|
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 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Thank god. I was quite shocked by the utter awfulness of the policy as I understood it. Glad to see it was me being wrong, and not a complete ripoff policy.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:35 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thank god. I was quite shocked by the utter awfulness of the policy as I understood it. Glad to see it was me being wrong, and not a complete ripoff policy.
Oddly enough I agree with him in principle that the average person should be able to budget prescriptions, checkups and so forth into their day to day expenses without needing to bake them into an insurance cost so that they can be "free". It's just when there are policies which do that and he is choosing to make a more expensive penalty to be uninsured over getting one of the policies that he loses me.
|
The main issue with prescription and checkups is they cost a lot and there is no way for me to “shop around” for lower costs. I could, but if my doctor sends my blood work off to the lab and they dump a $350 lab bill on my lap four months later, there is no way to plan for that.
Seriously, I got a lab bill from a year check up a year ago because my insurance refused to cover all of it. After 5 phone calls, I yelled at them and told them they need to bill within 90 days of the service or I’m reporting them to the attorney general. Until they overhaul the system, no normal person can be expected to deal with this non-sense.
|
On February 23 2016 06:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:35 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thank god. I was quite shocked by the utter awfulness of the policy as I understood it. Glad to see it was me being wrong, and not a complete ripoff policy.
Wish so many people didn't get confronted with the information you were and just dig their heels in and refuse to accept reality. Kudos to you.
|
On February 23 2016 06:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:41 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:35 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thank god. I was quite shocked by the utter awfulness of the policy as I understood it. Glad to see it was me being wrong, and not a complete ripoff policy. Oddly enough I agree with him in principle that the average person should be able to budget prescriptions, checkups and so forth into their day to day expenses without needing to bake them into an insurance cost so that they can be "free". It's just when there are policies which do that and he is choosing to make a more expensive penalty to be uninsured over getting one of the policies that he loses me.
Me too. I was just shocked because I thought it wasn't covering most of the common emergency treatments either.
And seen in that light, it doesn’t make sense to buy insurance at all. Either way, buying a plan that is cheaper than the fine is always a sound proposition.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:46 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:41 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 06:35 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 06:32 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Thank god. I was quite shocked by the utter awfulness of the policy as I understood it. Glad to see it was me being wrong, and not a complete ripoff policy. Oddly enough I agree with him in principle that the average person should be able to budget prescriptions, checkups and so forth into their day to day expenses without needing to bake them into an insurance cost so that they can be "free". It's just when there are policies which do that and he is choosing to make a more expensive penalty to be uninsured over getting one of the policies that he loses me. Me too. I was just shocked because I thought it wasn't covering most of the common emergency treatments either.
Sorry I said you didn't know what deductible meant. I assumed you were doing 5k deductible = they pay 5k and not the (0.2*50)-5k = they pay 5k.
|
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
Under-Represented political demographic not age demographic. There are very, very few self-employed conservatives from non-urban America on this forum. Its not exactly where you find the farmers and truck drivers of the world.
Well the question of who the moochers are has definitely been answered. Not particularly surprising of course.
Oh well, I guess we are going to talk about this. I was merely trying to show that this thread for the most part contains a very narrow demographic and that is why you guys can't understand why anybody would vote for a moron like Trump. It's not actually a health insurance thread.
The kind of things that people listed just demonstrate how you completely miss the point. When you fall off a snow machine and break an arm, your stupidity costs you 2-3k. Yes, I just pay things like this out of pocket, it has happened twice in my life.
Health Insurance is not some sort of mystical protection that keeps you safe. I am well aware that for many people, it lets them sleep at night and without it they would go into some panic attack about all the bad things that could happen to them that they could maybe not afford. Personally I think this is kind of strange.
I have never been covered by health insurance of any sort at any point in my entire life. Gasp! Technically, I could have been for two years when I was in grad school because we had extremely good benefits, but I never filled out the paperwork. (Which was kind of stupid, but guess what I never ended up needing it.)
Health insurance is nothing more or less than a calculated gamble. In a private market that is totally fine people can do whatever they want with their money. For me personally, I would not "need" assistance with healthcare unless it was a significant expense. For sake of argument lets say I could cover 20k if needed. Obviously you can incur medical expenses higher than that, although the grossly inflated cost of medical care is a whole different discussion. The odds of that happening are very, very low however for me. The whole system gets fucked when the government gets involved.
The question of whether people should receive medical care they cannot afford is obviously fairly non-trivial but shockingly it is not really clear cut to me. It is also at the crux of the whole issue.
This whole thread is quite clearly full of people who do not "actually" pay their own healthcare costs. My parents, long after I was gone reached an age where they decided health insurance might be a good investment. Under obamacare, it was close to 40k a year for them to have insurance for the two of them and it was not actually that good. Eventually as I mentioned Assurant (State Farm) dropped the entire state of Alaska and they lost it anyways.
Again, I only sacrificed my personal case on the altar of public criticism to make a point that the group of people that predominantly make up this thread are a VERY narrow slice of the pie in some areas.
Just remember that by definition there are two types of people in health insurance or our social system in general. The people who pay more into it than they get out of it, and the people who get more out of it than they pay into it. The factors that cause you to be in either group are sometimes (rarely) out of your control, but it is still clear who the "moochers" are.
Edit: Penalty last year was $300. Its significantly more this year and much more in the area where I "should have just bought the damn insurance" that is a valid practical argument and I will almost inevitably succumb to it if nothing changes. In principle though I am quite opposed to it.
|
United States42009 Posts
You are a person paying $1000 in penalties in order to save yourself $840 in insurance costs so that if a disaster does happen you bankrupt yourself and leave the hospital unpaid and society picking up the check.
I am in no way confused why someone like you would support Trump. It makes perfect sense. Your support for Trump entirely conforms with everything else I know about you.
|
Being in my 30's, having had a very rare form of cancer in my 20s, and having utilized and navigated several different types of insurance vehicles such as HRA, PPO, and CDHP + HSA, I think I am in a fairly unique position to say this:
Get coverage. Take my word for it -- your future can change in an instant with or without you, and if you think you're doing yourself any favors by taking a chance on health coverage, you are wrong.
@Deathstar - if I'm reading correctly you appear to be saying that people with pre-existing conditions should be denied coverage, which is despicable.
|
@Atreides - When I was a nooblet starting work, I had the unfortunate accident of catching ice while snowboarding and dislocating my shoulder. The subsequent ER visit had a cost of $12k. Without insurance (which I was fortunate enough to have via my workplace), I would have gone bankrupt. At 23 years of age, bankrupt by a dislocated shoulder, fresh out of high school.
Maybe as a 23 year old nooblet, I shouldn't go do stuff like snowboarding. Or driving. Or biking. Or anything that could possibly dislocate my shoulder.
|
On February 23 2016 04:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him. I can't help but notice you have chickened away from the Clinton vs Trump bet I suggested. Color me unsurprised :-)
I'm not ducking anything. I gave my reason for making the bet at this point already. Your asking second and third times isn't going to change my answer.
|
On February 23 2016 07:01 KwarK wrote:
You are a person paying $1000 in penalties in order to save yourself $840 in insurance costs so that if a disaster does happen you bankrupt yourself and leave the hospital unpaid and society picking up the check.
Isn't that how single-payer works? He's closer to feeling the Bern.
|
Federal prosecutors asked an attorney for victims of the San Bernardino terrorist attack to aid their case two days before they asked a judge to order Apple to unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters, spurring a massive privacy battle, the Guardian has learned.
Stephen Larson, the lawyer for the victims, told the Guardian the office of the US attorney for the central district of California contacted him on 14 February with a request to file a brief asking Apple to aid in unlocking the phone.
On 16 February, the federal attorney, Eileen Decker, requested a federal magistrate, judge Sheri Pym, issue a warrant for the unlocked iPhone 5C. Pym provided it that day.
The involvement of representatives for the victims of the December assault shows the amount of preparation US authorities devoted to what all sides see as a landmark case on the boundaries between digital privacy and national security. Informal attempts to get Apple to unlock the phone for the FBI and San Bernardino County broke down before the warrant was issued.
Source
|
United States42009 Posts
If I had to I could handle healthcare expenses maybe up to six figures in semi liquid assets and could probably borrow substantially more but it makes far, far more sense to pay a small amount to insure against a doomsday situation like that while my cost of insurance is low (young, good shape etc). Atreides admits that if a doomsday scenario happened he wouldn't be able to pay and would get the healthcare while shifting the cost to society and yet for some reason still thinks it's better to pay a $1000 penalty than to pay less than $1000 to place a hard cap on his costs in that scenario. It's pure economic illiteracy. He's literally paying so that he can be uninsured and mooch off the rest of society if something suddenly puts costs beyond his ability to pay. And as a bonus he gets to be bankrupt too.
I can manage a budget better than most, I have money, I'm in great health, I still have the insurance.
|
On February 23 2016 04:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt:
"Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive orders and is a tyrant"
"He's a weak leader"
Two things. First, I haven't really criticized Obama for his use of executive orders. As long as he's acting within his constitutional authority, I don't have a problem with it. That said, he has clearly overstepped his bounds at times and gotten slapped for it (like with immigration). Second, "leadership" doesn't mean going it alone. It necessarily getting other people to follow you. This is what Obama has not done and is the object of my criticism.
|
On February 23 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this. It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength. This thread is jam packed with the intellectually dishonest. You run to that excuse every time someone tries to apply reality to your political opinions. But yet you claim anyone who agrees with you is intellectually honest. Its almost like you can't deal with the banter.
It's not an excuse. Believe me, there's a very clear hierarchy in this thread when it comes to intellectual consistency and honesty. There are liberal (some very liberal) posters in this thread who are intellectually honest. Frankly, they're the reason why I'm here.
|
I am quite certain I do not qualify for any <1k yearly traditional insurances. Close though. Last time I looked into it was ~116/month or something.
My specific case is really besides the point anyways, there is no way that we should be forcing people to have insurance just to hold up the system in its current state. People always use the catastrophic cases as examples. I'm fine with those, I'm fine with doing my part to pay for those. I'm not fine with holding up a system where every time someone sneezes they go spend 200$ because it's not actually their money they are spending. Kwark is the one who used the term moocher and at most his accusation is that I'm a "low percentage chance future moocher". I am much more concerned with the current everyday moochers.
Anyways. I'm about to head back to my little hole with no internet besides my phone where I cant be bothered to post on forums. Excuse my one day interruption.
|
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
|
On February 23 2016 07:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt:
"Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive orders and is a tyrant"
"He's a weak leader" Two things. First, I haven't really criticized Obama for his use of executive orders. As long as he's acting within his constitutional authority, I don't have a problem with it. That said, he has clearly overstepped his bounds at times and gotten slapped for it (like with immigration). Second, "leadership" doesn't mean going it alone. It necessarily getting other people to follow you. This is what Obama has not done and is the object of my criticism.
Fair enough, my argument was pretty shitty upon 10 seconds looking at it.
Like others have said, your definition of leadership gives Obama a shitty score, kind of like how BMI would say a world-class Olympic weightlifter is obese (he's just swole). Obama has tried to meet the Republicans halfway, but they've more often than not just burnt the bridge in an attempt to kill his administration. He's had plenty of meetings with leaders of Congress from both parties, both separately and apart.
I forget, but what was your opinion about the Republicans declaring Obama shouldn't be allowed to even nominate someone for the Supreme Court? And what about them snubbing the guy he sent to talk about the budget (I forget the precise naming, but hopefully you know what incident I'm referring to).
|
On February 23 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:
The main issue with prescription and checkups is they cost a lot and there is no way for me to “shop around” for lower costs. I could, but if my doctor sends my blood work off to the lab and they dump a $350 lab bill on my lap four months later, there is no way to plan for that.
Seriously, I got a lab bill from a year check up a year ago because my insurance refused to cover all of it. After 5 phone calls, I yelled at them and told them they need to bill within 90 days of the service or I’m reporting them to the attorney general. Until they overhaul the system, no normal person can be expected to deal with this non-sense.
One of the unfortunate things about our system is you really have to be your own advocate. You ALWAYS have to ask "is this specific test being performed at this specific lab covered by my insurance" and the like. There are a lot of patient advocacy and protection regulations that would do regular people a lot of good.
If you do your research, you can oftentimes find a lower cost prescription alternative. I went to the doctor awhile ago because of an infection/ allergic reaction in my right eye and initially got prescribed something that had a $30 out of pocket. Checked my phone for a generic, got a prescription for something that cost me under a dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
