TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
85. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    17 20.00%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    21 24.71%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    39 45.88%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    0 0%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    8 9.41%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #5626
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You could solve that by tying a note around your foot that says "Not this one, idiot. The other one" before going into surgery.

  2. #5627
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I'm gonna post this here.


  3. #5628
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2005
    Location: Netherlands
    It's never going to cost $150 to set a cast on a broken arm. Not with the doctor's salary, nurse's care, X-ray costs, material costs of the cast, costs of building maintenance, pain medication etc. I can't put a figure on it, but it's always going to cost more than many poor people can afford out-of-pocket. I had my appendix removed and had to stay in the hospital for a few days, then again for a week when the wound got infected. No way I would've been able to afford that, and I'm not even dirt-poor.

    I liked this article. It mentions the Netherlands' health care system. The monthly premiums are fairly steep (cheaper than in the USA though), but low-income families get subsidies to cover over half of the insurance premiums. No one but homeless people and illegal immigrants are uninsured and everyone gets the same basic coverage. There's a co-pay of about $425 total a year (home physicians costs exempted), which you can spread over the year if you can't afford it all at once if you need a broken arm set, for example. Of course if you're healthy all year you don't pay it. We like to bitch about it sometimes, but we like to complain (seriously, the Dutch often don't realize how good they have it) and all things considered it's not actually that bad, compared to most countries.

    EDIT: that last bit about the Dutch health care system really wasn't that relevant. What I wanted to say is that health care costs for a major injury or disease are always going to cost more than many families can afford, even middle-class families when a longer-term hospital stay is involved. You can ignore the rest. I've had too many beers tonight.
    Last edited by Harvester; 24th Aug 2017 at 18:30.

  4. #5629
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    As I said, hospital stays or anything big would make you call your insurance company to kick in.

  5. #5630
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    The Department of Justice is demanding the names of the owners and the IP addresses of 1.3 million users who visited an anti-Trump protest site that organized protests during Trump's inauguration.
    Followup: Judge orders DreamHost to hand over data with some added stipulations: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/24/...ti-trump-site/

  6. #5631
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Krush View Post
    As I said, hospital stays or anything big would make you call your insurance company to kick in.
    But how much money will people save having to buy insurance to cover catastrophic injury exclusively, rather than using it to cover everything from moderate injuries and above?

    What about people which chronic injuries? Those suffering from disease? Irreparable congenital defects?

  7. #5632
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    But how much money will people save having to buy insurance to cover catastrophic injury exclusively, rather than using it to cover everything from moderate injuries and above?

    What about people which chronic injuries? Those suffering from disease? Irreparable congenital defects?
    What do they do NOW? I guess I'm a chronic injury person. Just this month my old back injury flared up so I've been seeing a chiropractor every week.

    I guess the main savings would be to those who are younger and healthier. Currently Obamacare laws say that no one can be charged extra money for being old or sick. The sick and elderly use more health care $$$ as a rule. So the result is that young healthy people have to be charged more to make up the difference. It seems like the idea is, we all must suffer equally.

  8. #5633
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2005
    Location: Netherlands
    Yes, when you're young and healthy you put more money into the system than you take out. Then, when you get old yourself or simply get sick at a younger age, it's the reverse. Seems pretty fair to me. Also, I missed the part where you said hospital care would be covered by your insurance. That's great, but even a policlinic visit to get an arm cast will cost more than many families can afford. Some people in the Netherlands even struggle with the yearly $425 co-pay, and that's why many political parties want that amount lowered or removed.

  9. #5634
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Krush View Post
    I guess the main savings would be to those who are younger and healthier. Currently Obamacare laws say that no one can be charged extra money for being old or sick. The sick and elderly use more health care $$$ as a rule. So the result is that young healthy people have to be charged more to make up the difference. It seems like the idea is, we all must suffer equally.
    The two biggest changes the ACA made were...

    1.) It prevented insurance companies from denying people for preexisting conditions.
    2.) It requires every person capable person to pay directly into it, flooding the market with money that it so desperately needs. Even those refuse to buy insurance have to pay something into the system.

    The two biggest downfalls of the ACA are...

    1.) It does absolutely nothing to control costs. The ever rising cost of healthcare in America? The ACA didn't contribute to that, but it sure as hell didn't do a damn thing to stop it.
    2.) It offered no public option beyond Medicare, which has been around forever, and doesn't do shit for anyone below the age of 65.

    I think of it like this: healthcare is a big assed problem. The ACA is a halfassed solution. The Republican alternatives aren't even a quarter ass of that.

    If Obamacare has been successful at one thing, it's been making every average American painfully aware of just how expensive even merely good enough insurance is in our current market based system. That's the reason why people hate it so much. They can't buy shit placebo plans anymore, and call it a day. They can't opt out. They're mandated to get insurance, or pay the fines. Our insurance is so expensive, it's put a huge burden on just about everyone below the upper crust of the middle class.

    It's a stop-gap measure. A way to make sure everyone is afforded access to insurance, even those with chronic and/or preexisting conditions, which were previously denied coverage across the board. But it isn't sustainable. As healthcare costs rise, it's eventually going to implode in on itself as people opt out of insurance entirely, going for the cheaper fine instead of being burdened with the excess tax placed upon them. When that happens, our healthcare system will collapse. There won't be enough money flowing through the system to keep it solvent.

    Trumpcare is basically Obamacare without the mandate, plus a few tweaks here and there. Republicans want to keep the laws concerning preexisting conditions in place, but don't want to force people to deal with the mandate, and nix some of the subsidizes paid to those closer to the poverty line. The problem is, without that mandate, there isn't enough money in the system to support covering preexisting conditions. Without those subsidizes in place, you'll have poor people hopping off insurance entirely when they find they can no longer afford it, but still going to hospitals when they get hurt or sick. They'll end up racking up a bill, then defaulting on them when they find they're unable to afford it.

    Trumpcare reintroduces problems nixed by the ACA, while burdening our insurance companies with these new requirements they can no longer afford without the mandate supporting them. It'll fail, just like Obamacare, but faster.

    So why are people fighting so hard for Obamacare? Because it's better than what the Republicans are proposing. But that doesn't make it good. At some point in the not too distant future, we're going to have to face our healthcare issue head on, and it will be an absolute mess.

  10. #5635
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2005
    Location: Netherlands
    Yeah, the costs of US healthcare are so expensive that if healthcare costed the same in the Netherlands, our insurance system would be too expensive for anyone but the rich as well. If you guys manage to drive down costs to a reasonable level (like not charging $12 for a damn Tylenol in a hospital, seriously, you can buy 50 of them for less than $2 here in any drugstore), Obamacare might work, but so might another system you might think of. With the current tremendously high healthcare costs, it's hard to think of any system to make healthcare affordable to all for the long term that would actually work.

    *semi-drunk posting over, I'm going to sleep*

  11. #5636
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Trumpcare is basically Obamacare without the mandate, plus a few tweaks here and there. Republicans want to keep the laws concerning preexisting conditions in place, but don't want to force people to deal with the mandate, and nix some of the subsidizes paid to those closer to the poverty line. The problem is, without that mandate, there isn't enough money in the system to support covering preexisting conditions. Without those subsidizes in place, you'll have poor people hopping off insurance entirely when they find they can no longer afford it, but still going to hospitals when they get hurt or sick. They'll end up racking up a bill, then defaulting on them when they find they're unable to afford it.
    Eliminating the mandate is a symbolic gesture, because the mandate itself is fairly toothless. The penalties are pocket change compared to the cost of purchasing health insurance in the individual market. So if somebody who can afford insurance wants to take the risk of not having it, there is still a large financial incentive to do so. Also, individual market plans have gotten so expensive in some states that the poor and some of the middle class can't afford to purchase them even with the subsidies. The exchange regulators are trying to keep those costs from rising too fast, but a lot of insurers have been losing money and pulling out of the market. We're down to three companies in the market here, but several states only have one company and there may be a state or two with none next year. There's a gap between what the poor and lower middle class can afford to pay, and the price the insurers can afford to offer, and it becomes bigger every year. The only way to keep these people covered is to either expand subsidies for market plans, or raise the bar for Medicaid eligibility. So we've got a big problem here, even if the Republicans don't muck with it. Until somebody figures out how to significantly slow the rate of health care cost growth, pretty much every proposal sucks.

  12. #5637
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Single pay. Only way. No more private health insurance. Government sets the caps.

    We have the example on our northern boarder crissakes.

  13. #5638
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL

  14. #5639
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I think that's going to have a part in the future.

    It's things like the link above that make me think that privatizing insurance, rather than the putting the whole enchilada under the government umbrella, is the best option for us. Most people will probably opt for the public option, which will drive down and normalize costs via a big negotiator dangling money garnered through mass subsidization over everyone's heads, but the system will still provide plenty of room for the private sector to take up the slack, and do what it does best.

    You have to account for the fact that government is good for equalizing everything, but it's rarely ever offers the most clever and efficient means to do something. In the US especially, government programs are always going to be slow, overly bureaucratic, and forever vulnerable to the fickle nature of our politics. You'll need a healthy, albeit relatively smaller, private sector on standby to compensate for the downsides.

    To put it simply, single payer is well and good, and it's nice to have around, but if you've got the money, you don't have to use it.

    ...though the people with that much spare change on hand will probably resent the fact they're being taxed for a program they don't even use. But hell, that's always gonna be an issue.

  15. #5640
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by Krush View Post
    nickie, can I ask how you would go about getting a redress from the UK government if a doctor, say, amputated the wrong foot or some other terrible malpractice?
    First of all, how kind not to mention the utter garbage I was spouting about quoting. I put it down to excessive blood in the head after working upside down most of the day.

    This gives details of making a claim. The National Health Service has a formal complaints procedure but you don't necessarily have to use it. You can go straight to the legal route. There are some compensation schemes already in place so it's probably worth using the complaints procedure first, you may not need to sue at all.

  16. #5641
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    I like that in this country, I could have private health insurance that gives me top quality healthcare, on top of paying my taxes towards the NHS, and it would still be cheaper than the cost of health insurance in the USA.

  17. #5642
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Is that true though?

    Your insurance here will cover you up to a certain amount but for a lot of things you'll have to pay the difference. This is in my experience.

  18. #5643
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    I'd also argue that top quality health care is more than available in the NHS, you just have to wait longer if it's non-urgent. I've said before that private health insurance can be a complete waste of money if you have to travel a long way to see the consultant approved by your insurer. For some people, that's more trouble than it's worth but not something people think about or are really aware of when they take out insurance. I believe a similar problem exists in the US (thinking about special veterans' health care).

    But I really came here to ask a question. I was listening to 'breaking news' about Harvey and the representative from Homeland Security was talking about evacuation and stuff about people just thinking for themselves and actually doing things for themselves rather than relying on emergency services to get them out of trouble. The video is no longer available to me so I can't double check but I stopped listening because he made some sort of reference to emergency services being available to 'eligible people' and I wanted to ask here what that meant.

  19. #5644
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Is that true though?

    Your insurance here will cover you up to a certain amount but for a lot of things you'll have to pay the difference. This is in my experience.
    I am far from an expert, but I am sure it will depend on the individual plan. When I was looking into it a while ago the excesses seemed to be around £200-250.

  20. #5645
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by nickie View Post
    But I really came here to ask a question. I was listening to 'breaking news' about Harvey and the representative from Homeland Security was talking about evacuation and stuff about people just thinking for themselves and actually doing things for themselves rather than relying on emergency services to get them out of trouble. The video is no longer available to me so I can't double check but I stopped listening because he made some sort of reference to emergency services being available to 'eligible people' and I wanted to ask here what that meant.
    By eligible people, they mean those who live in the direct path of the storm, and/or those who's homes and livelihoods are damaged by it.

    During any natural disaster, FEMA will come swooping in with their little white trailers to open shelters and relief centers, handing out food and equipment to those who most need it.

  21. #5646
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    I am far from an expert, but I am sure it will depend on the individual plan. When I was looking into it a while ago the excesses seemed to be around £200-250.
    Depends on what you're having done privately. Honestly, it can be nuts.

    The great thing is you always have the NHS.

  22. #5647
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Oops! He's Done It Again!

    Actually this is a new but predicted stunt he's been signaling since Phoenix, pardoning Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

    There's some debate about whether Trump can make it stick but the Repugnicans probably won't oppose this.

  23. #5648
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2008

  24. #5649
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Incroyable.

    toma.toes This isn't even Gorka's final form
    willmaierica Hail GORKA!
    michellebuteau Panties.

  25. #5650
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    Beautiful. I love James Adomian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Goddamit. That's not good, and it's not a good message to be sending to the other law enforcement agencies of the country.

Page 226 of 249 FirstFirst ... 126176181186191196201206211216221222223224225226227228229230231236241246 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •