White working class acting against their own interests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

Just curious -- what health insurance *doesn't* provide coverage for things you don't need?

I find most critics of the ACA are actually criticizing all insurance -- they just don't seem to understand how insurance works.

Also why we need a single-payer system.

There are aspects of a single payer system that I like but as someone with a great deal of experience in this field it is not a panacea.

I dunno. Cut costs in half while people live just as long if not longer. That's about as close to "panacea" as you are going to get.

There is no substance in your response. Cut costs in half? Have you looked at the costs of Medicaid and Medicare?

As for living longer. Won't help. One of the main reasons we have a lower life expectancy in the U.S. compared to nations like Japan and Canada is obesity (over 1/3rd now) and that is a huge strain health care costs.

Right, the fair comparison is against the cost of senior citizens healthcare.

I'm going out on a limb that you can read a graph, but WTH I'll give it a shot:

The chart is meaningless on it's face and especially as to your point of cutting costs.

Why is the chart meaningless? It looks like countries with single payer pay half what we pay with better results. That seems very meaningful to me.

Yes - everyone knows the US spends more per person on healthcare than any other industrialized nation, but have mediocre health outcomes.

I remember reading a study a few years back that ranked healthcare for 50 most industrialized countries USA was #1/50 in terms of cost with roughly #35/50 in terms of health outcomes. The cost per person in the US was approximately 2X other industrialized nations. This covers to advertising, lobbying and CEO pay packages.

Healthcare isn't just about popping a pill or getting surgery and that is what American's are missing. Health is about lifestyle--eating right, exercising, etc. An estimated 40% of cancers are related to lifestyle and that is just cancer. We aren't even talking diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

? If you don't have young kids why are you getting coverage for young kids? And if you do have young kids, you do need some kind of dental coverage. That's crazy to think you don't.

Hey, I hate that we have such easy access to guns, but sorry, pal, we get it anyways.

See, this is my problem with those people who are so gung-ho about the ACA.
Pediatric dental coverage is REQUIRED for all ACA-compliant plans - whether you have children or not.
Guess you didn’t know that. Makes me wonder what else you don’t know about it.

Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act). However, children’s dental coverage is a required benefit included on all ACA compliant plans and cost assistance can be applied to any Marketplace plan that includes dental.

http://obamacarefacts.com/dental-insurance/dental-insurance/

Yes, but if you don't have children on your plan you don't get pediatric dental. Get it now?

I don't understand why this discussion of ACA is in this thread. It should be a thread all its own.

I'd like to point out, though, that you are still paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children. You just aren't getting the benefit. The point people are saying is that because ACA plans have to include those things, they can't discount their plans for people who don't want that coverage. So if you are a man and get an ACA-compliant plan, the plan still includes pregnancy coverage, birth control, et cetera. You don't get a cheaper rate, even though you won't use those benefits because they are standard features of the plan.

That's the point you are missing. The upside is that those features don't cost more if you do need them. For example, pre-ACA, a woman purchasing a plan on the open market would have to pay more for the pregnancy coverage. Now, she doesn't have to because it is standard. But the unintended consequence is that everyone pays more. It's not like the insurance companies just take a hit. The cost is just spread around.

Where I differ with the people who are complaining about ACA is that I think singlepayer is a better option because it takes some of the power out of the hands of insurance companies, which are for-profit entities.

No, if you don't coverage for minors, you are not paying that premium. You pay for yourself or yourself and spouse. Therefore you are not paying for pediatric dental.

Now, pregnancy coverage is another matter. Non-pregnant people do pay for this.

However, in both cases requiring that plans have this is a benefit to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

? If you don't have young kids why are you getting coverage for young kids? And if you do have young kids, you do need some kind of dental coverage. That's crazy to think you don't.

Hey, I hate that we have such easy access to guns, but sorry, pal, we get it anyways.

See, this is my problem with those people who are so gung-ho about the ACA.
Pediatric dental coverage is REQUIRED for all ACA-compliant plans - whether you have children or not.
Guess you didn’t know that. Makes me wonder what else you don’t know about it.

Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act). However, children’s dental coverage is a required benefit included on all ACA compliant plans and cost assistance can be applied to any Marketplace plan that includes dental.

http://obamacarefacts.com/dental-insurance/dental-insurance/

Yes, but if you don't have children on your plan you don't get pediatric dental. Get it now?

I don't understand why this discussion of ACA is in this thread. It should be a thread all its own.

I'd like to point out, though, that you are still paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children. You just aren't getting the benefit. The point people are saying is that because ACA plans have to include those things, they can't discount their plans for people who don't want that coverage. So if you are a man and get an ACA-compliant plan, the plan still includes pregnancy coverage, birth control, et cetera. You don't get a cheaper rate, even though you won't use those benefits because they are standard features of the plan.

That's the point you are missing. The upside is that those features don't cost more if you do need them. For example, pre-ACA, a woman purchasing a plan on the open market would have to pay more for the pregnancy coverage. Now, she doesn't have to because it is standard. But the unintended consequence is that everyone pays more. It's not like the insurance companies just take a hit. The cost is just spread around.

Where I differ with the people who are complaining about ACA is that I think singlepayer is a better option because it takes some of the power out of the hands of insurance companies, which are for-profit entities.

No, if you don't coverage for minors, you are not paying that premium. You pay for yourself or yourself and spouse. Therefore you are not paying for pediatric dental.

Now, pregnancy coverage is another matter. Non-pregnant people do pay for this.

However, in both cases requiring that plans have this is a benefit to society.

You simply don't get to choose what you want coverage for . . . you can't say, not traveling to Africa, no yellow fever coverage for me this year! I'll take cancer coverage, but no diabetes, please.

Insurance is not now nor has it ever been a cafeteria where you can pick and choose precisely what you will be covered for. It is an actuarial risk management pool and if if something is found in the pool, its covered.

If it really bothers you that pregnancy is covered, lobby for gender based risk pools. You will be surprised when you have opted out of pregnancy and find your rates going up because you have eliminated the healthier half of the pool. Yes. Women are healthier. Do you hear them complaining about paying higher rates because they have to cover the risks associated with men's stupid tendency not to seek prophylactic health care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

Just curious -- what health insurance *doesn't* provide coverage for things you don't need?

I find most critics of the ACA are actually criticizing all insurance -- they just don't seem to understand how insurance works.

Also why we need a single-payer system.

There are aspects of a single payer system that I like but as someone with a great deal of experience in this field it is not a panacea.

I dunno. Cut costs in half while people live just as long if not longer. That's about as close to "panacea" as you are going to get.

There is no substance in your response. Cut costs in half? Have you looked at the costs of Medicaid and Medicare?

As for living longer. Won't help. One of the main reasons we have a lower life expectancy in the U.S. compared to nations like Japan and Canada is obesity (over 1/3rd now) and that is a huge strain health care costs.

Right, the fair comparison is against the cost of senior citizens healthcare.

I'm going out on a limb that you can read a graph, but WTH I'll give it a shot:

The chart is meaningless on it's face and especially as to your point of cutting costs.

Why is the chart meaningless? It looks like countries with single payer pay half what we pay with better results. That seems very meaningful to me.

The chart is meaningless because you're inferring a relationship that suggests healthcare spending drives health outcomes without clearly establishing that relationship. In particular, your chart attempts to find a relationship between healthcare spending and life expectancy. In reality we have a higher murder rate in the United States that plays a significant role in our lower life expectancy. The fact that some drug dealer will be murdered tonight is certainly tragic, but it is at best marginally connected to our country's healthcare spending. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the net effect of that drug dealers untimely death on life expectancy in this country is somehow related to healthcare spending.

Indeed, I suspect the relationship is reversed and it isn't that we get worse results for our healthcare spending but that our different lifestyles drive our higher healthcare spending. E.g,, many of the ailments that drive healthcare spending in America like obesity are caused by the way we eat, live and work. The idea that our healthcare system drives, for example, the obesity rate in this country is just stupid. It's where we live, how we get to work and what we eat that drives obesity in this country and the resulting healthcare costs related to obesity.

The health outcomes to healthcare spending is just an unsophisticated argument that sounds plausible on the surface but I just don't think the relationship is really there unless you actually believe that our citizens need doctors to understand that eating McDonald's everyday is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

? If you don't have young kids why are you getting coverage for young kids? And if you do have young kids, you do need some kind of dental coverage. That's crazy to think you don't.

Hey, I hate that we have such easy access to guns, but sorry, pal, we get it anyways.

See, this is my problem with those people who are so gung-ho about the ACA.
Pediatric dental coverage is REQUIRED for all ACA-compliant plans - whether you have children or not.
Guess you didn’t know that. Makes me wonder what else you don’t know about it.

Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act). However, children’s dental coverage is a required benefit included on all ACA compliant plans and cost assistance can be applied to any Marketplace plan that includes dental.

http://obamacarefacts.com/dental-insurance/dental-insurance/

Yes, but if you don't have children on your plan you don't get pediatric dental. Get it now?

I don't understand why this discussion of ACA is in this thread. It should be a thread all its own.

I'd like to point out, though, that you are still paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children. You just aren't getting the benefit. The point people are saying is that because ACA plans have to include those things, they can't discount their plans for people who don't want that coverage. So if you are a man and get an ACA-compliant plan, the plan still includes pregnancy coverage, birth control, et cetera. You don't get a cheaper rate, even though you won't use those benefits because they are standard features of the plan.

That's the point you are missing. The upside is that those features don't cost more if you do need them. For example, pre-ACA, a woman purchasing a plan on the open market would have to pay more for the pregnancy coverage. Now, she doesn't have to because it is standard. But the unintended consequence is that everyone pays more. It's not like the insurance companies just take a hit. The cost is just spread around.

Where I differ with the people who are complaining about ACA is that I think singlepayer is a better option because it takes some of the power out of the hands of insurance companies, which are for-profit entities.

No, if you don't coverage for minors, you are not paying that premium. You pay for yourself or yourself and spouse. Therefore you are not paying for pediatric dental.

Now, pregnancy coverage is another matter. Non-pregnant people do pay for this.

However, in both cases requiring that plans have this is a benefit to society.

No, you are still paying for pediatric dental. Plans don't charge more for minors and the pediatric dental coverage. I don't think they are *allowed* to charge more for that coverage. So everyone pays higher premiums because plans have to offer that coverage for minors but can't charge more for it.

You are still missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

? If you don't have young kids why are you getting coverage for young kids? And if you do have young kids, you do need some kind of dental coverage. That's crazy to think you don't.

Hey, I hate that we have such easy access to guns, but sorry, pal, we get it anyways.

See, this is my problem with those people who are so gung-ho about the ACA.
Pediatric dental coverage is REQUIRED for all ACA-compliant plans - whether you have children or not.
Guess you didn’t know that. Makes me wonder what else you don’t know about it.

Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act). However, children’s dental coverage is a required benefit included on all ACA compliant plans and cost assistance can be applied to any Marketplace plan that includes dental.

http://obamacarefacts.com/dental-insurance/dental-insurance/

Yes, but if you don't have children on your plan you don't get pediatric dental. Get it now?

I don't understand why this discussion of ACA is in this thread. It should be a thread all its own.

I'd like to point out, though, that you are still paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children. You just aren't getting the benefit. The point people are saying is that because ACA plans have to include those things, they can't discount their plans for people who don't want that coverage. So if you are a man and get an ACA-compliant plan, the plan still includes pregnancy coverage, birth control, et cetera. You don't get a cheaper rate, even though you won't use those benefits because they are standard features of the plan.

That's the point you are missing. The upside is that those features don't cost more if you do need them. For example, pre-ACA, a woman purchasing a plan on the open market would have to pay more for the pregnancy coverage. Now, she doesn't have to because it is standard. But the unintended consequence is that everyone pays more. It's not like the insurance companies just take a hit. The cost is just spread around.

Where I differ with the people who are complaining about ACA is that I think singlepayer is a better option because it takes some of the power out of the hands of insurance companies, which are for-profit entities.

No, if you don't coverage for minors, you are not paying that premium. You pay for yourself or yourself and spouse. Therefore you are not paying for pediatric dental.

Now, pregnancy coverage is another matter. Non-pregnant people do pay for this.

However, in both cases requiring that plans have this is a benefit to society.

You simply don't get to choose what you want coverage for . . . you can't say, not traveling to Africa, no yellow fever coverage for me this year! I'll take cancer coverage, but no diabetes, please.

Insurance is not now nor has it ever been a cafeteria where you can pick and choose precisely what you will be covered for. It is an actuarial risk management pool and if if something is found in the pool, its covered.

If it really bothers you that pregnancy is covered, lobby for gender based risk pools. You will be surprised when you have opted out of pregnancy and find your rates going up because you have eliminated the healthier half of the pool. Yes. Women are healthier. Do you hear them complaining about paying higher rates because they have to cover the risks associated with men's stupid tendency not to seek prophylactic health care?

You are wrong. Employers pre-ACA were able to pick and choose what coverage and what exclusions their plans would offer. Private insurance also offered options. In my 20s, I had a 6-month gap between employer-provided plans. I purchased a barebones health insurance plan in the private market. I didn't need pregnancy coverage, so I picked a cheaper plan that didn't offer pregnancy coverage.

Those options don't exist now because of ACA.

I'm not saying that is definitely a bad thing. I'm actually for singlepayer. I never said that it bothered me that pregnancy is covered. I'm just stating the facts that in the private market, that was often an extra rider you needed to purchase. You can argue that's better or worse, but you can't argue the fact that that is how it was.

People were upset because they knew with ACA the barebones health insurance (cheaper) options would be phased out because now all plans have to offer certain types of coverage. Some people liked having the option of purchasing cheaper barebones coverage.

I think that where ACA fails is it tries to be too many things. It mandates coverage on the part of insurance coverage and mandates that people purchase coverage but it also tries to pretend that it still gives choice and it's still a "market." The result is that it fixes some problems but does so at the expense of taking away choices from people while at the same time giving the insurance companies more power and still retain the ability to recoup their profits in other ways (i.e., increasing all rates to make up for the coverage like pediatric dental and pregancy coverage that all plans are supposed to include).

[Anonymous]

^^^ I would add that employer plans DID get to choose what they provide coverage for. pre-ACA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain this to me: If you are being left behind by globalization and not doing well financial, wouldn't you want an expansion of overtime pay? Wouldn't you want the Affordable Care Act in case you lose your job or don't have benefits at your job? Wouldn't you support the initiative to make college affordable so that your children will not experience what you did? Wouldn't you want the tax code to ask more of the rich so that you, the poor, can enjoy greater benefits? Why are the "poor, white working class" folks supporting politicians (like Trump) who publicly spouse policies that will not benefit you?

It is attitudes like yours that make Trump so popular with people of all races, whether working class or not. Each of those programs has had unintended consequences suffered by the people you think they will help. Increase overtime, fine -- no overtime paid at all. Affordable Care Act available, fine -- no more employer contribution to health care. Make college affordable, fine -- but why can't a large portion of kids who graduate from college obtain jobs? Maybe it would be better to train people for the jobs that can't be filled by US citizens. There is a mismatch of skills needed and skills available among the "working class." Try to look beyond the talking points on the programs and realize their consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

Just curious -- what health insurance *doesn't* provide coverage for things you don't need?

I find most critics of the ACA are actually criticizing all insurance -- they just don't seem to understand how insurance works.

Also why we need a single-payer system.

There are aspects of a single payer system that I like but as someone with a great deal of experience in this field it is not a panacea.

I dunno. Cut costs in half while people live just as long if not longer. That's about as close to "panacea" as you are going to get.

There is no substance in your response. Cut costs in half? Have you looked at the costs of Medicaid and Medicare?

As for living longer. Won't help. One of the main reasons we have a lower life expectancy in the U.S. compared to nations like Japan and Canada is obesity (over 1/3rd now) and that is a huge strain health care costs.

Right, the fair comparison is against the cost of senior citizens healthcare.

I'm going out on a limb that you can read a graph, but WTH I'll give it a shot:

The chart is meaningless on it's face and especially as to your point of cutting costs.

Why is the chart meaningless? It looks like countries with single payer pay half what we pay with better results. That seems very meaningful to me.

The chart is meaningless because you're inferring a relationship that suggests healthcare spending drives health outcomes without clearly establishing that relationship. In particular, your chart attempts to find a relationship between healthcare spending and life expectancy. In reality we have a higher murder rate in the United States that plays a significant role in our lower life expectancy. The fact that some drug dealer will be murdered tonight is certainly tragic, but it is at best marginally connected to our country's healthcare spending. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the net effect of that drug dealers untimely death on life expectancy in this country is somehow related to healthcare spending.

Indeed, I suspect the relationship is reversed and it isn't that we get worse results for our healthcare spending but that our different lifestyles drive our higher healthcare spending. E.g,, many of the ailments that drive healthcare spending in America like obesity are caused by the way we eat, live and work. The idea that our healthcare system drives, for example, the obesity rate in this country is just stupid. It's where we live, how we get to work and what we eat that drives obesity in this country and the resulting healthcare costs related to obesity.

The health outcomes to healthcare spending is just an unsophisticated argument that sounds plausible on the surface but I just don't think the relationship is really there unless you actually believe that our citizens need doctors to understand that eating McDonald's everyday is a bad idea.

I think comparing us to the UK is reasonable. London is as violent as any US citizen. Their citizens eat crap like ours. But they get the same outcome with half the expenditure.

[Anonymous]

The health outcomes to healthcare spending is just an unsophisticated argument that sounds plausible on the surface but I just don't think the relationship is really there unless you actually believe that our citizens need doctors to understand that eating McDonald's everyday is a bad idea.

But maybe if more people had access to primary care, they could get someone to explain to them what eating McDonald's every day is doing to them. And perhaps there would be some intervention way before that Medicaid-paid visit to the ER. And the rest of us wouldn't have to pay so much for all those uninformed lifestyle choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The health outcomes to healthcare spending is just an unsophisticated argument that sounds plausible on the surface but I just don't think the relationship is really there unless you actually believe that our citizens need doctors to understand that eating McDonald's everyday is a bad idea.

But maybe if more people had access to primary care, they could get someone to explain to them what eating McDonald's every day is doing to them. And perhaps there would be some intervention way before that Medicaid-paid visit to the ER. And the rest of us wouldn't have to pay so much for all those uninformed lifestyle choices.

some people are fully aware. They just don't care or lack self control. And then medical costs go through the roof because so many people have diabetes and such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most middle class folk, with or without degrees, blue collar, white, and grey, all know we will never receive any freebies from any democrat program unless we have HHI at or below poverty. So, our best bet is on a guy who has a greater likelihood of improving job opportunities overall.

But that's not the case. Republicans have consistently failed to deliver on improved job opportunities. They are also the ones who have promoted "trickle down economics" going back to the Reagan era - where nothing ever trickles down - it has meant that wages for the working class have remained stagnant since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation, even as worker productivity and output have consistently gone up, even as corporate profits have consistently gone up. It's all being skimmed off of the top, with the richest people getting richer and not sharing the wealth with those who made it happen.

Again, no democrat program will EVER "share wealth" with my middle class family. E-V-E-R. Ok? Not happening. Total fail bye.

Secondly, in case you read twitter and facebook for your news, theres this stuff called outsourcing, H1-Bs, illegal immigrant labor, and relocation of manufacturing to china, mexico, etc. This ABSOLUTELY eliminates jobs for American workers. All of it.

Finally, remind me again what obama did to create jobs? Im drawing a blank. Oh, NOTHING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great question and has perplexed me forever. Why would anyone who is middle class or poor and in danger of losing a job or health care vote for the Trump. A rich guy who has gotten there on the backs of these very people, who will never think about them and only themselves. It is like they believe if they just get a guy in office that looks like them they will be just fine. Someone explain how people consistently vote against their own pay checks and families. Is it fear? Is it hatred? Who does this?

It’s quite simple, really.
Many of us in the middle class realize that the more “power” we give to the government in taking care of us, the more freedoms we lose as a result.
Like the ACA - we essentially handed over the power to the government to mandate health insurance for all, and in turn, gave up our freedom to choose what plan suits us and our families. Don’t need birth control? Too bad, you’ve got it. And, you don’t have young kids who need dental coverage? So sorry, pal, you get it anyway.
So, simply put, we value freedom more than we value “free things.”

? If you don't have young kids why are you getting coverage for young kids? And if you do have young kids, you do need some kind of dental coverage. That's crazy to think you don't.

Hey, I hate that we have such easy access to guns, but sorry, pal, we get it anyways.

See, this is my problem with those people who are so gung-ho about the ACA.
Pediatric dental coverage is REQUIRED for all ACA-compliant plans - whether you have children or not.
Guess you didn’t know that. Makes me wonder what else you don’t know about it.

Dental insurance, for the most part, isn’t covered under ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act). However, children’s dental coverage is a required benefit included on all ACA compliant plans and cost assistance can be applied to any Marketplace plan that includes dental.

http://obamacarefacts.com/dental-insurance/dental-insurance/

Yes, but if you don't have children on your plan you don't get pediatric dental. Get it now?

I don't understand why this discussion of ACA is in this thread. It should be a thread all its own.

I'd like to point out, though, that you are still paying for pediatric dental, even if you don't have children. You just aren't getting the benefit. The point people are saying is that because ACA plans have to include those things, they can't discount their plans for people who don't want that coverage. So if you are a man and get an ACA-compliant plan, the plan still includes pregnancy coverage, birth control, et cetera. You don't get a cheaper rate, even though you won't use those benefits because they are standard features of the plan.

That's the point you are missing. The upside is that those features don't cost more if you do need them. For example, pre-ACA, a woman purchasing a plan on the open market would have to pay more for the pregnancy coverage. Now, she doesn't have to because it is standard. But the unintended consequence is that everyone pays more. It's not like the insurance companies just take a hit. The cost is just spread around.

Where I differ with the people who are complaining about ACA is that I think singlepayer is a better option because it takes some of the power out of the hands of insurance companies, which are for-profit entities.

No, if you don't coverage for minors, you are not paying that premium. You pay for yourself or yourself and spouse. Therefore you are not paying for pediatric dental.

Now, pregnancy coverage is another matter. Non-pregnant people do pay for this.

However, in both cases requiring that plans have this is a benefit to society.

You simply don't get to choose what you want coverage for . . . you can't say, not traveling to Africa, no yellow fever coverage for me this year! I'll take cancer coverage, but no diabetes, please.

Insurance is not now nor has it ever been a cafeteria where you can pick and choose precisely what you will be covered for. It is an actuarial risk management pool and if if something is found in the pool, its covered.

If it really bothers you that pregnancy is covered, lobby for gender based risk pools. You will be surprised when you have opted out of pregnancy and find your rates going up because you have eliminated the healthier half of the pool. Yes. Women are healthier. Do you hear them complaining about paying higher rates because they have to cover the risks associated with men's stupid tendency not to seek prophylactic health care?

You are wrong. Employers pre-ACA were able to pick and choose what coverage and what exclusions their plans would offer. Private insurance also offered options. In my 20s, I had a 6-month gap between employer-provided plans. I purchased a barebones health insurance plan in the private market. I didn't need pregnancy coverage, so I picked a cheaper plan that didn't offer pregnancy coverage.

Those options don't exist now because of ACA.

I'm not saying that is definitely a bad thing. I'm actually for singlepayer. I never said that it bothered me that pregnancy is covered. I'm just stating the facts that in the private market, that was often an extra rider you needed to purchase. You can argue that's better or worse, but you can't argue the fact that that is how it was.

People were upset because they knew with ACA the barebones health insurance (cheaper) options would be phased out because now all plans have to offer certain types of coverage. Some people liked having the option of purchasing cheaper barebones coverage.

I think that where ACA fails is it tries to be too many things. It mandates coverage on the part of insurance coverage and mandates that people purchase coverage but it also tries to pretend that it still gives choice and it's still a "market." The result is that it fixes some problems but does so at the expense of taking away choices from people while at the same time giving the insurance companies more power and still retain the ability to recoup their profits in other ways (i.e., increasing all rates to make up for the coverage like pediatric dental and pregancy coverage that all plans are supposed to include).

That's one of the biggest failures of pre-ACA healthcare - that people would either not have any coverage at all, or would pick a bare bones plan that ended up not covering anything at all when they got sick or injured. Pre-ACA, lack of healthcare coverage has been one of the biggest sources of personal bankruptcy in America. There is already plenty of economic evidence to prove that the kind of overconfidence/arrogance/ignorance of not getting insurance or getting a bare bones plan will quite likely come back to bite you in the ass.

[Anonymous]

TATA. Read about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most middle class folk, with or without degrees, blue collar, white, and grey, all know we will never receive any freebies from any democrat program unless we have HHI at or below poverty. So, our best bet is on a guy who has a greater likelihood of improving job opportunities overall.

But that's not the case. Republicans have consistently failed to deliver on improved job opportunities. They are also the ones who have promoted "trickle down economics" going back to the Reagan era - where nothing ever trickles down - it has meant that wages for the working class have remained stagnant since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation, even as worker productivity and output have consistently gone up, even as corporate profits have consistently gone up. It's all being skimmed off of the top, with the richest people getting richer and not sharing the wealth with those who made it happen.

Again, no democrat program will EVER "share wealth" with my middle class family. E-V-E-R. Ok? Not happening. Total fail bye.

Secondly, in case you read twitter and facebook for your news, theres this stuff called outsourcing, H1-Bs, illegal immigrant labor, and relocation of manufacturing to china, mexico, etc. This ABSOLUTELY eliminates jobs for American workers. All of it.

Finally, remind me again what obama did to create jobs? Im drawing a blank. Oh, NOTHING.

ARRA did a lot to create jobs. Also the GM bail out.