Unequalityforge

Oh, for fuck's sake, knock that shit off. That's just as bad as TNZers trying to get people banned by admitting they troll the forum, simply because they don't agree.

Well, let's see . . .

I work for the FedGov, and participate in one of their plans. The premiums come out of my pay, but they're as low as they are because the enormous pool of participants enables economy of scale, reducing the individual cost. Most of my medical needs are covered, but I have the usual deductible and copay stuff. Plus I have to stay "in network" for maximum benefit. My own health care, and that of my wife, is actually pretty decent and I'd like it not mucked with too much. That said, there is an honest need for reform to the system as a whole. Just not the over-reaching monstrosity being foisted upon us at the moment.

Brilliant. Original, too. Keep going...

Your "mommy and daddy" comment is pretty much the same kind of accusation. Your hypocrisy is awe inspiring.

The comment was based on information known at the time, and in response to a personal attack.

Yes, I know, I'm not supposed to respond to trolls. Just like everybody else in the RR.

And WF once again creates a diversion because the topic makes them uncomfortable. SSDD.

You tossed the first salvo.

SSDD indeed.

Yeah. Margaret, show me where I attacked you to provoke a response. Please. The first time you said it, my response was entirely civil. The second time, I snapped at you. Who's the troll here?

Hey, I know! Everyone should work for the government; then they'd all have government health insurance!

Anyhoo - Employer-insured here. PPO. Empire BC/BS. It was better when we had Aetna.

That's a flat-out lie.

You started in with the name calling in post #4 and Dual's supposed "attack" on you that prompted your "mommy and daddy" bit was nothing of the sort.


Typical garamet, though.

Lifetime almost free (400 dollars per year) because I am retired military.
And I may be getting disability pay soon, due to the sheer number of scars + ailments (mental as well as physical) incurred during my enlistment.

May we assume you'll be policing all name-calling in the RR for the remainder of your shift?

Don't be dense. No one's calling you out for name calling.

Ah, more garamet-style deflection.


To answer the question, no, just pointing out another lie/misdirection from you, madame.


Before you retort with "Yabbut, you don't do that with anyone else here!", let me add that,

• I do, too (frequently with Mewa)
• You're the one person here who tries to pretend that you're somehow above all the name-calling and trolling. With the possible exception of Asyncritus, no one else here does this. Everyone gets down in the mud and most freely admit it.

I don't know if you really think that you're fooling anyone here with your act or not () but no one else is buying it any more.

As far as I'm concerned, you can call names to your heart's content, but don't lie and try to pretend you're only "responding in kind".


It's bullshit.

Y'know, that sounds a lot like how it works here. 10 million Ontarians all paying into one provider out of our paycheque deductions.

Ayup. But we have more than one provider. Every year we do "open enrollment" where if you're not happy with your insurance, you can switch to a different plan and different provider.

Now, there's not a whole lot of differences from one to the next, but there are differences. This means competition, which is beneficial. Should we wind up with one monolithic single-payer system (which is where the liberals would really, really like to take us) we perhaps gain in terms of economy of scale but lose even a pretense at competition, with the inevitable results - higher prices, less service, unmotivated service staff, etc etc. Rationing. Restrictions.

No thank you.

I get mine from my employer, although I still have to take a bit out of my paycheck to get it (although, it's WAY cheaper than just buying it myself).

That would fall under the "taking it too far" plan that the Democrats are trying to push through. I want insurance. I need insurance. I can't get insurance. Now in a capitalist, free market system, that should be incomprehensible. On one hand, I shouldn't have to pay out the nose for decent coverage, and on the other hand I shouldn't just be denied coverage at all. There is a happy medium somewhere.

My employer takes care of me. Well... unless Pelosi decides to supersede them and give me low grade medicaid health care instead. High grade health care will of course go to the "I'm lazy; don't make me work" crowd.

I agree with this as well, but really we already have limited competition. The fact that health care has to be provided by in-state ensurers simply defies belief.

And of course it comes from one of those well meaning government concepts that is attempting to protect us from ourselves but in the end run hurts people more than it helps.

Open up the market completely and let's see how we can do with economies of scale.

But really what this system is doing is getting the government's foot in the door.

It isn't socialized health care by any means.

But you can see that it's coming. I expect this system to fail as well, and then we'll finally be at where the progressives want us to be - see, even when we try to help the private system has failed people.

Of course, it will be complete bullshit, but when has that ever stopped the feds from making a case that they should extend their power base?

Currently, pay for it myself. Starting Monday + a few weeks or less, employer-paid. No option to increase my salary at the expense of insurance.

I lost mine when I lost my job, and I can't afford COBRA. So far only two places I've worked had health insurance available. When I had it, I never used it. Yeah, the $30 a paycheck wasn't a big deal, but the plans available to me were at best 80/20 copay plus a deductible. For simple things I probably would have been better off paying cash. For more serious shit, it would have meant my finances were only moderately screwed instead of extremely screwed.

The only thing that would be worth it for me would be full-coverage because I'm not the kind of person that runs to the doctor for every little scrape and bruise. To give you an idea what it takes to get me to go to a doctor: when I was 14, I was riding my bike and was hit by a car. The only reason I went was because a witness to the accident called an ambulance even though I told her I was fine, and then I argued with her and then the EMTs all the way to the hospital. Once I was at the hospital, I continued arguing with every doctor and nurse that talked to me, but by that point it was just out of spite because I was in a bad mood.

I am quite satisfied with my health care coverage.

I feel bad for Axiom, but his case makes a near textbook example.

People are wailing that it is unfair that he can't get health insurance. To this I submit they don't know what the word fair means.

When it comes to calculating rates and coverage (and when you take regulation out of it) insurance companies have fairness down to a science. They have a very good sense of what it will cost to cover someone and what risk they are.

Is it fair to everyone else in a plan to raise their rates so you can cover someone you know is already going to cost you more than they pay in--and will likely get even more expensive as time goes by? No.

OMG, I can't stand it anymore. I don't usually get this hot on here, but for once in your fucking life will you SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I submit that you're more right than you know. Harvard, amongst many other hundreds of Universities, lists the degree as a Bachelor/Master's of Actuarial Science.

These people, professionally known as Actuaries, then go on to get hired by insurance companies to determine risk management and risk versus premiums.

To the layman, which I am, it looks a lot like Black Magic. But, I had the opportunity to actually sit in on a meeting of Actuaries for a Fortune 100 insurance company and once you get to see the big numbers, it makes a lot of sense.

If two people have cancer, one has health insurance, and the other doesn't. And the one without dies because he can't get treatment, are they equal?

Emphasis mine, so you're saying that all my coworkers who don't have insurance don't have insurance because they don't have a job?

Please explain this logic, because I am most confused!

They had an equal chance to purchase health insurance throughout their lives, regardless of whether their means permitted them to take advantage of that equality. Don't confuse opportunity with outcome.