• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Spend $40T on Progressive Programs. Free Health Care for All?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Didn't France pass a 75% tax on income over 1 million euros?

And how much will they sell in the Bahamas and Curacao?

Mere Excuses by corporations.. have to cut the bs from reality..
It was 1,300,000 Euros for ALL worldwide assets of any kind, which has since been changed to property values only. It was changed because so many French were bailing.

Real estate value under €800,000 – 0% tax rate

Real estate value €800,001 to €1,300,000 – 0.5% tax rate

Real estate value €1,300,001 to €2,570,000 – 0.7% tax rate

Real estate value €2,570,001 to €5,000,000 – 1% tax rate

Real estate value €5,000,001 to €10,000,000 – 1.25% tax rate

Real estate value €10,000,000 upwards – 1.5% tax rate

The market value of your main home can be reduced by 30%, provided you are living in it.

Also to note, this would not affect ex-pats who dont own property in France:

"Non-residents are only liable on property in France."

Source
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0me0nesmind1

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
19,934
1,468
126
Name any country that has taken on something that is typically taken by a capitalist business and show me where they have done an overall more efficient job than for profit capitalistic competing companies.

Do you understand shit like the fact that for profit companies do things like... pick up your trash and take care of it? It's because if the government tried to do it themselves they would fail. Epically.

Venezuela is the picture perfect example as a successful oil corporation is taken control of by the government. What happens next? Oh boy stay tuned, you will never guess!
Huh? so you're saying that NO 1st-world democracy has effective universal access health care?, BULLSHIT. Who the *UCK needs an Atena, Cigna, Blue cross to tell them "sorry, you have a pre existing condition, your not insurable". It's just not feasible to treat health-care like auto insurance and expect it to work, IT DOESN'T. People in low-income cannot afford the insurance, (if it's even offered) and many wind up filing bankruptcy due to illness. This is simple, if your employed YOU PAY and there is medical care available.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Huh? so you're saying that NO 1st-world democracy has effective universal access health care?, BULLSHIT. Who the *UCK needs an Atena, Cigna, Blue cross to tell them "sorry, you have a pre existing condition, your not insurable". It's just not feasible to treat health-care like auto insurance and expect it to work, IT DOESN'T. People in low-income cannot afford the insurance, (if it's even offered) and many wind up filing bankruptcy due to illness. This is simple, if your employed YOU PAY and there is medical care available.
Sorry, but pre-existing conditions hasnt been a reason to decline coverage for over 4 1/2 years....its not a thing any more.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,534
3,693
126
We could also address cost issues by taxing the negative health externalities of other markets. Tax pollution, tax sugar. It doesn't even have to be drastic or equal to its actual harm, but it would still have an impact, and will cause those industries to adjust some. And then over time you can see the effects and then adjust things (raise/lower taxes, incentivize healthier options).

Is your argument that these incentives spur investment in research? If so, I would argue we could just invest in research instead and skip the middle man.

And to be clear, I'm not saying anyone stricken with cancer shouldn't be treated. I'm a cancer survivor, after all! As cancer treatments go though, some therapies offer little additional life or quality of life but are very expensive. I would rather spend those health care dollars on other people and other things where they would do more good.



I'm also a fan of legal assisted suicide but I think establishing something like the UK's NICE is what we need here.



I'm paying for it in a 'free market' sense if my private plan covers such things, yes. We are all paying for it for people on Medicare though, I agree. My argument is that we should stop because that money can be better spent.
No, because it is more than research. It is real actual trials of the treatments and methods. Research only gets you so far. Trial by fire is much more pertinent. There are valid things to learn even if it ends up being ultimately futile. If people had that mentality decades ago, cancer treatment would not be where it is today. Yes it still has a long way to go, and yes plenty of the improved treatment likely won't help people who are already near to death for the cumulative aspects of age on top of whatever debilitating illness they have (so its not just cancer). I think especially for younger/inexperienced doctors it provides a very worthwhile training as well. There are going to be losses, there are going to be situations where the fight won't end up mattering, but learning to fight still provides tangible benefits that carry over. Plus, the loss for inexperience are less (that's not to say you treat them as disposable "lessons", in fact I think it should carry extra scrutiny so that you can help guide them; unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence, they shouldn't face much repercussions and instead use it as learning and work to improve, and a key part of that is working with the patients - learning how to address their concerns, how to talk to them about serious things, getting family involved as well, things that can get lost easily in the shuffle to try and treat as many people as you can). Maybe find some incentive for the patients as well (I'm not sure what), as some small token for their sacrifice as well.

I just feel like there's benefits that aren't necessarily being realized, and that we're kinda ignoring how it provided real tangible benefits before, but we're getting a lot less return of it due to the situation. I don't feel that warrants thinking about cutting treatment.

Unless there is actual limited resource (I don't consider money to be that in this regard, far too much of the costs are made up or don't reflect the actual cost, which that absolutely needs to be addressed as well), I don't agree. Now sure we should maybe have those people be in some hospice care or something, or even at home (which developing external treatment apparatus, where doctors could keep tabs on the patient and be able to assist them well remotely, would be pretty damn worthwhile development as well), so that they aren't taking up as much of the immediate needs in a hospital, although I don't think that's necessarily an actual issue most of the time.

I really didn't think your actual argument was the hyperbolic one that you've been kinda saying (I assume fairly tongue-in-cheek) but that you kept repeatedly pushing that way, I felt the need to rebuke it. Now maybe I'm wrong and you actually do support the over the top aspect, but I'm saying that is a very dangerous mentality to enshrine in that profession. It is skirting very dangerously with validating the so called "angel of mercy" mentality, and there's a lot of suffering that you could validate "ending" via the balance sheet.

Yes, I know there are other aspects (people left in vegetative state for instance, there was that big case with the kid where the parents wanted to take them to get some radical treatment in the US), that present other situations so where do you draw the line. But the more you let the "we shouldn't treat them because its too expensive and they're going to die anyway" argument get hold, the more it can lead to more lax feelings on what is and isn't treatable and who should and shouldn't get treatment. And singling out ones that should get their treatment cut off, will undermine any attempt to improve health care for all (its a hard sell in my opinion to go "care for all, well not those they cost too much"). I get that you might be arguing pragmatically, that you usher in medicare for all by cutting costs by reducing outsized ones like these, but I feel like there's so many other ways you should be addressing the cost issue first. I think the best route would be to offer as comprehensive of care as you can, and then work on preventative care and early detection for younger people. So I feel the costs could be made up via keeping the middle age working class healthy, so their productivity improves via improved health. And that will reduce these costs in the future. Meanwhile, we take care of the people that aren't going to get those benefits as best as we can.

Oh, and lastly, since many of these elderly on are medicare, I'm not that concerned that its going to be unfeasible cost-wise. Considering, it actually seems to show that even with their outsized costs, its still better than our current private setup that most are stuck with, where yes, people are having treatment cut off by their insurance company for costing too much. That's exactly one of the reasons I want a new system, and it fundamentally is wrong for me to want that but then say "well their old and gonna die soon anyway, I don't want to pay for them".

-----

Ugh, mostly blather on my part. Boils down to I think there's still a lot of value there, and that I don't think the costs are that troubling. Plus I want everyone to have good care (its the main factor behind me wanting a different system) and I'm not willing to compromise that over costs (that I think are addressable in other ways). Certainly I can agree that it would cause a shock and early on costs could be very troubling, but I think long term those will fall in line.

I'm realistic that it won't go perfectly smooth (I've argued before about a gradual shift to try and make a smoother transition for all), and I'm not saying costs don't matter at all (I just believe they can be reigned in to be manageable though). Heck, I think there's a lot of people that are sick and don't even really know it because they don't go to the doctor, and those will increase costs initially, but as people learn to go to the doctors for regular checkups and can get informed about addressing issues that are developing, like people with poor diets where they might be doing fine because they're younger, but it'll start to hit them hard later in life and it'll be incredibly difficult to address and change behaviors at that point. People will trot out the "who cares if you're dead when you're 50+ those parts of your life suck" - well we'll never develop the means to extend our "good" parts of life if we just keep this mentality. We will be able to extend our lives, and 50 will be like 30 some day (actually that already happened by and large). And then 70 (getting there), and then 90, and who knows after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
19,934
1,468
126
Sorry, but pre-existing conditions hasnt been a reason to decline coverage for over 4 1/2 years....its not a thing any more.
Laughable dude, the Republicans are siding with insurance Co's to deny insurance to anyone with a pre-existing condition, can't have the stockholders or rich CEO losing extra profit, *UCK ALL OF THEM.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Laughable dude, the Republicans are siding with insurance Co's to deny insurance to anyone with a pre-existing condition, can't have the stockholders or rich CEO losing extra profit, *UCK ALL OF THEM.
I dont care what the GOP is doing, under Obamacare pre-existing conditions cannot be a reason for exclusion. So, as I said, its not a thing. Its federal law. Do you disagree?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
We could also address cost issues by taxing the negative health externalities of other markets. Tax pollution, tax sugar. It doesn't even have to be drastic or equal to its actual harm, but it would still have an impact, and will cause those industries to adjust some. And then over time you can see the effects and then adjust things (raise/lower taxes, incentivize healthier options)..
I agree! Let's tax the poor more. Those dumb fucks should know by now not eat McDonalds, drink coke, and gourge on sugary candy.

Same with their gas guzzling cars!
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
Nice try. Its not a thing. Its a proposal. Not law. As the article says, the proposal is a fraud.
“After careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that, in Texas v. United States, No. 4: l 8-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the Department will not defend the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. 5000A(a), and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a letter, June 7, 2018

The White House and Justice Dept have made it known that they are not going to enforce certain laws wrt Affordable Care Act. Basically, they are handing out Get Outta Jail Free cards to the insurance industry as these cases won't be prosecuted. If you live in a red state and have a PE, you're screwed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
“After careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that, in Texas v. United States, No. 4: l 8-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the Department will not defend the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. 5000A(a), and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a letter, June 7, 2018

The White House and Justice Dept have made it known that they are not going to enforce certain laws wrt Affordable Care Act. Basically, they are handing out Get Outta Jail Free cards to the insurance industry as these cases won't be prosecuted. If you live in a red state and have a PE, you're screwed.
wut? If it is law that health insurance must have pre-existing conditions as coverage - how is that something that can be circumvented? Because... well.. it's not. Just telling you as someone that lives in TX - there is no insurance company that will not fulfill federal mandates.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
wut? If it is law that health insurance must have pre-existing conditions as coverage - how is that something that can be circumvented? Because... well.. it's not. Just telling you as someone that lives in TX - there is no insurance company that will not fulfill federal mandates.
When you have a President who doesn't really respect the rule of law, it's pretty easy. Conservative Texas AG files a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of said law, and US AG says "oh ok, we won't defend it!" That signals to the insurance industry they can ignore the law, and if they get hit with a lawsuit they have the deep pockets and can just keep appealing all the way to SCOTUS.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
“After careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that, in Texas v. United States, No. 4: l 8-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the Department will not defend the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. 5000A(a), and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a letter, June 7, 2018

The White House and Justice Dept have made it known that they are not going to enforce certain laws wrt Affordable Care Act. Basically, they are handing out Get Outta Jail Free cards to the insurance industry as these cases won't be prosecuted. If you live in a red state and have a PE, you're screwed.
You're an idiot. I suggest you read Texas v. United States, No. 4: l 8-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.) for yourself. It has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.

lol
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
When you have a President who doesn't really respect the rule of law, it's pretty easy. Conservative Texas AG files a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of said law, and US AG says "oh ok, we won't defend it!" That signals to the insurance industry they can ignore the law, and if they get hit with a lawsuit they have the deep pockets and can just keep appealing all the way to SCOTUS.
Again, most companies - especially something as often scrutinized as health insurance companies - will NEVER try to risk or try to skirt laws. It is never in their financial benefit - ESPECIALLY for something as heavily regulated as health insurance.

Go on to any insurance exchange and find me any TX insurance plan that doesn't cover pre-existing.

Oh wait - you can't - because you fucktard liberals are pulling strawmen so hard that you're giving yourselves reach-arounds to try and find them.

Either give rational debates or go have a circle jerk.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
You're an idiot. I suggest you read Texas v. United States, No. 4: l 8-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.) for yourself. It has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.

lol
Right, it was focused on the individual mandate. And in Sessions' letter, he argues that once they invalidate the individual mandate (part of Tax Cuts for Billionaires Act) then essentially provides people an incentive to wait until they are sick to buy insurance, and then argue they have a PE and cannot be denied. So he argued that once individual mandate to buy insurance is gone, then coverage for PE doesn't have to be guaranteed. As GOP puts it, "you have freedom of choice to buy a cheaper plan w/o coverage!"
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
Again, most companies - especially something as often scrutinized as health insurance companies - will NEVER try to risk or try to skirt laws. It is never in their financial benefit - ESPECIALLY for something as heavily regulated as health insurance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-justice-dept-lawyer-resigns-after-shift-on-obamacare/2018/06/12/b3001d7c-6e55-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.316d23721d67

Joel McElvain, who has worked at the Justice Department for more than 20 years, submitted his resignation letter Friday, the morning after Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress that the agency will not defend the ACA — the 2010 law known as Obamacare — against lawsuits brought by Republican-led states challenging its requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

“This is the first I’m hearing it, and it’s a gut punch,” said one person who worked with McElvain for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel issue. “That will be a very big blow to the morale of the [agency’s] civil division, a really sad day for the Department of Justice and a loss for the country.”

Several colleagues said McElvain was in line to become director of the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which handles complex government policy questions pending before the courts. It is not known for its politics but for the tenacity with which its lawyers defend the law — any law — passed by Congress.

No longer being asked to defend the law of the land...you might as well quit then because you no longer represent "justice".
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Right, it was focused on the individual mandate. And in Sessions' letter, he argues that once they invalidate the individual mandate (part of Tax Cuts for Billionaires Act) then essentially provides people an incentive to wait until they are sick to buy insurance, and then argue they have a PE and cannot be denied. So he argued that once individual mandate to buy insurance is gone, then coverage for PE doesn't have to be guaranteed. As GOP puts it, "you have freedom of choice to buy a cheaper plan w/o coverage!"
That's not what Sessions said. He said it would drive up premiums FOR EVERYONE ELSE, not that insurance companies could decline coverage.

Do you need a link to Sessions statement?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-justice-dept-lawyer-resigns-after-shift-on-obamacare/2018/06/12/b3001d7c-6e55-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.316d23721d67

Joel McElvain, who has worked at the Justice Department for more than 20 years, submitted his resignation letter Friday, the morning after Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress that the agency will not defend the ACA — the 2010 law known as Obamacare — against lawsuits brought by Republican-led states challenging its requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

“This is the first I’m hearing it, and it’s a gut punch,” said one person who worked with McElvain for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel issue. “That will be a very big blow to the morale of the [agency’s] civil division, a really sad day for the Department of Justice and a loss for the country.”

Several colleagues said McElvain was in line to become director of the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which handles complex government policy questions pending before the courts. It is not known for its politics but for the tenacity with which its lawyers defend the law — any law — passed by Congress.

No longer being asked to defend the law of the land...you might as well quit then because you no longer represent "justice".
Quit fucking lying. He never said they wouldn't defend the ACA. ONLY ONE PROVISION.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-justice-dept-lawyer-resigns-after-shift-on-obamacare/2018/06/12/b3001d7c-6e55-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.316d23721d67

Joel McElvain, who has worked at the Justice Department for more than 20 years, submitted his resignation letter Friday, the morning after Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress that the agency will not defend the ACA — the 2010 law known as Obamacare — against lawsuits brought by Republican-led states challenging its requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

“This is the first I’m hearing it, and it’s a gut punch,” said one person who worked with McElvain for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel issue. “That will be a very big blow to the morale of the [agency’s] civil division, a really sad day for the Department of Justice and a loss for the country.”

Several colleagues said McElvain was in line to become director of the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which handles complex government policy questions pending before the courts. It is not known for its politics but for the tenacity with which its lawyers defend the law — any law — passed by Congress.

No longer being asked to defend the law of the land...you might as well quit then because you no longer represent "justice".
Defending the law or not - AS I STATED - FIND me a fucking healthcare plan in Texas that doesn't cover pre-existing.

You're grasping for straws, you're pulling for strings of bleeding hearts - but at the end of the day facts matter - not your feelings.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
Idaho permits noncompliant plans with preexisting condition exclusions to be sold.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180126.6620/full/
#1 - Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media - which in of itself is typically left leaning.
#2 - This is not a healthcare plan. It is a supposed Idaho executive order... As I stated earlier, no insurance carrier is stupid enough to offer a healthcare plan that conflicts with federal law. Regardless of any state laws, no health insurance company would be stupid enough to risk it.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,021
1,867
136
Texas and the other 19 states claim that with a tax penalty of $0 the individual mandate fails as a tax and is inseverable from the rest of the ACA so the whole thing should be struck down nationwide.

The DOJ refuses to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, community rating, preexisting condition exclusions and health status discrimination.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180904.981573/full/
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
Defending the law or not - AS I STATED - FIND me a fucking healthcare plan in Texas that doesn't cover pre-existing.

You're grasping for straws, you're pulling for strings of bleeding hearts - but at the end of the day facts matter - not your feelings.
Sessions filing came in June. Insurers then went to work on the new plans for 2019. You probably won't see them until open enrollment in October.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,239
5,782
136
#1 - Biased news source. Just knowing that there is a donate button front and center on the page tells me it's not a reputable news source. Not even Mainstream media - which in of itself is typically left leaning.
#2 - This is not a healthcare plan. It is a supposed Idaho executive order... As I stated earlier, no insurance carrier is stupid enough to offer a healthcare plan that conflicts with federal law. Regardless of any state laws, no health insurance company would be stupid enough to risk it.
There's no risk when the law isn't being defended in court.

Edit: Two more news sources--one mainstream liberal media and one right-leaning but somewhat reputable. Take your pick.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/sessions-takes-aim-heart-obamacare-coverage-pre-existing-conditions-n881396

https://nypost.com/2018/06/07/justice-department-says-heart-of-obamacare-unconstitutional/
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY