what is it about our culture that allows someone to come from nothing and make something of themselves in one single generation and be able to pass that onto another generation if they so choose. Check the dot com millionaires and surprisingly they all seem to say they want their kids to EARN it instead of having it handed down to them.

that's a fundamental difference in culture right there.

...in America.

My general advice is, you want to be really careful making universal statements about things that are only true inside your own country. "Get sick and go to the poorhouse" is a truism in America, and in some places in the third world, and that's about it.

truism means that it's TRUE all the time. I have been hospitalized 3 times, total of 7 days, 7 days, 1 day. I'm not in the poor house and I have this horrible private insurance. I chose to work for a corporate company that provides benefits. Ohhh the soul sucking corporations!!!! well, you make choices and you live with those consequences of those choices, my soul may be sucked out, but I got health insurance.

and that's the wonderful part about having been born in America. I can't tell you how many times family members, friends, travelers, tell me, "My you're very lucky and fortunate to have been born in America."

And yet, knowing without health care, they still seem to be drifting on plywood and crossing valleys and streams to get here.

I wasn't aware that this was a uniquely American experience. Poor kids in France, Japan and Holland can't go from nothing to something in one generation?

But dude. You live quite comfortably in Manhattan. Please don't extrapolate from your financial situation to that of all Americans.

For instance, take me. I'm currently unemployed. I've carried private insurance since being laid off in 2004, and since that time I've done enough freelance work to keep myself and my family housed and keep my (absurdly expensive) insurance paid, among other things. When my last contract gig ended about six weeks ago, I earned the last dollar I've earned since then. I've been job hunting HARD--up to and including finding out this morning that I didn't land the job I interviewed for yesterday. Not a big surprise, it wasn't a great fit, but still, it sucks.

So I'm not crying over you selling your soul. I'd fucking LOVE to sell mine, but right now, nobody's buying souls with my background.

From inside your world view, you are the harder working of us. You're the more moral, the more deserving. To that I say a RESOUNDING: Fuck you.

You've got no idea what it's like out here. Don't you DARE tell me you "choose" to work for a corporation. For some of us, that's not a choice that's available. And yes, I take your flippancy about this GOD DAMN PERSONALLY.

What happens when I can't afford to pay both my mortgage and my insurance payment, which is the situation I'm facing next week? What then, Cynthetiq? You're the wise moral hard worker for whom luck doesn't play any factor. Tell me what I should do. Because I really honestly don't know.

I wonder how many people are denied this way? I read somewhere that only about 0.5% of total policies are rescinded. I also read that they usually scour the policies for descrepancies only after someone has made a large claim. I believe that only a small percentage of total policy holders make a large claim so the percentage of those dropped would seem to be rather high.

The examples the president gave at the town hall today seem to be particularly troubling.

It probably has something to do with bootstraps, pulling, hard work, and rugged individualism.

I'm really sorry to read about your current situation. That's fucking terrible. I hope things improve quickly.

I'm pretty sure that upward mobility is outlawed in socialist countries.

Perhaps, the key here is to not misrepresent material facts. If an insurance company acts inappropriately and you know it, my advise is to get the treatment and sue the hell out of the insurance company.

Thanks. I've wallpapered the local print and web design world with my resume, I trust something will bite soonish. In the meantime, I do have a little freelance stuff lined up. It'll be tight for a bit, but we'll make it. It just pisses me off to have Mr Rental Property in Vegas here moralizing about how great he has it. Forgive me if I think I have perhaps a bit more insight into the American struggle, at this particular moment of the world.

Edit: I removed my post, it was irrelevant.

The US (and the UK, too) are among the developed nations with the least social mobility. The intergenerational correlation of income is much, much higher in the US (and the UK) than in Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland and Denmark, for example.

But at least we have the perception of social mobility.

..

Complete and utter douchebaggery. I'm in awe.

Not once did he say he expected his government to hand him ANYTHING. Not a single cent.

Let's say for a second we were to take a public option off the table. Then I believe the following reform would be needed.

1) Health insurance companies would have to put at minimum a fixed % of premiums into coverage. At the end of the year any amount over the required % would be refunded proportionally back to all policy holders.

2) All policy holders are placed into the same risk pool, that is everyone pays the same rate for said coverage. Essentially make it as if every person in the US were in the same group plan.

3) Everyone qualifies for every plan and no one can rescinded or denied coverage.


Insurance agencies could still complete with each other and could offer plans that meet peoples needs. Essentially each plan offered would carry its own risk and the insurance company would set premiums accordingly but everyone would have the same rates.

Right now greedy insurance companies are fleecing the sick and laughing about it all the way to the bank. They had their chance to play fair and they abused it and now they need regulation.

That doesn't matter. If someone disagrees with conservative ideology or their odd perspective on the world, they're automatically a far leftist socialist, they're automatically on welfare, and they're automatically fiscally irresponsible. That's just how it works. They're also automatically people that are incapable of questioning President Obama, which is generally communicated in some snarky remark like "drinking the coolaid" or "the Great One".

He didn't say anything about wanting anything from government.

By the way, I really hope no one on your family is a farmer, works on a subsidized industry, goes or teaches at a public school, has healthcare from VA or medicare or uses farm tax breaks to buy SUVs... because then you would be taking advantage of my tax money.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. If Insurance companies refunded any unused premiums because you didn't have any claims that year, there would be no money for them to pay out other claims, so that really isn't a realistic option

timalkin: this is my actual life we're talking about. I do appreciate you scoring political points on my difficulties, though. Thanks for that. At least you'll never be mistaken for one of those compassionate conservatives.

They refund premiums on the whole not to the individual.

Let me give you an example with some simple numbers (aka not realistic):

Let's say an insurance company has this plan A. On plan A there are 1,000 people. They each have a premium of $1,000 a year. Each year they take in $1,000,000. Let's say the % requirement is 90%. Then the insurance company must pay out $900,000. Let's say this year the insurance company only pay's out $500,000 in insurance claims, then they are $400,000 under what they must pay out. Thus each person would get a refund at the end of the year for the difference: $400 (400,000/1,000).

That's not a feasable option though. If you refund all the money at the end of the year, then there's no money to be paid out for the following year. Each person is only paying say $100 dollars a month, it will take time for the premiums to build up in order to pay out. If they have to pay out $600,000 in claims in the month of january they will go bankrupt and be unable to pay. Plus it wouldn't be fair. Think of your cell phone bill. say you pay $90 per month for 1,000 minutes. If you only use 600 minutes do you get a refund? of course not. You are paying a predetermined amount per month for a maximum amount of minutes. If you didn't use them all it's not your cell phone providers fault. Same with insurance. You are paying your premiums because you are affraid you MIGHT need to file a claim. You have a maximum benefit that will be paid out for a predetermined amount of premium. it's the same thing

they already do that, but the $400 goes to the CEO/stockholders instead

And that is the problem. It should go back to the people.


The fundamental problem is that the free market and health care do not work well together. When the opportunity cost is death there is no limit to what health care providers can charge and thus they can extort people for all that they own and in a true free market fashion that is exactly what they do.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

A smart insurance company would keep a large savings pool for this. The refund could also occur a year behind if it were needed but I'm not convinced it is needed. Alternatively the refund could also be applied to future premiums. Right now we need to limit how much money the insurance companies fleece from sick people.

How come the percent of premiums spent on actual health care has decreased substantially over the last 10 years?

Like every other business in America they want to make profits. You can not force a company to make mandatory refunds. The only way to get insurance companies to lower premiums is if a government plan that actually works forces insurance companies to in order to compete. The government can't tell the industry what to charge or when to refund, or what to do with their profits.

But they can. Where we live the government recently forced the energy companies to give rebates because they took in to high of profits. I think a public plan is the best solution because it would force the insurance companies to be more competitive. Here I was just offering an alternative to a public plan. I take it you are more supportive of a public plan then? Would you support a public option?

I would support a public plan if they left the private sector alone. Government telling the energy companies in your state how much money they are allowed to make is ludicrous. That is not the role of government. I agree a public option may make for better competition in the private sector but it depends on how effective the public option is. If it's anything like medicaid then no chance.

I come from a political perspective that says when private industry is ass-raping consumers, government MUST step in and correct the situation. The insurance cartel isn't the only ass-raper in the health care space, but IMO it's the biggest one, and the first and best leverage point for governmental intervention in the ass-raping.

The fact that I'm now conversing directly with a guy in the ass-rape business doesn't really change that for me. I hate for you that your job might go away, and I'd really prefer that not happen, or at least that whatever impact that might have be minimal or zero... but I'd also like your boss's cock out of my ass, if it's all the same.

On one hand I apologize for the graphic analogy, and on the other hand, suck it up because it's apt as hell.

yeah the government steps in often when businesses get out of hand. Look at how they break up monopoly's or oligopolies, look at windfall taxes, etc. One of the governments essential duties is to protect the US population from businesses. At least with non-health-care products consumers have the option of telling the company to fuck off by not buying their product. However, when it comes to health care and you are sitting in the emergency room with 24 hours to live because your appendix is about to burst you can't really tell them to fuck off can you? This is why the health care industry needs heavy regulation. Much in the same way that the government regulated banks when they were handing out mortgages just to turn around and say they needed full payment a few years later or else they would take your property.

Well I'm hoping the impact on my job will be minimal, I am in the supplemental market not directly in health insurance. But I stated in one of these threads that I've already lost several accounts due to all the uncertainty floating around this issue. Companies are reluctant to make any changes in their employee's benefits right now with everything going on, which I don't blame them, but I gotta eat ya know.

Why not? Isn't it the roll of government to regulate the market to make sure that it's greed doesn't hurt too many people? Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US right now, with 1.5-2 million a year, and more than three quarters of those are insured. Health care insurance costs are rising at several times the rate of inflation (generally about 2x). People with coverage are regularly denied service that they are covered for because it would cost the insurance more than they're comfortable playing. On top of all that are the people that aren't insured, that 47 (probably higher now) million number.

The market is very good at some things and very bad at others. The market has demonstrated for the past few decades that it's incapable of providing a functional medical system.

And if they are conservative, they automatically have an "odd perspective" of the world. Amazing how half the arguments you point out, you are guilty of as well. Try to keep it factual.

So respond to Will's last post, then.

Odd simply means different from the usual. Are you asking me to demonstrate that the conservative perspective on this is different from usual? I can. I can also demonstrate that the vast majority of misinformation about HR 3200 is coming from conservative sources. I can demonstrate quite a few facts on this.

Don't get defensive because you're on the wrong side of this. Either come up with a better defense or change your position.

Well? I'm all ears, Will. Or eyes, as it were :)

I don't have to do either. I'm asking for facts. What is "usual"? 51%? Your take? The liberal take in general? Hillary Clinton's take? All I see is subjectivity.

I'll start with a very, very simple fact: Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the Iraq war than all other media consumers (I know it's a Pub Discussion, but this particular post required a verifiable source). As you can see from the study, people that watched other networks have a much more balanced and objective understanding of the Iraq War. Fox News viewers are significantly more conservative than any other 24 hour news station (please tell me you don't need a link for this), therefore conservatives have an odd perspective.

All you really need to do, though, is look at the recent national debates. Obama was born in Kenya (which over half of Republicans believe)? H.R. 3200 has death panels!? It seems the current conservative movement's creed is "absurdum ad nauseum", win by saying the most absurd things the most. Rigor mortis will be setting in soon at this rate. I wonder if the Whigs will come back...

Your reasoning is dim. I've never watched Fox news in my life. Not even 5 minutes of it. I'm somewhat conservative. So not having any "Fox" influence, I still have an "odd" view? That's not logical in the slightest. It makes no sense, on both counts. What percentage watches Fox? What percentage agrees with Fox? Based on your link (which refuses to load for me right now) it simply states that Fox viewers have misperceptions about the Iraq war. We are not talking about the Iraq war. You might as well say Fox viewers prefer oreo double-stuffed cookies over original, based on oreo double-stuffed commercials that Fox airs on a regular basis. I went to the top of the page and did a CTRL-F and typed in iraq. The first mention is your link. I checked the title. Wait. No that says healthcare, not IRAQ WAR. So based on views of the IRAQ WAR, which we all no doubt have misperceptions and misconceptions of, you say that all conservatives have an odd view? How very personal of you.

I'm not arguing the ad nauseum part. In fact I agree to a certain extent. That extent being the tactics used, which you seem to be doing here, honestly, as well. Absurd, indeed.

I've asked you for some tangible evidence or facts more than once and you always reply with nonsense. Nothing personal there, just damn man, gimme something to work with here. If you want to argue for the healthcare bill, argue what it will do that is good, instead of just rambling.

How about his post #230, which I asked you to respond to in my post #232? You don't have to look far for a post from Will with discussable facts, but you DO have to set down your presupposition that he's never posted any such thing.

I hope you like that dick, because you're all over his like white on rice. Just saying.

That's mature

Well, it is "pub banter" after all.

He is though. Why can't Will take care of himself? Is Rat Will's big brother? I'm trying to ask Will a thought provoking (hopefully) question, and all I see is this dude off to the side posturing and trying to get my attention.