How to break healthcare

[theeedude]

So what should we be doing that Germany and Switzerland are currently doing? Reminder to people itt that Germany doesn't have a single-payer system, and that Switzerland doesn't have public healthcare.

They have well working health care systems. Since we can't figure it out ourselves, we should pick one of theirs and do it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

They have well working health care systems. Since we can't figure it out ourselves, we should pick one of theirs and do it.

Let's pick Switzerland's and kick all the fatties out of our nation to get there.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what should we be doing that Germany and Switzerland are currently doing? Reminder to people itt that Germany doesn't have a single-payer system, and that Switzerland doesn't have public healthcare.

Health insurance is mandatory in both countries. Providers are non-profit. The Swiss system works a whole lot like the ACA-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-worlds-best-health-care-system/#615052d618af

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Health insurance is mandatory in both countries. Providers are non-profit. The Swiss system works a whole lot like the ACA-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-worlds-best-health-care-system/#615052d618af

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

That's kind of my point. Granted, the ACA is still young, but do people expect it to start bringing costs down to Swiss levels any time soon? And as the article points out, Switzerland still has expensive healthcare relative to the rest of Europe. I don't blame the ACA for rising healthcare costs, things have been gradually more expensive for a while now, but it doesn't seem like a solution either for actually making things as efficient as in much of Europe.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yea let's all become net exporters tied to the Euro!!! It's so great everybody can do it!

Uhh we can't. Comparisons between USA and Europe fail on a fundamental level.

Other countries have universal care w/o being net exporters, like the UK, France, Canada, Australia & Japan-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports

 

[theeedude]

Let's pick Switzerland's and kick all the fatties out of our nation to get there.

OK, let's pick Switzerland's then. Just pick one already.

 

[Mai72]

Trump has vowed to use the pen on Obamacare when he gets in office. That's the first day. Over the objections of the Republicans who are probably scared sh*tless. They have no answer for Trump and they're probably worried because many Americans like Obamacare.

 

[highland145]

Well dump can't use the pen on the ACA the way george used his on all of his pet projects.


As far as the ACA, the lovers are sucking at the tit. Find some of the haters and get the real story.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well dump can't use the pen on the ACA the way george used his on all of his pet projects.


As far as the ACA, the lovers are sucking at the tit. Find some of the haters and get the real story.

Bullshit. Millions of Americans with employer sponsored health insurance benefit from provisions of the ACA, pre-existing conditions foremost among them. Many more gladly pay full boat on the exchange because it's good coverage that they can afford. It's significantly less expensive than similar individual plans prior to the exchange.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump has vowed to use the pen on Obamacare when he gets in office. That's the first day. Over the objections of the Republicans who are probably scared sh*tless. They have no answer for Trump and they're probably worried because many Americans like Obamacare.

Repubs obviously have no viable replacement for the ACA. They can't, simply because they are ideologically opposed to the taxation & redistribution necessary to achieve universal coverage in any form. That's obvious from the States that rejected Medicaid expansion.

 

[Jaskalas]

They also have longer wait times to see specialist than we do here.

Wouldn't that be resolved by simply having more people employed in the health sector?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Bullshit. Millions of Americans with employer sponsored health insurance benefit from provisions of the ACA, pre-existing conditions foremost among them. Many more gladly pay full boat on the exchange because it's good coverage that they can afford. It's significantly less expensive than similar individual plans prior to the exchange.

Except there is that whole thing where... well... you know... You have to CONTINUE TO WORK in order to keep that benefit you fool.

There is no incentive to be able to be healthy under the ACA other than to CONTINUE to NOT work. Comprende? In order to get your tax credits you do not need to:
1) get up at 6:00 AM and get dressed in a professional manner/attire.
2) commute 5-90 minutes to an employer address
3) work for 8-12 hours in a day. Potentially laborous tasks or heavy cognitive tasks
4) commute 5-90 minutes to get home
5) Cook, shit, shower, shave, and repeat for 40 hours.

Do you not understand the difference between having a requirement to BE EMPLOYED and get a benefit versus sitting on your ass, retaining a semi-lowish income level and receiving an income/tax credit in the mail? Because there is one, of course, even with the portrayal I outlined above, you're still going to live in denial so what difference does it make.

Tax credits and incentives that relate to having a certain low threshold will be the death of this country. I guaran-fucking-tee it. There is no better way to ensure that people try not to improve life and try to be content with what they have - but continuing to bitch and ask for more.

 

[ivwshane]

Except there is that whole thing where... well... you know... You have to CONTINUE TO WORK in order to keep that benefit you fool.

There is no incentive to be able to be healthy under the ACA other than to CONTINUE to NOT work. Comprende? In order to get your tax credits you do not need to:
1) get up at 6:00 AM and get dressed in a professional manner/attire.
2) commute 5-90 minutes to an employer address
3) work for 8-12 hours in a day. Potentially laborous tasks or heavy cognitive tasks
4) commute 5-90 minutes to get home
5) Cook, shit, shower, shave, and repeat for 40 hours.

Do you not understand the difference between having a requirement to BE EMPLOYED and get a benefit versus sitting on your ass, retaining a semi-lowish income level and receiving an income/tax credit in the mail? Because there is one, of course, even with the portrayal I outlined above, you're still going to live in denial so what difference does it make.

Tax credits and incentives that relate to having a certain low threshold will be the death of this country. I guaran-fucking-tee it. There is no better way to ensure that people try not to improve life and try to be content with what they have - but continuing to bitch and ask for more.

Lol! Is your point that "free" healthcare will create people who don't bother working (or try to improve their socioeconomic status) so they can take advantage of healthcare? Is free healthcare to you similar to getting a lottery ticket? Last time I checked, people use healthcare because there is something wrong with them.

What an idiotic thing to say! Lol

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Lol! Is your point that "free" healthcare will create people who don't bother working (or try to improve their socioeconomic status) so they can take advantage of healthcare? Is free healthcare to you similar to getting a lottery ticket? Last time I checked, people use healthcare because there is something wrong with them.

What an idiotic thing to say! Lol

/facepalm

 

[Jhhnn]

Except there is that whole thing where... well... you know... You have to CONTINUE TO WORK in order to keep that benefit you fool.

There is no incentive to be able to be healthy under the ACA other than to CONTINUE to NOT work. Comprende? In order to get your tax credits you do not need to:
1) get up at 6:00 AM and get dressed in a professional manner/attire.
2) commute 5-90 minutes to an employer address
3) work for 8-12 hours in a day. Potentially laborous tasks or heavy cognitive tasks
4) commute 5-90 minutes to get home
5) Cook, shit, shower, shave, and repeat for 40 hours.

Do you not understand the difference between having a requirement to BE EMPLOYED and get a benefit versus sitting on your ass, retaining a semi-lowish income level and receiving an income/tax credit in the mail? Because there is one, of course, even with the portrayal I outlined above, you're still going to live in denial so what difference does it make.

Tax credits and incentives that relate to having a certain low threshold will be the death of this country. I guaran-fucking-tee it. There is no better way to ensure that people try not to improve life and try to be content with what they have - but continuing to bitch and ask for more.

There are also millions of working Americans who receive subsidized care thru exchange policies, people whose employers don't have plans. It's more expensive than many employer sponsored plans & subsidies don't phase out until family income exceeds ~$90K, iirc. My hard working wife w/ her own business & our son are covered under that. I'm at the end of the healthcare rainbow on Medicare.

Your opinion of your fellow Americans is a lot lower than it should be, btw.

 

[Meghan54]

1. Who receives any income/tax credit in the mail for the ACA? There's no money sent to anyone who buys from the ACA.

2. Even a minimally employed person deserves to purchase health insurance, don't you think? Or are you of the belief that if a person isn't college educated, working as an engineer, in science or mathematics related field, that he/she doesn't deserve a damned thing? Because that's just the way you come off. And the reality is that half the country has an I.Q. below 100, so you'd think you'd understand there's a whole segment of the population that will never be able to be successful in any sort of school beyond high school, irrespective of any cost of said school.

3. Even a minimally employed person has to continue working to continue to get ACA ins. No work, no ins. True, the income level for a single person is roughly a tad over 32 hrs./week at minimum wage, but that's still working....not sitting on your ass getting these phantom checks in the mail you rail on about.

I just cannot understand the shortsightedness of some about this issue. "I don't want to pay taxes for the poor's health care!" is common refrain from several here, including you. What's ignorant about that is the fact you're already paying for those damned "poors" health care, health care delivered in the most expensive and inefficient manner...the ER.

Except there is that whole thing where... well... you know... You have to CONTINUE TO WORK in order to keep that benefit you fool.

There is no incentive to be able to be healthy under the ACA other than to CONTINUE to NOT work. Comprende? In order to get your tax credits you do not need to:
1) get up at 6:00 AM and get dressed in a professional manner/attire.
2) commute 5-90 minutes to an employer address
3) work for 8-12 hours in a day. Potentially laborous tasks or heavy cognitive tasks
4) commute 5-90 minutes to get home
5) Cook, shit, shower, shave, and repeat for 40 hours.

Do you not understand the difference between having a requirement to BE EMPLOYED and get a benefit versus sitting on your ass, retaining a semi-lowish income level and receiving an income/tax credit in the mail? Because there is one, of course, even with the portrayal I outlined above, you're still going to live in denial so what difference does it make.

Tax credits and incentives that relate to having a certain low threshold will be the death of this country. I guaran-fucking-tee it. There is no better way to ensure that people try not to improve life and try to be content with what they have - but continuing to bitch and ask for more.

 

[glenn1]

Your opinion of your fellow Americans is a lot lower than it should be, btw.

No, our opinion is exactly where it should be - that happens when people like us are paying for people like you.

 

[highland145]

He already posted he was getting his nearly free ride.

 

[fskimospy]

Except there is that whole thing where... well... you know... You have to CONTINUE TO WORK in order to keep that benefit you fool.

There is no incentive to be able to be healthy under the ACA other than to CONTINUE to NOT work. Comprende? In order to get your tax credits you do not need to:
1) get up at 6:00 AM and get dressed in a professional manner/attire.
2) commute 5-90 minutes to an employer address
3) work for 8-12 hours in a day. Potentially laborous tasks or heavy cognitive tasks
4) commute 5-90 minutes to get home
5) Cook, shit, shower, shave, and repeat for 40 hours.

Do you not understand the difference between having a requirement to BE EMPLOYED and get a benefit versus sitting on your ass, retaining a semi-lowish income level and receiving an income/tax credit in the mail? Because there is one, of course, even with the portrayal I outlined above, you're still going to live in denial so what difference does it make.

Tax credits and incentives that relate to having a certain low threshold will be the death of this country. I guaran-fucking-tee it. There is no better way to ensure that people try not to improve life and try to be content with what they have - but continuing to bitch and ask for more.

Attitudes like this are sort of funny but mostly sad. Just in case you didn't know, being in poverty is a life choice available to everyone! If you think it's so wonderful I suggest you try it and get back to us. In some cases being in poverty is the result of personal choices but in huge amounts of them it's not, and the idea that a lack of motivation is the cause of poverty is ridiculous and shows how out of touch you are. Here's a good chart for you:

https://www.bostonfed.org/inequality2014/papers/reeves-sawhill.pdf

That's right, someone from a poor background who fought through all that adversity to get a college degree is exactly as likely to be in poverty as someone from a wealthy background who dropped out of high school. Now they are more likely to be in one of the top 3 quintiles than that rich dropout, but we are comparing people who are generally thought of as having done everything right to people who have done everything wrong. The fact that the numbers are even close is staggering.

The idea that trying to make people who are struggling better off is a bad thing is baffling from both an economics and a moral perspective. We can't help if people are immoral enough not to want to help their fellow men at least a little, but I would hope you guys can at least read up on income mobility and the constraints it places on people and want to improve that so the true cream can rise to the top instead of the people with the best family connections.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, our opinion is exactly where it should be - that happens when people like us are paying for people like you.

Classic right wing mentality- Us vs Them. Always gotta have "them" to vilify as justification for avarice & insecurity.

What you know about me is nothing so you fill in with your imagination to reach the desired conclusions, greed & self righteousness apparently being the guiding principles. It's telling that you seem to resent the measly 0.9% ACA surcharge on income above $250K.

America is full of honest, decent & hard working people who simply are not paid well enough to afford health insurance. Mere fact. Without it, neither they nor their children get preventive care & health maintenance. In societal terms, it ultimately inhibits their ability to contribute. It puts them closer to a variety of medical emergencies they can't pay for so the rest of us pick up the tab when they land in the emergency room.

 

[Jhhnn]

He already posted he was getting his nearly free ride.

I'm 67 years old & have been fortunate enough to work my whole life up to age 65, to contribute, to save, and to invest in my family & my own future. I didn't whine about paying into SS, my pension plan or about taxes when that went to benefit others. Quite the contrary. I had faith in the idea that it would pay off for me in the end, and it has.

More people should be so lucky.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

^ You've lamented your inability to ever pay a top tax bracket, and have argued that perpetual population growth is critical to keep your govt bennie scheme running smoothly, so I think we know enough about you.

Attitudes like this are sort of funny but mostly sad. Just in case you didn't know, being in poverty is a life choice available to everyone! If you think it's so wonderful I suggest you try it and get back to us. In some cases being in poverty is the result of personal choices but in huge amounts of them it's not, and the idea that a lack of motivation is the cause of poverty is ridiculous and shows how out of touch you are. Here's a good chart for you:

<image>

https://www.bostonfed.org/inequality2014/papers/reeves-sawhill.pdf

That's right, someone from a poor background who fought through all that adversity to get a college degree is exactly as likely to be in poverty as someone from a wealthy background who dropped out of high school. Now they are more likely to be in one of the top 3 quintiles than that rich dropout, but we are comparing people who are generally thought of as having done everything right to people who have done everything wrong. The fact that the numbers are even close is staggering.

The idea that trying to make people who are struggling better off is a bad thing is baffling from both an economics and a moral perspective. We can't help if people are immoral enough not to want to help their fellow men at least a little, but I would hope you guys can at least read up on income mobility and the constraints it places on people and want to improve that so the true cream can rise to the top instead of the people with the best family connections.

How does that image define a poor vs rich background? As your paper pointed out, gaining a degree still makes someone much, much more employable and class-mobile (apparently 20-fold so). Does it suck that there are spoiled rich kids out there with little to worry about? Kinda yeah, but that doesn't have much bearing on the ability of others to improve themselves.

Getting a college degree doesn't mean one is doing "everything right" either. A sub-3.0 GPA B.A. in social work from a state college has negative value. There's also the reality that IQ is inheritable and that intellectually demanding work pays better than grunt work. Subsidizing the bottom-tier so that they may continue reproducing and creating more people unable to hack it in the modern world is a horrible, destructive policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

o ever pay a top tax bracket, and have argued that perpetual population growth is critical to keep your govt bennie scheme running smoothly, so I think we know enough about you.

Bullshit. It wasn't a lament. It was that I'd be tickled pink to pay big taxes on big money. That would have made me really, really lucky.

 

[fskimospy]

How does that image define a poor vs rich background? As your paper pointed out, gaining a degree still makes someone much, much more employable and class-mobile (apparently 20-fold so). Does it suck that there are spoiled rich kids out there with little to worry about? Kinda yeah, but that doesn't have much bearing on the ability of others to improve themselves.

That's not what that image says at all, it shows that socioeconomic status matters more than hard work, which is the opposite of what he was claiming.

Getting a college degree doesn't mean one is doing "everything right" either. A sub-3.0 GPA B.A. in social work from a state college has negative value.

What is the empirical basis for this statement?

There's also the reality that IQ is inheritable and that intellectually demanding work pays better than grunt work. Subsidizing the bottom-tier so that they may continue reproducing and creating more people unable to hack it in the modern world is a horrible, destructive policy.

While I appreciate an argument for eugenics as much as the next Nazi, the idea that we should not ease the plight of the poor because then there will just be more poor people is a gravely immoral position to hold. The vast majority of recipients for poverty reduction funds are children who had no say in where they were born and to deny them the assistance necessary to give them a chance to fulfill their potential based on the assumption that they will be dumb and incapable because their parents were poor is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Bullshit. It wasn't a lament. It was that I'd be tickled pink to pay big taxes on big money. That would have made me really, really lucky.

Because luck is the only way you'd be able to achieve that?

That's not what that image says at all, it shows that socioeconomic status matters more than hard work, which is the opposite of what he was claiming.

Again, how is that figure defining a rich vs poor background? If rich means the top 5% or greater, then no I don't agree it matters more. There are always going to be people that win the lottery of birth.

What is the empirical basis for this statement?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...raduate_vs_high_school_graduate_salaries.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanad...ghest-starting-salaries-in-2015/#5f50f72396a2

Social work majors are frequently in the bottom tier when it comes to income, and the difference between a sub-par college degree and a high school diploma is minor.

While I appreciate an argument for eugenics as much as the next Nazi, the idea that we should not ease the plight of the poor because then there will just be more poor people is a gravely immoral position to hold. The vast majority of recipients for poverty reduction funds are children who had no say in where they were born and to deny them the assistance necessary to give them a chance to fulfill their potential based on the assumption that they will be dumb and incapable because their parents were poor is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If we accept:

1) Some workers have to fill bad jobs because automation doesn't allow for them to be replaced
2) Those workers will never have a chance to be economically self-sufficient, whether due to abusive upbringings, low IQs, etc
3) A conscious effort will be made to reduce the reproduction of undercapable citizens and increase the ability of the human race

Then I don't have an issue with public healthcare/welfare. The people that fall into all three of those categories have no choice in improving themselves, are still necessary for industry to move forward and make products, and only fail to be compensated because an excessively large labor pool kills their value. I think it's debatable whether or not healthcare has much bearing on a person's ability to succeed though; most children are fairly healthy and able-bodied as long as they aren't obese. Free and improved public education, I'm all for that, but not many would argue otherwise.