Stupid Things Said At The Democratic Debate

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is truly news to me. If I opt out of Medicare for all, none of my tax dollars will be used to finance it? If that is true then I have 0 idea why anyone would be against it. 

When you're eligible for Medicare you won't be eligible for Tricare Prime any longer. If you want Tricare for Life you need to enroll in Medicare Part A and B.

You're going to need Medicare.

The good news is the politicians can trim your healthcare benefits at any time.

[BFritz21]

(07-03-2019, 02:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Doesn't the government give you free stuff?

Yes, but only because I'm unable to do things like work a full-time job or do a lot of things on my own, so I need assistance.  

[BakertheBeast]

(07-03-2019, 03:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes, but only because I'm unable to do things like work a full-time job or do a lot of things on my own, so I need assistance.  

Yeah, that is different. If you need it then its ok to take free stuff from the Government.

[CJD]

(07-03-2019, 03:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes, but only because I'm unable to do things like work a full-time job or do a lot of things on my own, so I need assistance.  

So you deserve free stuff because you need it, but the other people who need stuff are just lazy good for nothings, right?

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 05:35 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Yeah, that is different. If you need it then its ok to take free stuff from the Government.

(07-03-2019, 09:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you deserve free stuff because you need it, but the other people who need stuff are just lazy good for nothings, right?

I'm just going to caution this line of posting because it is getting into the territory of personal attacks. Let's not go there.

[Aquapod770]

(07-02-2019, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that's where we are now. So we can only look up!

So you admit the ACA was a failure? 

[Aquapod770]

(07-02-2019, 11:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's my understanding that Medicare for All would be an option that you can take instead of private insurance. I assume that if you don't take the option, your taxes wouldn't increase under most of the candidates' proposed plans.

Of course, we can't be sure of the structure of it until it is made into a bill, but that is the intention, to my understanding.

Sounds great, but I don't see how that can happen. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 03:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes, but only because I'm unable to do things like work a full-time job or do a lot of things on my own, so I need assistance.  

Have you considered the optics of politicking against government assistance for others while simultaneously receiving government assistance when your hobbies are poker tournaments and sports betting while bragging about what a successful businessman your father is?

Honestly, we would get a better return on investment by using tax dollars to send people to college or trade school because their increased earning potential over their lifetime will increase tax revenue compared to providing assistance to you.

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 10:08 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So you admit the ACA was a failure? 

Actually, I think the ACA is a terrible law. So yes.

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 10:09 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Sounds great, but I don't see how that can happen. 

Essentially, you would replace your insurance premium with a payroll tax. Since Medicare is, on average, more efficient than private insurers it would presumably be a lower amount than what you are used to as an insurance premium.

Medicare, right now, is paid for out of a payroll tax (you pay FICA, a combination of SS/OASDI of 6.2% and HI/Medicare of 1.45%, which is also matched by your employer much like insurance premiums now are paid in part by employers). So, essentially, if you opt-in then your HI portion would increase, but you would no longer have an insurance premium to pay.

[Aquapod770]

(07-03-2019, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Essentially, you would replace your insurance premium with a payroll tax. Since Medicare is, on average, more efficient than private insurers it would presumably be a lower amount than what you are used to as an insurance premium.

Medicare, right now, is paid for out of a payroll tax (you pay FICA, a combination of SS/OASDI of 6.2% and HI/Medicare of 1.45%, which is also matched by your employer much like insurance premiums now are paid in part by employers). So, essentially, if you opt-in then your HI portion would increase, but you would no longer have an insurance premium to pay.

I guess that could work, but unfortunately I think it will drive private insurance costs higher. The medicare/medicaid plans are already bloated with so much regulation it can get a little ridiculous. My current insurance premium is only $35 per two-week paycheck. I wouldn't mind going this route, but I feel it may complicate a problem and do little to alleviate health care costs. I do think it would drive us to a single payer system, which is the end goal for a lot of people. 

It's a long list, and from 2014, but there is a lot of information about medicare reimbursements in here. 
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/100-things-to-know-about-medicare-reimbursement.html

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 12:04 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I guess that could work, but unfortunately I think it will drive private insurance costs higher. The medicare/medicaid plans are already bloated with so much regulation it can get a little ridiculous. My current insurance premium is only $35 per two-week paycheck. I wouldn't mind going this route, but I feel it may complicate a problem and do little to alleviate health care costs. I do think it would drive us to a single payer system, which is the end goal for a lot of people. 

It's a long list, and from 2014, but there is a lot of information about medicare reimbursements in here. 
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/100-things-to-know-about-medicare-reimbursement.html

Part of the reason for the bloat is because of the hobbled together system we have. Moving to a more comprehensive Medicare program would alleviate a lot of this. I agree, though, that it wouldn't address the underlying issue: the rising costs of healthcare. This is my main gripe with the ACA, as well, in that it focused on a surface level fix. Any program that attempts to only address what the consumers pay through their insurance is not a good solution. There needs to be a comprehensive plan in place to look at how quickly these costs are rising and what can be done to address it. This is the same for both healthcare and education to me.

[BFritz21]

(07-03-2019, 05:35 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Yeah, that is different. If you need it then its ok to take free stuff from the Government.

Um.......  yes?

(07-03-2019, 09:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So you deserve free stuff because you need it, but the other people who need stuff are just lazy good for nothings, right?

HA!  A personal attack fail!

We're not talking about "needing" things from the government, we're talking Democrats just giving things away to people for no reason.

(07-03-2019, 10:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Have you considered the optics of politicking against government assistance for others while simultaneously receiving government assistance when your hobbies are poker tournaments and sports betting while bragging about what a successful businessman your father is?

Honestly, we would get a better return on investment by using tax dollars to send people to college or trade school because their increased earning potential over their lifetime will increase tax revenue compared to providing assistance to you.

What does my father having been a successful businessman (he's retired) have anything to do with me needing assistance?  I didn't receive government money while I was a minor under his roof.

And I don't use the money from the government on poker tourneys and, even when I did, it wasn't more than a few hundred (if that) a month.  People use their money for leisure.

[BmorePat87]

(07-02-2019, 11:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's universally understood by those who would benefit from it. I have great health care and I'm happy with the premium I pay. So I cannot get behind the universal understanding of raising my taxes to benefit me. 

I said it was understood that it was the argument, not that it was true necessarily true.

My point was to suggest that there’s no reason for rhetorical questions when we all understand the argument. Let’s move to the next stage of discussing the argument

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 12:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We're not talking about "needing" things from the government, we're talking Democrats just giving things away to people for no reason.

That's you're understanding of the issue. However, I would make the argument that there are plenty of reasons that people need these social programs, which aren't really being "given away" to them. That is a narrative rooted in propagandic rhetoric rather than policy realities.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 12:04 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I guess that could work, but unfortunately I think it will drive private insurance costs higher. The medicare/medicaid plans are already bloated with so much regulation it can get a little ridiculous. My current insurance premium is only $35 per two-week paycheck. I wouldn't mind going this route, but I feel it may complicate a problem and do little to alleviate health care costs. I do think it would drive us to a single payer system, which is the end goal for a lot of people. 

It's a long list, and from 2014, but there is a lot of information about medicare reimbursements in here. 
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/100-things-to-know-about-medicare-reimbursement.html

That regulation is a drop in the bucket compared to the regulation for the hundreds of private insurance plans for each state x 50 states. It's one of the main reasons why the majority of patients don't understand how their insurance works and they're pissed off they have to pay more than they thought they're supposed to pay. A large percentage don't know the difference between a deductible, a premium, and a co-pay and the prices vary based upon the setting (PCP, urgent care, ER, specialist, in network, out of network), or that their insurance doesn't pay for everything they want.

Monday I had to speak to a disgruntled patient, "I was told I can't be seen."

"No, you were told if you want to be seen you have to pay cash. The reason for this is because you want to be checked for STDs, but you don't have any symptoms of an STD. If you don't have any symptoms your insurance won't pay for the tests. So if you want the tests done you have to pay for the tests because your insurance won't."

Another issue that always makes them angry is when they can't use their medical insurance for a dental problem.

[CJD]

(07-03-2019, 12:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: HA!  A personal attack fail!

It explicitly wasn't a personal attack...Someone who needs government assistance should be more sympathetic towards people who need it, not less.

Your belief system just makes no sense to me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Part of the reason for the bloat is because of the hobbled together system we have. Moving to a more comprehensive Medicare program would alleviate a lot of this. I agree, though, that it wouldn't address the underlying issue: the rising costs of healthcare. This is my main gripe with the ACA, as well, in that it focused on a surface level fix. Any program that attempts to only address what the consumers pay through their insurance is not a good solution. There needs to be a comprehensive plan in place to look at how quickly these costs are rising and what can be done to address it. This is the same for both healthcare and education to me.

The costs of healthcare are based upon capitalism. Good luck with price fixing on a greater scale than Medicare and Medicaid across the entire healthcare industry.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-03-2019, 12:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Um.......  yes?


HA!  A personal attack fail!

We're not talking about "needing" things from the government, we're talking Democrats just giving things away to people for no reason.

What does my father having been a successful businessman (he's retired) have anything to do with me needing assistance?  I didn't receive government money while I was a minor under his roof.

And I don't use the money from the government on poker tourneys and, even when I did, it wasn't more than a few hundred (if that) a month.  People use their money for leisure.

If your father is successful, people might believe your family could take care of you instead of the government. People are against food stamps being used to purchase tobacco or alcohol. I think those same people would suggest you don't need assistance if you have money to gamble.

Obviously, I'm not one of those people since I'm advocating giving free stuff to people for no reason as you put it. But, what I am suggesting is maybe you reconsider your position on the subject.

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2019, 02:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The costs of healthcare are based upon capitalism. Good luck with price fixing on a greater scale than Medicare and Medicaid across the entire healthcare industry.

Price fixing isn't necessarily the answer. Better government involvement not just in regulation but in research and investment could help with the costs we are seeing. There are a lot of variables that contribute to these prices and they don't require price fixing.