White working class acting against their own interests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for outsourcing, got news for you - if you think Trump is going to magically end outsourcing or H1-Bs, you are delusional. And if you are so desperate to get rid of the illegals then get ready to start paying $10 for that burger because guess who's been the kitchen staff all these years. Plus, he will quite likely kill a ton of American jobs if he tries starting a trade war with protectionist policies and by killing trade partnerships, because it will kill our own exports. You know what else has been killing jobs? The free market. There's no "war on coal" nor even any need for it, the number one thing killing the coal industry hasn't been big evil gubmint regulation, it's been competition from the natural gas industry, along with a lot of the remaining mining jobs being killed due to automation and large scale mechanized operations like mountaintop removal. Regulation is just the nail in the coffin to an industry that was already one foot in the grave. But meanwhile people like you ignore the fact that outside of natural gas, the fastest growing jobs in the energy sector are in manufacturing and installing solar and wind. If those miners want a job they should go to where the industry has gone rather than sitting on their asses whining. Times change. We don't have switchboard operators anymore. We don't have livery stables in every town anymore. Move on, get with the times.

This has always been puzzling to me. Why would anyone prefer to go down into a hole every day, risking death in the short term and chronic illness in the long term, instead of pushing for jobs above ground in the air and sunshine?

Because, while they are nice people, they are not that intelligent, and are afraid that they might not be able to learn the new skills. Especially since some of them are old. Have you never been afraid of failure? Most of us know that we are lucky to find a spot once. The chance of that happening again is small, especially as we get older. Look at all the middle age people who had to "retire early" after 2008. Changing careers is not at all easy, especially when you are old.

How about the reality? Moving is a tremendous expense. While being retained as a solar manufacturing employee or an installer what do you live on? How do you afford to pick up your family and move? And what about the fact that they may not look forward to leaving their more extended family and community.

While solar and wind may be booming, is that boom happening in the hills of West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania? Maybe that should be the key, no solar/wind R&D or other tax incentives unless you set up in the area that is being displaced. Oh. But the engineers and business guys and management of those companies don't want to move either.

That boom isn't happening as robustly in those areas because the coal lobbyists have been pushing back against solar and wind at the state level. So the very industry these workers worked in is the one screwing them over and keeping them from being able to get new jobs in the emerging new sectors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

? 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.

Actually, a large percentage of people who go into bankruptcy due to health issues have insurance. And, no, it is not young people who had basic insurance.

I didn't argue that pretty aca was better. I said it simply isn't true that you couldn't opt out of certain coverage.

And by the way, the plan I bought didn't cover pregnancy, but it covered other emergency and unexpected health issues. What made it barebones is the lack of pregnancy coverage and that it still had high copay for a lot of preventative stuff that I didn't need and would not have used anyway at the time.

The ones who went into bankruptcy despite having insurance are the ones like the poster above who was only paying a hundred bucks a month for a non-plan. Some medical situation happens and guess what, you find that nothing you thought would be covered is.

[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?

Read "What's The Matter With Kansas."

[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.

At this point in time, everybody knows what alcohol and tobacco do to people, and people keep drinking in excess and smoking too much. The idea that lack of access to primary care is is preventing people from making good lifestyle choices is hard to buy into. Additionally, that's an extremely tenuous connection for healthcare spending to health outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, that is not correct. Life expectancy in London is 75.2 years while non-Loneon UK is probably closer to 81 years. Yet the UK has a virtually uniform healthcare system. If you really believe that healthcare systems drive life expectancy, please account for the much lower life expectancy in London as compared to the rest of the U.K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to be left alone

I had a fine insurance program for 100 bucks a month

Now I have to pay 300 with a higher deductible

Thanks Obama

I now can get private insurance and be self employed. Thanks Obama, and I didn't even vote for you!

+1000

I paid through the nose for insurance when I ran my own business 10 years ago. It would be much cheaper today.

You're in La La land. My premium was 785 a month for my wife and I in 2014. One of the lower than it should have been Co-ops. The same coverage in 2016 (bye bye Co-op when the government refused to continue funding at a level to keep them in business) would be 1520. I further increased the deductible and it is only 1265. As a rule the only way insurance is cheaper is for those lucky enough to get the tax credit to help pay for it.

Majority of people who have gotten insurance under ACA are on Medicaid now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to be left alone

I had a fine insurance program for 100 bucks a month

Now I have to pay 300 with a higher deductible

Thanks Obama

Hate to break it to you but.if you were only paying a hundred bucks your plan was probably a scam that didn't actually cover anything.

Either that or that was just your tiny portion of coverage that your employer was paying the lion's share on.

Hate to break it to you but 20 somethings paid (depending on the area of the country) that for decent to good coverage. ACA increased their premium to help lower premiums on older people. That's why many of that group are paying the fine.

And, statements like yours are evidence of partisanship, lack of knowledge or ignoring the fact that there is NO way to address cost and coverage as if it's the same across the nation. In some cases it's all three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, that is not correct. Life expectancy in London is 75.2 years while non-Loneon UK is probably closer to 81 years. Yet the UK has a virtually uniform healthcare system. If you really believe that healthcare systems drive life expectancy, please account for the much lower life expectancy in London as compared to the rest of the U.K.

That's silly. Of COURSE healthcare systems drive life expectancy! That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors. If the life expectancy in London is lower, there could be a myriad of reasons. Pollution, violent crime, poverty, lifestyle differences, factors related to immigrant groups or genetic issues, etc. London is an incredibly diverse city, possibly different than the rest of the UK, and possibly people who have health issues are drawn to living there? Who knows. I was reading the other day that Pakistani immigrants in some country in Europe are so inbred that it has a major impact on health of babies and infant mortality and fertility. Weird, random stuff like that. But healthcare is a huge part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to be left alone

I had a fine insurance program for 100 bucks a month

Now I have to pay 300 with a higher deductible

Thanks Obama

Hate to break it to you but.if you were only paying a hundred bucks your plan was probably a scam that didn't actually cover anything.

Either that or that was just your tiny portion of coverage that your employer was paying the lion's share on.

Hate to break it to you but 20 somethings paid (depending on the area of the country) that for decent to good coverage. ACA increased their premium to help lower premiums on older people. That's why many of that group are paying the fine.




And, statements like yours are evidence of partisanship, lack of knowledge or ignoring the fact that there is NO way to address cost and coverage as if it's the same across the nation. In some cases it's all three.

Correct and because its so jacked up healthy millennials like me are even less likely to join jacking prices up for even more people. Its like a prior poster said the middle class is screwed no matter what.

Republicans help the rich out
Democrats screw everyone except for the poor

Pick your posion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to be left alone

I had a fine insurance program for 100 bucks a month

Now I have to pay 300 with a higher deductible

Thanks Obama

Hate to break it to you but.if you were only paying a hundred bucks your plan was probably a scam that didn't actually cover anything.

Either that or that was just your tiny portion of coverage that your employer was paying the lion's share on.

Hate to break it to you but 20 somethings paid (depending on the area of the country) that for decent to good coverage. ACA increased their premium to help lower premiums on older people. That's why many of that group are paying the fine.

And, statements like yours are evidence of partisanship, lack of knowledge or ignoring the fact that there is NO way to address cost and coverage as if it's the same across the nation. In some cases it's all three.

No, that was what you paid for the plan that was only worth something if you got hit by a bus or had a heart attack.

[Anonymous]

Yes Catastrophic coverage 5k deductible 100 per month
Obamacare Bronze package 6k deductible 300 per month

[Anonymous]

People under 30 can still get catastrophic coverage under ACA if they meet the hardship exemption. But again, catastrophic coverage plans don't cover many routine things and you are on the hook for all out of pocket expenses until you meet the deductible.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, in the 7 years that we've had ACA, in the 7 years that we've been debating it, there STILL isn't any meaningful proposal whatsoever from its opponents that would actually be better in terms of making healthcare more accessible and affordable. No coherent plan whatsoever.

You can whine and complain all you want, but until you actually have a solid plan you have nothing to say and nothing to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People under 30 can still get catastrophic coverage under ACA if they meet the hardship exemption. But again, catastrophic coverage plans don't cover many routine things and you are on the hook for all out of pocket expenses until you meet the deductible.

And people should be able to make that choice for themselves - without the hardship exemption

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to be left alone

I had a fine insurance program for 100 bucks a month

Now I have to pay 300 with a higher deductible

Thanks Obama

I now can get private insurance and be self employed. Thanks Obama, and I didn't even vote for you!

+1000

I paid through the nose for insurance when I ran my own business 10 years ago. It would be much cheaper today.

You're in La La land. My premium was 785 a month for my wife and I in 2014. One of the lower than it should have been Co-ops. The same coverage in 2016 (bye bye Co-op when the government refused to continue funding at a level to keep them in business) would be 1520. I further increased the deductible and it is only 1265. As a rule the only way insurance is cheaper is for those lucky enough to get the tax credit to help pay for it.

Majority of people who have gotten insurance under ACA are on Medicaid now.

What, for bare bones coverage? When I was running my own consulting business I was paying $1300 a month 10 years ago for myself, my wife, and my kid.