J D Vance Trump VP pick

[steross]

So you expect others should subsidize you even more than taxpayers already do?
And you don’t support lowering costs for people different from you?

This is one of your best posts ever if those questions are implying that your own answers are No, Yes.

Not the typical beating-around-the-bush about what you really feel. Finally, you are saying the truth, "Not my problem. I don't want to support others. If this change allows the insurance company and I to save an amount on my premium and that harms people who were not as fortunate as me, I'm perfectly happy with that."

I, of course, disagree. But, it is far better than what you typically write.


I'd like to hear your thoughts on Trump/Vance (mostly Vance) focusing so much on the family to the point of whining about the "childless left."
Do you think we should have the right to not have kids without the government penalizing us?
Do you think the childless should continue to support those with children through higher health insurance premiums and fewer tax breaks ion addition to taxes for schools etc that they will not use? (especially now that the vouchers go to private religious schools)

 

[cowboyinexile]

Good then you can get it. Nothing keeping you from that.
But that doesn’t mean you should push-back on ideas to lower health care for others. People need relief from high costs and we should want our politicians looking for ways to help. And doesn’t mean that you should demand others subsidize your situation. Maybe you were not suggesting that…because that would be incredibly selfish.

I think you are projecting a little here. Of course everyone wants lower healthcare costs.

Suggesting that we pool people who are fortunate to have lower healthcare costs and telling everyone else to screw off is incredibly selfish. Are you are fine with that until you or someone you care about experiences a health event that would put them in a higher pool?

If someone is in an accident that requires treatment that extends beyond January 1st of the next year, do we kick them out and say sorry, hope everything works out so you can come back to the cool kids table next year? If someone is pregnant do we check their due date and kick them off if it's after the 1st of the year? Because I guarantee a c-section birth is gonna cost more than me getting checked out one extra time by the doctor every year.

 

[JTOSU]

This is by far one of your best posts ever if those questions are implying that your own answers are No, Yes.

Not the typical beating-around-the-bush about what you really feel. Finally, you are saying the truth, "Not my problem. I don't want to support others. If the insurance company and I can save an amount on my premium and that harms people who were not as fortunate as me, I'm perfectly happy with that."

I, of course, disagree. But, it is far better than what you typically write.


I'd like to hear your thoughts on Trump/Vance (mostly Vance) focusing so much on the family to the point of whining about the "childless left."
Do you think we should have the right to not have kids without the government penalizing us?
Do you think the childless should continue to support those with children through higher insurance health premiums and fewer tax breaks?

Your hypothetical quote does not describe my thoughts. But you know that.

Odd questions.

1) Why on earth would you think I would support the government penalizing someone for not having kids?
2) People without kids should continue to enjoy lower health premiums than those with families.

 

[JTOSU]

I think you are projecting a little here. Of course everyone wants lower healthcare costs.

Suggesting that we pool people who are fortunate to have lower healthcare costs and telling everyone else to screw off is incredibly selfish. Are you are fine with that until you or someone you care about experiences a health event that would put them in a higher pool?

If someone is in an accident that requires treatment that extends beyond January 1st of the next year, do we kick them out and say sorry, hope everything works out so you can come back to the cool kids table next year? If someone is pregnant do we check their due date and kick them off if it's after the 1st of the year? Because I guarantee a c-section birth is gonna cost more than me getting checked out one extra time by the doctor every year.

I think you are making wild assumptions that were NOT included or even suggested by Vance.

 

[cowboyinexile]

I think you are making wild assumptions that were NOT included or even suggested by Vance.

I'm going off what you suggested.

If you want to create a pool to save healthcare costs for one group of people and tell everyone else to screw off, where do you draw the line between healthy and sick?

 

[steross]

Your hypothetical quote does not describe my thoughts. But you know that.

Odd questions.

1) Why on earth would you think I would support the government penalizing someone for not having kids?
2) People without kids should continue to enjoy lower health premiums than those with families.

Then say your thoughts. That is clearly the case. If the current system Joe pays $100 and Jim pays $125. But, the insurance company is allowed to pool Jim out of his employer pool into a high risk pool so Joe's premium is now $85 (yea for Joe!) and Jim's is now $160 and the insurance company makes $20 on the change (you know they will) then it is exactly what you said. You can't have a decision with winners and losers but only look at the winner and say that it is beneficial.

The cost of kids is not fully covered by families. Insurance is either with children, couple or single. If someone has 7 kids they pay the family rate. All the other rate payers supplement that. You know that. The libertarian view would be that if you have 8 kids, you pay for all kids. But, you appear to be a libertarian only for the stuff that you don't like. Which, is what I nearly always see with libertarians.

 

[milehighpoke]

I have a few friends that, if they were penalized for having pre-existing conditions, would have to choose between being dead or homeless.

 

[JTOSU]

The cost of kids is not fully covered by families. Insurance is either with children, couple or single. If someone has 7 kids they pay the family rate. All the other rate payers supplement that. You know that. The libertarian view would be that if you have 8 kids, you pay for all kids. But, you appear to be a libertarian only for the stuff that you don't like. Which, is what I nearly always see with libertarians.

And as I answered, people without kids should enjoy lower premiums. Why would I be against insurance higher for people with more kids? If people want to cover more people/items with insurance…it is logical it would cost more. You are making weird assumptions, and adding context that is not there, to attempt to support your views against healthcare savings for millions.

 

[steross]

People without kids should continue to enjoy lower health premiums than those with families.

And as I answered, people without kids should enjoy lower premiums. Why would I be against insurance higher for people with more kids?

I don't know. That is why I asked the question that took you two attempts to answer with honesty.
This is what makes you the worst poster to deal with on this board.

In the first instance, you wrote "continue to" which means status quo. While singles have a lower premium, they supplement families currently.
Then, when I call you on it as I always have to do because you are too slimy to ever give a specific response the first time, you change it to "people with more kids should pay more" which is a change, not a continuation. It is not "as you answered." That would be a distinct change.

I'm just happy that my only dealing with you is a silly message board. I can't imagine how dishonest you might be in business because you are the most dishonest around here.

Go ahead, respond with yet another stupid gaslight like "making weird assumptions" when all I did was ask you questions and try to figure out your answer because you never answer appropriately.

 

[JTOSU]

I don't know. That is why I asked the question that took you two attempts to answer with honesty.
This is what makes you the worst poster to deal with on this board.

In the first instance, you wrote "continue to" which means status quo. While singles have a lower premium, they supplement families currently.
Then, when I call you on it as I always have to do because you are too slimy to ever give a specific response the first time, you change it to "people with more kids should pay more" which is a change, not a continuation. It is not "as you answered." That would be a distinct change.

I'm just happy that my only dealing with you is a silly message board. I can't imagine how dishonest you might be in business because you are the most dishonest around here.

Go ahead, respond with yet another stupid gaslight like "making weird assumptions" when all I did was ask you questions and try to figure out your answer because you never answer appropriately.

Sorry you are so easily triggered. At least this time it wasn’t your failure of simple elementary mathematics.

What is dishonest and slimy is to assume someone else thinks something when that individual not only never said it, but never remotely mentioned it.

BTW, people with two kids absolutely do pay more than those without. It is a continuation.

A poster yesterday on the Harris thread was 100% accurate. This political board unfortunately has become an echo chamber. I am sure it helps reinforce your beliefs.

 

[Cowboyshoopspride]

I have a few friends that, if they were penalized for having pre-existing conditions, would have to choose between being dead or homeless.

I feel for them. But you don’t make business decisions based on the exceptions. That’s all this country has done for decades. What’s the furtherest extreme we can imagine on either side and that’s the hill we choose to die on. It’s as guaranteed as @CowboyJD snoozing posts over here.

We could make decisions based on real averages and carve out the exceptions, then treat them as such. But that’s logical and rational and we can’t have that.

 

[mugatu]

I feel for them. But you don’t make business decisions based on the exceptions. That’s all this country has done for decades. What’s the furtherest extreme we can imagine on either side and that’s the hill we choose to die on. It’s as guaranteed as @CowboyJD snoozing posts over here.

We could make decisions based on real averages and carve out the exceptions, then treat them as such. But that’s logical and rational and we can’t have that.

Pre-existing conditions are not an extreme and I don't look at people's health as a business decision.

 

[Cowboyshoopspride]

Pre-existing conditions are not an extreme and I don't look at people's health as a business decision.

350,000,000 citizens, the revenues associated and sheer costs (taxes) of healthcare are without a doubt business decisions (or use an actuary if you that makes you feel better but it doesn’t provide the results you want.)

I want people with preexisting conditions treated right. Or maybe it’s not a preexisting condition, getting a bad diagnosis shouldn’t result in bankruptcy or homelessness as you said.

Carve out the exceptions and work toward solutions and aid in those cases.

That shouldn’t be argumentative but here we are.

 

[GratefulPoke]

FYI, 19-50% of non elderly Americans have pre-existing conditions. Source.

 

[steross]

350,000,000 citizens, the revenues associated and sheer costs (taxes) of healthcare are without a doubt business decisions (or use an actuary if you that makes you feel better but it doesn’t provide the results you want.)

I want people with preexisting conditions treated right. Or maybe it’s not a preexisting condition, getting a bad diagnosis shouldn’t result in bankruptcy or homelessness as you said.

Carve out the exceptions and work toward solutions and aid in those cases.

That shouldn’t be argumentative but here we are.

I lived and worked in Australia for 8 years. They have Medicare. It covers every citizen and permanent resident. They also have available private insurance. High income people have to get insurance. The rates for it are less expensive than ours and it has very good coverage.

As a doc there my pay was essentially equivalent to here. My work/life balance was way better there for that pay. Continuing education there is light years beyond here. Nurses and paramedics make quite a bit more money there.

All of this occurs for a smaller percentage of their GDP than we pay just for government based health care. We then have the additional cost of our private market. As a business, if health care was an international market like industrial products, there would be no American health care because it is outrageously overpriced for the product sold.

If we were really looking at this from a business standpoint, we would completely stop the current dysfunctional system as it is very poor run business. Ideally, we would redesign it emulating the more functional parts of other systems such as Singapore, Switzerland, or Australia.

But we aren't really making business decisions. Healthcare as an industry is just allowed to extract more and more money from our country despite its mediocre outcomes. These are political decisions made by those beholden to a wealthy industry.

 

[Cowboyshoopspride]

If we were really looking at this from a business standpoint, we would completely stop the current dysfunctional system as it is very poor run business.

But we aren't really making business decisions. Healthcare as an industry is just allowed to extract more and more money from our country despite its mediocre outcomes. These are political decisions made by those beholden to a wealthy industry.

I love it when people make my point for me. Now that you and I are an absolute 100% agreement, the question is how do we go get the other 349,999,998 people to figure this out with us?

My biggest vendor is out of Australia, it’s fascinating to hear the give and takes for their system compared ours. Even more fascinating that difference in opinion from the execs to the “every day guy.”

 

[steross]

Sorry you are so easily triggered. At least this time it wasn’t your failure of simple elementary mathematics.

What is dishonest and slimy is to assume someone else thinks something when that individual not only never said it, but never remotely mentioned it.

BTW, people with two kids absolutely do pay more than those without. It is a continuation.

I’m not "triggered" by you being a dishonest message board poster, I'm just pointing it out to you.

I made no assumptions. I asked. You were vague and difficult.

I never said someone with two kids pay the same as someone without kids. You really need reading comprehension training. Is English a second language for you?

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

FYI, 19-50% of non elderly Americans have pre-existing conditions. Source.

19 to 50%? So somewhere between 81% and 50% don’t have pre-existing conditions?

 

[JTOSU]

I never said someone with two kids pay the same as someone without kids. You really need reading comprehension training. Is English a second language for you?

That’s right. You said families of “7 kids”! LOL.

 

[steross]

19 to 50%? So somewhere between 81% and 50% don’t have pre-existing conditions?

From the source:
Because pre-existing conditions are determined by insurer practices which vary, two estimates of the number of non-elderly individuals likely to be denied coverage in the individual market were constructed.

I would take that to mean that 50% have pre-existing conditions when insurance is trying to deny coverage, and only 19% do when measured by affects on life etc.