Don't drink and vote, you might spill your drink on the public hospital's lawn
-
Metformin, a widely-used generic that can keep the disease under control in its earlier stages, costs $4 or $8/mo, depending on how much you take.
-
INB4 someone strawmans a 90-year-old granny with no other living relatives who has to choose insulin or canned dog food because she can't afford both, or people food.
Can't afford canned dog food, make canned dog to food.
And, my Grandma spent more time trying to convince the government she didn't make too much money for Medicaid.
And honestly I don't know what kind of income she had other than her Social Security.
So, forgive me if I prefer charity.
-
Most people outside the US are convinced that everyone is going bankrupt due to doctor bills.
...unaware, presumably, that the genesis of that myth is a flat-out lie. (It's based on examination of bankruptcies, where if anyone who had a bankruptcy had any outstanding medical bills at all, the bankruptcy was considered to be "because they couldn't pay their medical bills".)
-
Jesus.
I give up hope on catching up here. Sorry. Muted.
-
And yet the ads offering poor people help for "owe back taxes" continue to roll.
Nope, it was the medical bills. Not their business failing.
-
And if you had a pre-existing condition that the last company was happy to pay for, you don't get covered.
I thought that was already illegal if you didn't have a coverage lapse.
If you are careful and plan ahead, you can use COBRA to take care of a lapse. Also, IIRC, the last time I looked at this, and I actually did, even many pre-existing condition exclusions merely specified "we won't pay for this for a year" or something.
-
Not test strips. 0 for 2
People with type-1 diabetes don't test their sugar? I'll be sure to tell my buddy who tests 5x daily and is on an insulin pump.
-
I thought that was already illegal if you didn't have a coverage lapse.
If you are careful and plan ahead, you can use COBRA to take care of a lapse. Also, IIRC, the last time I looked at this, and I actually did, even many pre-existing condition exclusions merely specified "we won't pay for this for a year" or something.
People make bad choices all the time, then blame something else for it.
I had a lapse in auto-insurance. It sucked. I almost couldn't find an insurer.
But that was my fault.
-
-
And generics keep getting cheaper.
My usually pharmacy trip is $20 at the most for 3 months supply for 3-4 prescriptions.
And my prescription insurance has maximum out of pocket for the year at $100. That means I'll never pay more than $8.34 a month.
-
i have it as a point of pride that [...] i always get to read the posts
Well, yes, but I brought that up in the context of making a joke.
-
I had a lapse in auto-insurance. It sucked. I almost couldn't find an insurer.
I bet you Progressive would've taken you. You'd be paying mafia rates, and you'd probably feel dirty, but you would've had coverage.
-
They did.
I am.
My money is probably paying some feminazi's abortion celebratory party.
-
They did.I am.
Oh dear, my condolences. I'm in the same boat but for a different reason.
You should be able to switch away eventually.
-
You should be able to switch away eventually.
I'm waiting until the wreck I had days after switching clears.
Lots of stress from the job and I literally blacked out while driving.
-
I'm waiting until the wreck I had days after switching clears.
Oh dear.
My wife was in a wreck that totaled her car just after we dropped our insurance down to minimum coverage since it was finally paid off. That was not fun.
-
dropped our insurance down to minimum coverage since it was finally paid off
Exactly why I never do this.
Been paid off for years and still pay full coverage.
Of course the money could have been saved towards a new car, but I'm not that responsible. I'd end up spending the money.
-
Yeah, I don't agree...
-
private hospitals
We've got those too, but the government doesn't have any say over their prices. It's privately run public hospitals that's some…
-
Conflict of interest.
It's in the government's interest to make those unprofitable.
-
It's in the government's interest to make those unprofitable.
Which part of the government are we talking here? The bureaucracy and the politicians may have very different goals…
-
I would guess that politicians like the privately run public better.
They get to bid out, and get to the same bang for less buck. This means more money to spend on more issues.But the system loves publicly run better.
They get to give themselves more responsibility and therefore more money.However, the politicians can fluff cost and get more taxes if they have publicly run instead.
It's funny that the cost of a policy acts invertedly from the value of a car.
Once you buy the car it's value goes down instantly.
Once you buy into a policy and vote it in, it's cost goes up instantly.
-
Exactly why I never do this.
Well, I haven't done it this time. Of course, I haven't needed the coverage, either.
-
I would guess that politicians like the privately run public better.
That depends a lot on which bunch of politicians. The right favour privately run a lot for largely ideological reasons, even if it makes no financial sense. The left really don't want anything to do with this sort of thing at all, whether or not it it makes financial sense. Given that there's been an election today, things are very volatile right now.
There's also the question of whether a private company can actually make that sort of operation work in a cost-effective way in the first place. Having to deliver a profit while having your charges closely regulated makes things very difficult, especially if there's really not that much in the way of efficiency savings to be actually had. The purely private hospitals don't have that problem: they're just subject to market-driven constraints, not the tighter legally-driven financial constraints that this other arrangement was operating under.
-
It's just gambling on debt.
A form of hedging rather.
-
-
Well, the whole issue is heartstrings driven.
Honestly, when someone says, "Would you rather the poor be blind and the rich not, or everyone be blind in one eye?" The utilitarian would be like, "who can contribute more with how many eyes". This is exactly what single payer ends up becoming, with the private alternative filling in the rich gaps. The poor gaps go covered only by charity. Ironically, the result ends up being somewhat the same.
The only people that end up seeing a difference is the middle class, who end up being stuck in the middle. And it's largely the philosophies of the middle class that end up choosing which system to adopt.
They end up paying enough tax to support the system that they don't have the financial freedom to escape the system. But they also don't see the benefit that the poor experience.
even if it makes no financial sense
But that's also largely driven by perspective.
A market is going to have ups and downs. Someone can say, look what happened when it went down, and use that as an excuse to create this large social safety net that grows until it consumes both up and down and flattens the curve.
The problem is that this also stifles longterm upward trends.
The economically sensible people make money on longterm upward trends, and thus care less about upward and downward "instability", even if this means they too experience personal temporary periods of poverty.
But people who don't have the skills to manage risk, prefer the stability of a large safety net.
-
The economically sensible people make money on longterm upward trends, and thus care less about upward and downward "instability", even if this means they too experience personal temporary periods of poverty.
The problem with that is the market is quite capable of blipping downwards for longer than your ability to withstand it. But that's OK, you can always sell your family into prostitution; there'll always be a demand for that.
I'm being mean, snarky and a bit grumbly. Too many meetings…
-
blipping downwards for longer than your ability to withstand it
Not sure anything would survive that scenario.
I mean, have you heard of the Dust Bowl.
You don't need capitalism for the apocalypse.
-
The Dust Bowl was caused by Russian Communist incompetence, though. Capitalism only came into play once Russian farm yields went to shit and the price of wheat skyrocketed, making it somehow profitable grow a shitty unoccupied farm's worth in Kansas and literally ship it directly to Russia.
Nominal capitalism would never have created a dust bowl. Nominally, unmaintained field yields are far too low to be worthwhile.
-
Well yeah.
I mean when you have a balanced economy and someone comes by and drops a buttload of random people who just want food and have a lot of money for some irrelevant reason, capitalism doesn't respond well.
-
From your post, I thought you were swaying the Dust Bowl had natural causes.
BTW, we still haven't recovered from it 100%, even after 80 years of effective land management.
-
Can't do that. Then your vote isn't secret anymore.
-
Can't do that. Then your vote isn't secret anymore.
Sure it is.
- mark ballot.
- Place ballot in envelope.
- Go to poll worker.
- Have blood drawn.
- Poll worker stamps random serial number on envelope and blood vial.
Anonymous voting secured!
In any case, we already covered other reasons why it wouldn't work.
-
Except now random number still ties your blood to the ballot. I mean, this is still tin foil hat, but you're still (theoretically) identifiable.
-
Except now random number still ties your blood to the ballot. I mean, this is still tin foil hat, but you're still (theoretically) identifiable.
Ok, yes. But still:
In any case, we already covered other reasons why it wouldn't work.
-
[Discourse thinks I should revive this topic from its watery grave!]
I mean, have you heard of the Dust Bowl.
Which one?
-
Do you honestly know of "small government" advocates who think that private property rights shouldn't be enforced by the government?
I know of people who claim to be"small government" advocates but then vote for one of the two big government parties, instead of the Libertarian Party as would be coherent.
-
I know of people who claim to be"small government" advocates but then vote for one of the two big government parties, instead of the Libertarian Party as would be coherent.
The Libertarian Party itself is incoherent. I've never voted for them, but I find the Republican Party to be mostly too much into big government. Plus voting L is throwing a vote away.
-
In
othernews, Tex Cruz has won the Republican Iowa caucus.
-
##Clinton wins Iowa delegate after coin toss
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267844-clinton-wins-iowa-precinct-after-coin-tosshttps://twitter.com/FernandoPeinado/status/694345745420320768?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
-
The Libertarian Party itself is incoherent.
Former card-carrying member here, can confirm.
Plus voting L is throwing a vote away.
True, but I think it's better than voting for a lizard because the wrong lizard may get in otherwise.
-
True, but I think it's better than voting for a lizard because the wrong lizard may get in otherwise.
This is a choice we all have to make for ourselves.
-
True, but I think it's better than voting for a lizard because the wrong lizard may get in otherwise.
As opposed to voting for one's choice of turds, the usual democratic decision process here…