The distinction, of course, is that if you have a pre-existing condition... it's already there. At which point the question becomes, do you not deserve to have insurance because you were born with a genetic illness?
Because a pre-existing condition is not, "40 minutes ago I got hit by a truck; I want to buy insurance from your company to cover my bills."
A pre-existing condition is, "40 years ago, I was born with a genetic predisposition to heart disease. I already paid for your insurance, so why aren't you covering my heart disease medication?"
How can it even be up for debate in a civilized society (supposedly civilized) whether or these people DESERVE to have insurance or medical care?? This is the main problem. This shouldn't be a debate at all. I don't care how much money it costs to "subsidize" them, this isn't covering your ass on damages on a Ferrari or making sure you can replace your fence if a storm blows it down. The fact that we treat health insurance, which covers the lives of HUMAN BEINGS the same as we treat insurance that covers material possessions is the perhaps the biggest indictment of American capitalism I can think of.
And I have news for everyone: One day, if this bill passes, YOU will become a pre-existing condition. Maybe in 5 years, maybe in 20, but it WILL happen. You too will be allowed to be dehumanized in this way. The House and Senate bills allow for nearly ANYTHING to be construed as a pre-existing condition if the insurance companies choose to, including a teenage breakout of acne. At which time, you'll wonder where everyone is to speak up for you.
Agreed, a person's life is a different matter than a car or house. And this is why we need single payer because it shouldn't be up to predatory insurance companies out to make profits for their CEO's fourth yacht to toy with our lives.
Health care is an area where the capitalist system doesn't work. Their goals are to make a profit at the expense of your healthcare. That's why other first world countries have socialized medicine.
Problem is so many people in the US equate the words socialized medicine with communism. But lawd no, don't take away good ol SS for many of those same folks, cause that's different, and ok, not communism. I'd bet, give em enough time they (whoever they may be) would get used to it and like it. I would like to see a better plan with SS rather than just upping the age limit and reducing benefits to make it last. I know the changing demographics has alot to do with that but still.
We were talkn bout not having SS in the 80's when I was gettin outa high school.
Problem is so many people in the US equate the words socialized medicine with communism. But lawd no, don't take away good ol SS for many of those same folks, cause that's different, and ok, not communism. I'd bet, give em enough time they (whoever they may be) would get used to it and like it. I would like to see a better plan with SS rather than just upping the age limit and reducing benefits to make it last. I know the changing demographics has alot to do with that but still.
We were talkn bout not having SS in the 80's when I was gettin outa high school.
The idea that Social Security is in crisis in another lie the American people have bought hook, line and sinker. It's solvent for years at this point, and it could be fixed FOREVER if the taxable limit was raised. Currently, if you make $127,000 at any point, you are done paying for the year, which means most people making over a million dollars a year are done paying SS taxes by the end of January. Even if you simply DOUBLED it to $250,000, we'd never have to have this discussion again.
Mark my words, if they get done destroying Medicaid, Republicans are coming for Social Security next. They already tried to privatize it after Bush's re-election in 2004. That is the holy grail of conservative politics. The elimination of the New Deal programs to fund tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy is really all this is about, the rest is just surface noise.
That is actually how 'insurance' works. Car insurance, home insurance, insuring your valuables against theft, none of those companies would be in business if you could sign up AFTER the disaster, accident or robbery.
It's not insurance if you already have a condition. It's semantics but call it what it is, a subsidy, not insurance...
As @semiticgod said I'm not sure the analogy works. I think a closer parallel would be something like flood insurance where premiums are initially cheap when there's no history of flooding. However, after a flooding incident occurs premiums are likely to rise substantially or possibly just not be offered at all.
That sort of situation has occurred in many places in the UK in the last few years as a result of major flooding. In addition to reviewing flood prevention strategies the government has also intervened in the insurance market to force companies to continue to provide insurance in some cases where they would not have chosen to do so. That's not a good solution, but arguably is better than the alternative.
I think the problems around insurance stem partly from the fact that you're always covering a range of risks. Some of those are clearly under your control, but others are not. So, for instance, in a perfect market most people would consider it reasonable for smokers to pay more for fire insurance for their house - but would it be reasonable to pay more if your neighbor is a smoker? Again in a perfect market it would seem reasonable for health insurance costs to be affected by personal choices on things like diet, drinking and other lifestyle choices - but what about genetic conditions?
In medieval times the mainstream belief was that there was a divine order to society which we should not upset. Over hundreds of years that has gradually changed, so that societies now generally accept the principles of social mobility. There is though still a point of view held by some that anything that happens to people is deserved at some level and we shouldn't seek to change that - and that is still coloring the debate about health insurance.
Edit: this article gives an interesting perspective on one issue associated with health insurance.
The Supreme Court was right to uphold Trump's travel ban, and will likely allow it in full when they review it in the fall, but the exemptions they added in the meantime make it wholly inadequate.
The Supreme Court was right to uphold Trump's travel ban, and will likely allow it in full when they review it in the fall, but the exemptions they added in the meantime make it wholly inadequate.
Yeah, it'll be wildly effective at reducing the number of terrorist attacks committed by refugees from zero to zero.
Not every person from all 6 countries are refugees. And a mass invite policy has already proven itself to make that number jump quite a bit. How many american lives are worth a U.S immigration policy of questionable interest to the people of the U.S? What do they get out of the deal in the first place? An economic assault on the poor, first of all.
There have been no terrorist attacks by the people from the countries listed on the travel ban.
Are we supposed to be believe maybe that Trump knows something we don't? Ha among other things this guy believes the human's are powered by batteries and only have so much juice and lies literally all the time.
The Supreme Court was right to uphold Trump's travel ban, and will likely allow it in full when they review it in the fall, but the exemptions they added in the meantime make it wholly inadequate.
Yeah, it'll be wildly effective at reducing the number of terrorist attacks committed by refugees from zero to zero.
Change "refugees" to "immigrants" and it's still true. In the United States, all the terrorist attacks we've suffered since 9/11 have come from homegrown terrorists, not immigrants. They were born and raised in the United States.
The CBO has now scored 3 seperate Republican health care bills in the past two months. Every single one of them says between 22-24 million people will lose their health coverage. The kicker?? 15 million of them will be as soon as NEXT YEAR.
The CBO has now scored 3 seperate Republican health care bills in the past two months. Every single one of them says between 22-24 million people will lose their health coverage. The kicker?? 15 million of them will be as soon as NEXT YEAR.
Be that as it may, it will probably pass. Those sweet sweet tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are priority 1. And well, there's Hillary's emails to consider and don't forget about how the heavens opened and it stopped raining and Donald Trump won the largest electoral college victory ever, if you see him he can give you a handout of the map.
Joking aside, we're at the mercy of the GOP who has so far proven to be reliably unreasonable. For now they've been unreasonable with Democrats plenty of the GOP faithful have been either fine with that or laughing and pointing fingers saying "ha ha ha!".
Now it's your turn to join the party since you voted for these fools and encouraged this crap. Welcome, there's room for everyone here unless you're a millionaire.
Now is as good a time as any to point out some numbers about premium rates going up. Here's what has actually happened: In the five years previous to the ACA being implemented (2006-2011) health insurance premiums were going up an average of 31% per year. In the five years AFTER the implementation (2011-2016) premiums went up an average of 20% a year (this info is all from the Kaiser Family Foundation). So, did premiums continue to go up?? Yes, they did. But they were going up at a 11% smaller rate per year than before the bill became law. If anything, the ACA had a minor stabilizing effect on rate increases.
It's actually fairly embarrassing that GOP reps are going on TV and not owning the Medicaid cuts, simply straight up lying about them, and acting like this hasn't been their goal for the better part of 30-40 years. And, as I've said before, the reason this hasn't further dented Trump's support yet is two-fold: #1, because only 38% of the public (at present) is aware this bill cuts Medicaid so drastically. But #2 is the fact that many people continue to want to deny or obfuscate. That Trump's base is not the poor or downtrodden working man, not even the rural poor or downtrodden. The average Trump voter makes over $70,000 a year. Quite frankly, they simply don't think this will effect them. They are wrong, but they will never, ever raise their voices about it until it effects them directly.
By the way, those Carrier jobs in Indiana we talked about back at the beginning of the year that Trump supposedly cut a deal and saved?? Much touted in this very thread?? I believe I said wait a few months, and watch what happens when cameras and spotlight go away. Sure enough, those jobs are going bye-bye. Because the President is a predatory con-man. A snake-oil salesman, a charlatan, a fraud of the highest order. Some people will never see it. I'm sure even when the consequences are impossible to ignore, the blame will be shifted somewhere else. But....here we are. The jobs he promised to save being shipped to Mexico, the Medicaid he promised not to touch whose fate is now on life-support. The wall that was going to be built that hasn't seen a scintilla of progress. MAGA isn't "Make America Great Again", it's "Make America Gullible Again", but I guess that would assume we weren't already.
MAGA isn't "Make America Great Again", it's "Make America Gullible Again", but I guess that would assume we weren't already.
Pretty sure it's actually Millionaire Arsehole Golfing Again. And saw somewhere that 50% of Medicaid recipients are children.
Yes, something like 45% of births take place under Medicaid, in case the pro-life crowd is interested.
Let's look at it this way: if you live in a modest-sized city of say, 200,000 people, 10,000 of them are going to lose their health insurance. Now imagine what kind of extra stress those 10,000 people are going to be taking with them to their jobs, when they are driving near you on the road. Imagine how that stress is going to affect their kids, who go to school with your kids. Imagine these kids not being able to go to the doctor for a the flu and get medication, and then YOUR kid gets sick because of it. The societal ripple effects from this bill are nearly ENDLESS, and don't begin and end at the clinic. When 1/20 suddenly lose their lease on life, things will deteriorate quicker than you can possibly imagine.
I enjoyed seeing the stats on the Inafant Mortality Rate (IMR) while in public health at university. This is basically a good way to check the healthcare of a country. USA is pretty bad in this respect. All this high tech crap and drugs handed out and commercialized on TV like skittles and we can't evnn get THAT to a good lvl. Bad.
Problem is so many people in the US equate the words socialized medicine with communism. But lawd no, don't take away good ol SS for many of those same folks, cause that's different, and ok, not communism. I'd bet, give em enough time they (whoever they may be) would get used to it and like it. I would like to see a better plan with SS rather than just upping the age limit and reducing benefits to make it last. I know the changing demographics has alot to do with that but still.
We were talkn bout not having SS in the 80's when I was gettin outa high school.
The idea that Social Security is in crisis in another lie the American people have bought hook, line and sinker. It's solvent for years at this point, and it could be fixed FOREVER if the taxable limit was raised. Currently, if you make $127,000 at any point, you are done paying for the year, which means most people making over a million dollars a year are done paying SS taxes by the end of January. Even if you simply DOUBLED it to $250,000, we'd never have to have this discussion again.
Mark my words, if they get done destroying Medicaid, Republicans are coming for Social Security next. They already tried to privatize it after Bush's re-election in 2004. That is the holy grail of conservative politics. The elimination of the New Deal programs to fund tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy is really all this is about, the rest is just surface noise.
I meant to get back to this sooner. To clarify, I really do think SS is having problems (and if that means I am a fish, hook,line and sinker, so be it- I KNOW things need to change) . I did enough studies in public health and gerontology to see the change in demographics in this country. WE are close to the tipping point of having more older folks than younger folks. Poorer folks on SS, and especially poorer women, who may not have had the higher paying jobs are especially hurting. Rises in SS pay are not enough to keep up with inflation. I both studied the plight of these folks. Many have to get food from food bank, and get supplementary food money(which is also being cut back). There are housing shortages with respect to CHEAPER places to live that does not help things
As all of these older folks (baby boomers-biggest generation EVER to retire) are getting sick, it cuts into medicare. SS is not enough to cover nursing homes, houses are taken to cover this.
SS is badly managed in my opinion. It has got to change to deal with this massive influx of users. Wen I suggestions of making changes to taxes and being worried about what the GOP wants to do,that would seem to suggest that their is at LEAST the possibility that their MIGHT actually be an issue that others see as well.
Can it be changed, can it work better, yes. But it is getting past time to do this, it needs priority.
I look at this differently, from the point of public health, conflict, and how politicians think. All of that, COMBINED with added personal work experience and studied observation and research into vulnerable populations (especially the aging from a gerontological view) leads me to KNOW something needs to be changed and adjusted or we will have bigger problems than we do now.
I've noticed something about terrorists: most of them are born in the country they attack. However, quite often they are the children of immigrants. One suspects that it is the cognitive dissonance between the culture they are acquiring from their parents and the culture they see around them that leads to growing resentment against the host nation. The sense of being an outsider in your own home.
@Fardragon Interesting observation.There may be something to that possibly, 1st generation kids are hit the hardest I think. Ones social peers can have one of the biggest influences on terrorist formation. I am thinking it is easier to use folks from the country being attacked as well, if we include recruitment, including less travel hardship for those not directly recruited, esp. loners.
@Shandyr Hmm, based on Merkel's party seems like it would be hard for folks to trust what she says if she DID happen to mention support for it. Course politicians want to keep their job (hers).
On a somewhat related note: There are some interesting things happening with birth certificates and the Supreme Court here recently. I could possibly see that a state might want to keep track of birth parents (lineage or something else?), but from an equality point of view, not listing both same sex parents on a birth certificate would get me pretty upset. Seems like the wording needs to be adjusted on BC's to 'parents' not just 'mother' and 'father', or something to that effect, at the very least, listing 'legal' parents of the child (although that would get flak as well I suppose- the word 'legal' to some). Just a thought I had when listening to some hard core conservative crap talkers on the radio this am. Maybe though even that would not be enough to satisfy some of the hardest of the hard-core naysayers.
According to that graph, there are only two countries whose opinion of the United States and the President significantly improved after Trump's election.
Same thing happened under Bush. I visited Europe at the time and it was embarrassing having him in charge. But hey at least Bush was a nice guy despite being kinda dumb and wrong on most issues. It's probably worse now.
Trump is ignorant and aggressively lies to suit his world view and Bannon's agenda. He is the lifetime achievement award winner in the con artist hall of fame. He is literally at war with reality itself. He's dragging us all down folks.
The Supreme Court is going to hear the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, citing religious objections; the couple sued the baker because they feel that a business should not be allowed to discriminate against them. My take on the situation: business owners definitely have the right to refuse service to people (you have seen those "no shoes no shirt no service" signs, this is an extension of that) if and only if they are willing to risk economic ruin when people stop spending money in their store. Only an idiot turns away paying customers, though, religious objections or not.
WE are close to the tipping point of having more older folks than younger folks.
Beginning in 2011, people in the United States began turning 65 at the rate of about 10,000 per day. The middle of the Baby Boom years, typically defined as the period from 1946 to 1964, was 1955, so those folks will turn 65 in 2020--we haven't yet reached the midway point of people turning older. If we presume an average lifespan of 85 (which seems reasonable) then Baby Boomers won't start dying in significant numbers until about 2031, a process which will then continue past its own midpoint of 2040 and continue until 2049. In other words, the age demographic of this nation has already been changing rapidly for several years but the population demographic of the country is about to start changing dramatically in the near future. All those people will be leaving their jobs for retirement (wherever possible), they will be collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits, etc. When they were young children that generation redefined the public school system (which was inadequate to house that many students at the time, so schools had to expand), then as they entered the workforce they redefined the economy, and as they start to withdraw from the workforce they are going to redefine the economy again. For example, nursing homes and hospices are going to see more business, unless more people go back to the older method of having elderly relatives live in the home with them. I do not think we are prepared for the changes those people retiring will bring because many of those jobs are going to be phased out or not filled by a younger employee, labor force participation is going to drop, etc.
The Supreme Court is going to hear the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, citing religious objections; the couple sued the baker because they feel that a business should not be allowed to discriminate against them. My take on the situation: business owners definitely have the right to refuse service to people (you have seen those "no shoes no shirt no service" signs, this is an extension of that) if and only if they are willing to risk economic ruin when people stop spending money in their store. Only an idiot turns away paying customers, though, religious objections or not.
Interesting. It's not long since a virtually identical case in Northern Ireland was concluded. In that case the judges made a very clear ruling that the refusal was direct discrimination and unlawful. Businesses that are open to the public cannot discriminate against particular sections of that public on the grounds of protected characteristics such as age, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc (that's not the same thing as "no shoes, no shirt, no service" where there's no protected characteristic being infringed).
Religion is far more integrated into public life in the US than the UK though, so I would be surprised if the Supreme Court there make the same clear statement that equalities legislation over-rides religious freedom.
Indeed it is, but I am weird in that I think that you cannot make people behave nicely to each other. I suspect the Court is going to rule in favor of the couple in this instance, though. Seriously, would it have killed the baker to make the cake? I don't have to like you to treat you as equitably as every other customer. Besides, in this case the guy cited "religious beliefs" and there are no anti-homosexual beliefs in Christianity--the Man himself said that there were only two commandments and one of those was "love your neighbor as you love yourself".
Comments
And I have news for everyone: One day, if this bill passes, YOU will become a pre-existing condition. Maybe in 5 years, maybe in 20, but it WILL happen. You too will be allowed to be dehumanized in this way. The House and Senate bills allow for nearly ANYTHING to be construed as a pre-existing condition if the insurance companies choose to, including a teenage breakout of acne. At which time, you'll wonder where everyone is to speak up for you.
Health care is an area where the capitalist system doesn't work. Their goals are to make a profit at the expense of your healthcare. That's why other first world countries have socialized medicine.
Problem is so many people in the US equate the words socialized medicine with communism. But lawd no, don't take away good ol SS for many of those same folks, cause that's different, and ok, not communism. I'd bet, give em enough time they (whoever they may be) would get used to it and like it.
I would like to see a better plan with SS rather than just upping the age limit and reducing benefits to make it last. I know the changing demographics has alot to do with that but still.
We were talkn bout not having SS in the 80's when I was gettin outa high school.
Mark my words, if they get done destroying Medicaid, Republicans are coming for Social Security next. They already tried to privatize it after Bush's re-election in 2004. That is the holy grail of conservative politics. The elimination of the New Deal programs to fund tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy is really all this is about, the rest is just surface noise.
That sort of situation has occurred in many places in the UK in the last few years as a result of major flooding. In addition to reviewing flood prevention strategies the government has also intervened in the insurance market to force companies to continue to provide insurance in some cases where they would not have chosen to do so. That's not a good solution, but arguably is better than the alternative.
I think the problems around insurance stem partly from the fact that you're always covering a range of risks. Some of those are clearly under your control, but others are not. So, for instance, in a perfect market most people would consider it reasonable for smokers to pay more for fire insurance for their house - but would it be reasonable to pay more if your neighbor is a smoker? Again in a perfect market it would seem reasonable for health insurance costs to be affected by personal choices on things like diet, drinking and other lifestyle choices - but what about genetic conditions?
In medieval times the mainstream belief was that there was a divine order to society which we should not upset. Over hundreds of years that has gradually changed, so that societies now generally accept the principles of social mobility. There is though still a point of view held by some that anything that happens to people is deserved at some level and we shouldn't seek to change that - and that is still coloring the debate about health insurance.
Edit: this article gives an interesting perspective on one issue associated with health insurance.
Are we supposed to be believe maybe that Trump knows something we don't? Ha among other things this guy believes the human's are powered by batteries and only have so much juice and lies literally all the time.
Joking aside, we're at the mercy of the GOP who has so far proven to be reliably unreasonable. For now they've been unreasonable with Democrats plenty of the GOP faithful have been either fine with that or laughing and pointing fingers saying "ha ha ha!".
Now it's your turn to join the party since you voted for these fools and encouraged this crap. Welcome, there's room for everyone here unless you're a millionaire.
It's actually fairly embarrassing that GOP reps are going on TV and not owning the Medicaid cuts, simply straight up lying about them, and acting like this hasn't been their goal for the better part of 30-40 years. And, as I've said before, the reason this hasn't further dented Trump's support yet is two-fold: #1, because only 38% of the public (at present) is aware this bill cuts Medicaid so drastically. But #2 is the fact that many people continue to want to deny or obfuscate. That Trump's base is not the poor or downtrodden working man, not even the rural poor or downtrodden. The average Trump voter makes over $70,000 a year. Quite frankly, they simply don't think this will effect them. They are wrong, but they will never, ever raise their voices about it until it effects them directly.
By the way, those Carrier jobs in Indiana we talked about back at the beginning of the year that Trump supposedly cut a deal and saved?? Much touted in this very thread?? I believe I said wait a few months, and watch what happens when cameras and spotlight go away. Sure enough, those jobs are going bye-bye. Because the President is a predatory con-man. A snake-oil salesman, a charlatan, a fraud of the highest order. Some people will never see it. I'm sure even when the consequences are impossible to ignore, the blame will be shifted somewhere else. But....here we are. The jobs he promised to save being shipped to Mexico, the Medicaid he promised not to touch whose fate is now on life-support. The wall that was going to be built that hasn't seen a scintilla of progress. MAGA isn't "Make America Great Again", it's "Make America Gullible Again", but I guess that would assume we weren't already.
Let's look at it this way: if you live in a modest-sized city of say, 200,000 people, 10,000 of them are going to lose their health insurance. Now imagine what kind of extra stress those 10,000 people are going to be taking with them to their jobs, when they are driving near you on the road. Imagine how that stress is going to affect their kids, who go to school with your kids. Imagine these kids not being able to go to the doctor for a the flu and get medication, and then YOUR kid gets sick because of it. The societal ripple effects from this bill are nearly ENDLESS, and don't begin and end at the clinic. When 1/20 suddenly lose their lease on life, things will deteriorate quicker than you can possibly imagine.
Bad.
The people that live in the conservative bubble are going to lose their health insurance and have no idea.
WE are close to the tipping point of having more older folks than younger folks.
Poorer folks on SS, and especially poorer women, who may not have had the higher paying jobs are especially hurting.
Rises in SS pay are not enough to keep up with inflation. I both studied the plight of these folks. Many have to get food from food bank, and get supplementary food money(which is also being cut back). There are housing shortages with respect to CHEAPER places to live that does not help things
As all of these older folks (baby boomers-biggest generation EVER to retire) are getting sick, it cuts into medicare. SS is not enough to cover nursing homes, houses are taken to cover this.
SS is badly managed in my opinion. It has got to change to deal with this massive influx of users.
Wen I suggestions of making changes to taxes and being worried about what the GOP wants to do,that would seem to suggest that their is at LEAST the possibility that their MIGHT actually be an issue that others see as well.
Can it be changed, can it work better, yes. But it is getting past time to do this, it needs priority.
I look at this differently, from the point of public health, conflict, and how politicians think. All of that, COMBINED with added personal work experience and studied observation and research into vulnerable populations (especially the aging from a gerontological view) leads me to KNOW something needs to be changed and adjusted or we will have bigger problems than we do now.
On a somewhat related note:
There are some interesting things happening with birth certificates and the Supreme Court here recently.
I could possibly see that a state might want to keep track of birth parents (lineage or something else?), but from an equality point of view, not listing both same sex parents on a birth certificate would get me pretty upset.
Seems like the wording needs to be adjusted on BC's to 'parents' not just 'mother' and 'father', or something to that effect, at the very least, listing 'legal' parents of the child (although that would get flak as well I suppose- the word 'legal' to some). Just a thought I had when listening to some hard core conservative crap talkers on the radio this am.
Maybe though even that would not be enough to satisfy some of the hardest of the hard-core naysayers.
Image of the United States has plunged under Trump, survey shows
Russia and the Philippines.
Trump is ignorant and aggressively lies to suit his world view and Bannon's agenda. He is the lifetime achievement award winner in the con artist hall of fame. He is literally at war with reality itself. He's dragging us all down folks.
Religion is far more integrated into public life in the US than the UK though, so I would be surprised if the Supreme Court there make the same clear statement that equalities legislation over-rides religious freedom.