stable dictatorship" about that regime?
|
United States43181 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. That sounds like the lowest level of car insurance that even the insurance broker tells you never to buy because it doesn’t do anything.
No, it actually does the opposite of what he says it does. If he gets that 50k cost then Atreides pays $5k, insurer pays $45k. If it's a 200k cost then he still pays $5k, insurer pays $195k.
What has happened here is the classic case of the people with no understanding of the subject still trying to make sure their voice is heard. An individual with no knowledge of the meaning of the word deductible is trying to explain to the rest of us that it means the exact opposite of what it means and therefore that an insurance policy is bad.
He just doesn't know what deductible means, although it's slightly worrying that you didn't catch that. The policy does the opposite of what he said it did.
|
On February 23 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again.
Of course I do.pretty simple math: the policy pays 20% of ER costs. So 10k. Leaving the policy holder to pay 40k.
Of this 10k, a further 5k is his deductible, so the insurance pays 5k.
|
On February 23 2016 06:09 farvacola wrote:
You heard it here first, Atreides, you have been magically inoculated against any and all maladies for the next few decades by Deathstar's proclamation. Use these next invulnerable years well!
lol. Over 70% of the population haven't been to an ER for a while. Of those that have, most are either under Medicare or Medicaid (poor or old). I don't need magic to know Atreides will probably be fine for a while.
|
On February 23 2016 06:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again. Of course I do.pretty simple math: the policy pays 20% of ER costs. So 10k. Leaving the policy holder to pay 40k. Of this 10k, a further 5k is his deductible, so the insurance pays 5k.
Kwark is right, you are doing that math wrong. They will pay 20% of all ER costs up to 5K. After that, they pay everything.
On February 23 2016 06:28 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:09 farvacola wrote:
You heard it here first, Atreides, you have been magically inoculated against any and all maladies for the next few decades by Deathstar's proclamation. Use these next invulnerable years well! lol. Over 70% of the population haven't been to an ER for a while. Of those that have, they are either under Medicare or Medicaid (poor or old). I don't need magic to know Atreides will probably be fine for a while.
As someone who has lived through the other side of this plan, its fucking terrible. "probably be fine" is the worst reason to not get insurance.
|
On February 23 2016 06:20 Deathstar wrote:
Yes if the low probability event happens to you you're fucked, but it's low probability for a reason. Most Americans won't end up in ER for their working life. Whatever, we have an individual mandate anyway. So this is really a question of "How long is penalty cheaper than health insurance for you?"
Also, the notion of inserting people with pre-existing conditions like cancer into our health system is a joke. So much for insurance.
[ ] You have understood how social security or/and insurance works.
[X] You haven't.
Insurance being unlikely to being used by most people for big stuff is the whole thing that makes insurance "affordable". Its a quesiton of either paying insurance for various stuff or betting on you to never get a serious illness. If you don't have insurance and your country won't let you die, which most won't, your also becoming a GIANT burden for society.
Btw: Illness/Sicknes is by F A R the bigger cost driver than accidents. Most/many illnesses won't require ER treatment...
It kinda hurts how clueless you are.
|
United States43181 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again. Of course I do.pretty simple math: the policy pays 20% of ER costs. So 10k. Leaving the policy holder to pay 40k. Of this 10k, a further 5k is his deductible, so the insurance pays 5k.
I misread what you wrote. Link the plan? I'm surprised by the lack of a max out of pocket.
|
On February 23 2016 06:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:
[quote]
Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again. Of course I do.pretty simple math: the policy pays 20% of ER costs. So 10k. Leaving the policy holder to pay 40k. Of this 10k, a further 5k is his deductible, so the insurance pays 5k. I misread what you wrote. Link the plan? I'm surprised by the lack of a max out of pocket.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/st/plan-details?planKey=99102300:700&productLine=ST
I did get it wrong, though. The insurance would pay 9k. They first deduct, then pay out 20%. Still completely useless.
E: ah. I got it. I read over the out-of-pocket limit. That makes it considerably less useless.
|
That's a dead link, bruh.
|
United States43181 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:29 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:21 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 06:14 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance.
Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance. The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions. A 5 night stay after being taken to the ER is like 50K in the US depending on the area. No one should ever put themselves at the whims of our completely broken system. Policy I saw on what seemed to be an ACA policy search site for Alaska covered 20% of ER costs. And a deductible of 5000. So of that 50k bill, the policy would cover 5k., leaving Atreides to foot the other 45k either way. Fucking fantastic coverage. You don't know what a deductible is friend. Look it up then try again. Of course I do.pretty simple math: the policy pays 20% of ER costs. So 10k. Leaving the policy holder to pay 40k. Of this 10k, a further 5k is his deductible, so the insurance pays 5k. I misread what you wrote. Link the plan? I'm surprised by the lack of a max out of pocket. https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/st/plan-details?planKey=99102300:700&productLine=STI did get it wrong, though. The insurance would pay 9k. They first deduct, then pay out 20%. Still completely useless. E: ah. I got it. I read over the out-of-pocket limit. That makes it considerably less useless.
I found one in seconds that has a max out of pocket of $1000, deductible of $5000 and is $70/month. He's paying more than that in the penalty to not be covered.
It was called HCC Life Short Term Medical (20/5000).
It really does come down to "buy the damn insurance".
In other news the market has made back half the ground it's lost since last Summer. If it continues to recover through the year then it'll look much better for the Democrats imo.
|
On February 23 2016 06:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:03 Deathstar wrote:
He doesn't need any damn health insurance. He's not sick and he, like the average American, won't be needing it for several decades. It's cheaper for him to pay the penalty than it is to pay for an insurance that he doesn't need. You apparently don't understand the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance once you're sick in order to get covered. You buy insurance whether you're sick or not because you accept that a low probability huge cost event may happen and won't warn you in advance. If something happens to him tomorrow that costs upwards of $200k, and this is America so any of a hundred issues will cost that, he isn't paying it. But he still wants the treatment, he just doesn't want to pay it. He won't be there in the bed going "no, don't operate, capitalism demands my life as penance for my refusal to buy insurance", he'll leave the hospital, declare bankruptcy and get on with his life while leaving a trail of unpaid bills behind him. The fact that a low probability high cost event has not yet happened doesn't discredit the idea of insurance. He's like an individual who refuses to get home insurance against a fire because he looked out the window and it was raining while simultaneously expecting to have all his stuff replaced at taxpayer's expense if there is a fire. His argument that he'd replace any one of his items if needed doesn't change the fact that he simply cannot afford to pay the maximum potential cost should all of them need replacing at once. That maximum cost will be paid by everyone else while he pleads poverty. He needs insurance. And he can afford insurance. But rather than get insurance to protect against the low probability devastating cost event he's choosing to pay a penalty instead, which still leaves him uninsured but also out the penalty.
The thing is that is still an economic calculation.
If there was health insurance that would cover 100% of your health costs... What would be reasonable for a 30 year old to pay for that?
$100 a month,
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000?
At a certain point it would be irresponsible of him to spend that much money on insurance, instead just save the money and take the risk of going bankrupt and/or not being able to afford "good" care and having problems the rest of his life.
The fact that you can attend the emergency room for 'free' (patient now, pay later only if you can). Is a problem of people 'cheating the system'.
Mandated insurance should cover only mandated medical care (emergency room care until you are 'medically stable'). Anything on top of that (preventative care, getting ongoing treatment for your chronic condition) should be either
1. up to the individual to handle
and/or
2. fully funded from the government and paid out of taxes
(ideally both... give everyone a check if they have minimal medical insurance, regardless of how much that insurance costs... they can use the extra to get better insurance or on buying ponies to enjoy their short life)
If 'we' have determined that everyone should have a minimum standard of living, then collect the taxes from 'us' to pay for it directly, instead of fining people who don't have it.
(or at the very least make that penalty money go into the coffers of the local hospitals based on how many patients they treat without insurance)
|
United States43181 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:37 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:09 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:03 Deathstar wrote:
He doesn't need any damn health insurance. He's not sick and he, like the average American, won't be needing it for several decades. It's cheaper for him to pay the penalty than it is to pay for an insurance that he doesn't need. You apparently don't understand the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance once you're sick in order to get covered. You buy insurance whether you're sick or not because you accept that a low probability huge cost event may happen and won't warn you in advance. If something happens to him tomorrow that costs upwards of $200k, and this is America so any of a hundred issues will cost that, he isn't paying it. But he still wants the treatment, he just doesn't want to pay it. He won't be there in the bed going "no, don't operate, capitalism demands my life as penance for my refusal to buy insurance", he'll leave the hospital, declare bankruptcy and get on with his life while leaving a trail of unpaid bills behind him. The fact that a low probability high cost event has not yet happened doesn't discredit the idea of insurance. He's like an individual who refuses to get home insurance against a fire because he looked out the window and it was raining while simultaneously expecting to have all his stuff replaced at taxpayer's expense if there is a fire. His argument that he'd replace any one of his items if needed doesn't change the fact that he simply cannot afford to pay the maximum potential cost should all of them need replacing at once. That maximum cost will be paid by everyone else while he pleads poverty. He needs insurance. And he can afford insurance. But rather than get insurance to protect against the low probability devastating cost event he's choosing to pay a penalty instead, which still leaves him uninsured but also out the penalty. The thing is that is still an economic calculation. If there was health insurance that would cover 100% of your health costs... What would be reasonable for a 30 year old to pay for that? $100 a month, $1,000 $10,000 $100,000? At a certain point it would be irresponsible of him to spend that much money on insurance, instead just save the money and take the risk of going bankrupt and/or not being able to afford "good" care and having problems the rest of his life. The fact that you can attend the emergency room for 'free' (patient now, pay later only if you can). Is a problem of people 'cheating the system'. Mandated insurance should cover only mandated medical care (emergency room care until you are 'medically stable'). Anything on top of that (preventative care, getting ongoing treatment for your chronic condition) should be either 1. up to the individual to handle and/or 2. fully funded from the government and paid out of taxes (ideally both... give everyone a check if they have minimal medical insurance, regardless of how much that insurance costs... they can use the extra to get better insurance or on buying ponies to enjoy their short life)
What you're describing there is a very high deductible plan which leaves you paying the regular price for routine stuff that you can budget for and only kicks in if your heart explodes and you need a new heart.
It exists, the plan I just looked up was like that, it was $840 a year which is less than the $1000 he's currently paying to be uninsured. You can meet the Obamacare requirements with high deductible emergency only insurance. The entire purpose of the penalty is to make high deductible insurance, in which you still act like you're paying your own costs day to day for checkups, drugs and so forth but are covered if lightening strikes, economically rational.
|
That style of medical cost dispersal flies in the face of the fact that the line between palliative and preventative care is not always so clear, particularly in emergency or end-of-life care situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1860
1846
579
EPT
