jamesinclair
Banned
I assume you don't have friends and family in Mexico you can crash with while you heal from your $1000 procedure?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
I assume you don't have friends and family in Mexico you can crash with while you heal from your $1000 procedure?
Because most young people making good money get employee health plans which still tend to be better than these?
So even though you've had good health, do u see into the future where u get in no accidents and at the same time never grow old?
Black Mamba
Member
What is the cheapest silver plan for you because those tend to be good deals IMO
Also it only takes one car accident and you're bankrupt without insurance.
I don't disagree that people should have health insurance but that plan he showed is absolutely bogus if true. Even the employee plan I'll have soon is like $120 a month with a $100 ER copay. I honestly can't imagine having to pay off my deductible to go to the ER. $5,000 for the ER? Heeellll naw.
Jesus was in general an advocate of a pretty transformative philosophy. One can't really be a follower of Jesus without being a follower of Jesus in all things. Luke 14 is good here. A government run by Christians is going to be a Christian government - it will be set up to further Christian goals. That's not to say that it's going to require that all citizens be Christian, but it's going to be very concerned with all of the things that Christians are supposed to be very concerned with, such as the welfare of the worst off, among other things. It will not do things that Christians would prefer it not to do, simply because Christians have the power to choose what the government is going to do.
This renders the whole render unto Caesar thing superfluous. There can be no prima facie conflict between duty to the state and duty to God. If Christians in government can in good conscience levy taxes, then Christians can in good conscience pay those taxes. Christians in government can't levy an un-Christian tax. They can't pass un-Christian laws. And so on. Government is just a way for people to act collectively, and if Christians control it then it's just another Christian institution. That's not to say that the state is the church, but the state is, if the Christians understand Christianity correctly, the state Jesus would want. Maybe Jesus is a federalist who believes in the second amendment - it's a little hard to say since he never really articulated a philosophy of exercising earthly power - but whatever a Christian government is doing, Christians can wholeheartedly support it (I'm very much not saying that a government deserves the support of Christians just because it claims to be Christian).
I think it depends what you mean here. Yeah, I don't know what Jesus would have said to a poor person who suggested trickle-down economics as government policy. But I have a really hard time imagining Jesus being okay with a wealthy person advocating trickle-down economics. It sounds self-serving at best and stinks of blackmail at worst. I mean, any person who is still wealthy is doing Christianity wrong already. Presumably they're not to be trusted when they say that the best Christian government is one that works directly to keep them wealthy. That's not really an argument that can be made in good faith.
This is fair enough. I think there's still a long-term problem here in that Christians can wield a whole lot of uncontroversially legitimate nongovernmental power, the effects of which are hard to distinguish from government action. Imagine something like the reverse of the Reconstruction-era South. Christians wield so much economic power that they ought to be able to pretty easily ensure that they're not giving lots of profit to people who don't make good use of it. But we don't actually see this ever. People who run big companies consistently get really rich. But this is phenomenally un-Christian - we agree that Jesus would not be happy with the modern rich, even if for all we know he would have thought it wrong to take their stuff.
But so, why not work to make sure that the CEOs and shareholders of big companies are Christians? Instead of supporting KFC and Hobby Lobby (chosen because they're perversely held up as Christian companies in some way, and because they show that self-identifying Christians are at least willing to throw their economic weight around to cause change), why not support companies with Christian investors who, after all the charity they give in accordance with Jesus' teaching, live modest lives on the level of the typical citizen? It seems hard to explain why this doesn't happen, except that maybe there are just very few real followers of Jesus out there.
jamesinclair
Banned
Ten years of no insurance would mean $12,000 invested into a portfolio gaining 8% a year.
If I have an accident....there you go.
If I don't, I have a great savings account going.
With insurance, I'd have to shell out another 5,000 just to start getting my money back
Dude, that was me. I was never sick. EVER. Then two years ago I get diagnosed with UC and now I always hit the deductible due to the medication I need. I work out, I eat relatively healthy, I take care of myself and I still got sick. It just happens sometimes, you can't control it. Something will happen eventually, when it does you'll be happy you have insurance.
Black Mamba
Member
12k with 8% lol. Surgery for an emergency can run you up hundreds of thousands.
jamesinclair
Banned
Got to make sure the middleman insurance people get their holiday bonuses for pushing those papers.
And their shareholders get paid.
....makes more sense for me to be a shareholder. You get sick, I profit when we deny your claim
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm referring to those shopping in the marketplaces.
I imagine there is more naivety amongst youth with respect to foreign diplomacy, foreign cultures, and the standing of the US in certain parts of the world e.g. "Why didn't Obama just tell them to do exactly what he says or else?"
Until you get sick or get into an accident, then you'll be broke.
jamesinclair
Banned
I could buy hurricane insurance.
I could never leave the house.
You shouldn't mitigate every risk
theprodigy
Member
why are you guys still engaging the troll
jamesinclair
Banned
Yup, outrageous and should be criminal. That's what Obama should be cracking down on. Fortunately any nurse can do stiches and I know several.
Can you kindly stop this shit junior?
Arrowgigantic
Member
An annual check-up when she was 25 years old found a small hard lump in my wife's neck that was biopsied and turned out to be thyroid cancer. The operation to remove her thyroid and zap any migrated cancer cells with radioactive iodine was over $100,000. For the insurance company, not for us.
Get your damn insurance.
Get your damn insurance.
Usually your initial medical bills will be handled by your auto insurance for a car related injury. Happened even when my dad broke his foot rotating the tires on his car and it fell off the jack onto his foot. May vary depending on state though.
Okay now I'll call bullshit. Health isn't "every" risk, it's the biggest risk. Do you not go outside and like be active? I broke my wrist getting a frisbee out of a tree, you know how much that shit would have costed without insurance?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And a few known only to dogs
I'm so glad that the "rational" people who think they are too smart for their own good dont make up the majority of citizens or the concept of insurance would fall flat on its face. There wouldn't be any money to pay car insurance or medical insurance claims out because everyone would have their "investments" making 8%.
These are the exact ppl who need complete asylum from government assistance and should be left to their own bearings when they rear end a pregnant lady and have to pay for her car AND medical bills for the emergency c section out of their investment account with 50k in it lol
Since insurance is such an irrational investment compared to stocks I wish you were be able to opt out and then get sued when life actually happens
These are the exact ppl who need complete asylum from government assistance and should be left to their own bearings when they rear end a pregnant lady and have to pay for her car AND medical bills for the emergency c section out of their investment account with 50k in it lol
Since insurance is such an irrational investment compared to stocks I wish you were be able to opt out and then get sued when life actually happens
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Thanks for reminding me!
Geez, stop arguing with him. Let him go without, and just look forward to the time when he comes on the forum begging for charity on the OT, and savor how dejected he'll be when he realizes no one is interested in giving him crap for help because he doesn't make Naughty Dog memorabilia.
Your expected to lose money to the health insurance company but the money you save with their expertise of negotiated rates is worth the difference in my opinion. People who are on their own get boned otherwise.
RustyNails
Member
But jamesinclair uses public transport. You lose, commie.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/edsall-the-center-cannot-hold.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Ugh I hate this "moderate" shit.
"Bipartisan solutions" and "both sides working together to get stuff done," is a Beltway fantasy. The only reason Reagan was able to work with Democrats was because there was a large enough coalition of Southern Dems who switched to the GOP after 1994, fucking Phil Gramm was a Democrat until he ran for the Senate.
And the only reason Clinton was able to work with Republicans was because he was human slime who was ready to give up everything he believed in in order to get re-elected.
Ugh I hate this "moderate" shit.
"Bipartisan solutions" and "both sides working together to get stuff done," is a Beltway fantasy. The only reason Reagan was able to work with Democrats was because there was a large enough coalition of Southern Dems who switched to the GOP after 1994, fucking Phil Gramm was a Democrat until he ran for the Senate.
And the only reason Clinton was able to work with Republicans was because he was human slime who was ready to give up everything he believed in in order to get re-elected.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is what I was arguing earlier. you're paying to get a better menu.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Dunno, I cherish his wit and trolls over memorabilia for overrated video games. I'll chip in some money for you, James.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Can he sell some copper to pay for his expenses?
Ok. What happens when a pregnant lady walking her dog slips and falls on his side walk cuz he didn't shovel the ice on his sidewalk?? Or when his friend comes over and trips down the steps and breaks an arm???
Why would he have accidental personal injury coverage on his home owners insurance??? I mean sure it's only $60 a year but imagine how much extra money he's giving up in potential interest?! For an event that's only 1% likely to happen that's like throwing money away!!!
jamesinclair
Banned
This is true. I don't own a car.
That being said, isn't the law in most states that you can self insure for car insurance? You're not required to go through a company.
There was a big expose on the Boston taxi industry and how most elect to self insure.
That being said car insurance makes sense because you're liable for your own health, your own car, the other person's health and even third parties.
Health is just you.
jamesinclair
Banned
Yea it's sad but without the purchasing power of an insurance company you would lose money by saving it and putting it towards healthcare verses just buying insurance.
empty vessel
Member
What do you mean when you say "intellectually captive"? If it's what I think it means, I think the modern American public is probably the most intellectually captive population in human history (maybe save one other). Imperial Russia did not have a mass media nearly of the scale as the US.
And your dependents. And people who care for your well being. And businesses which you are indebted to. And the people subsidizing the emergency bill you'll be unable to pay if you are not insured.
That's only because they refuse to use the information that is just sitting at their fingers, it's not due to a lack of availability.
empty vessel
Member
Not to mention preventing the spread of communicable diseases... One's inability to procure antibiotics can be another's disease. Health care is a social issue, not an individual issue.
The question is an empirical one (albeit one that probably can't be answered except by guessing). You are making a judgment, not an empirical assessment.
jamesinclair
Banned
So I should pay 180 a month for the benefit of others?
Mmhmm.
That's not how capitalism works. Look at Wal-Mart.
This is just such an ignorant thing to say. There is literally no logic that makes this make sense except that you just don't want to pay more. Any logical train of thought makes this totally invalid.
People payed into a system for your entire life so you could be given the resources to get a job that could afford you to be able to spend that $180.
People payed into a system for your entire life so that your very concept of what you consider to be "your health" that is "just you" could even be at a level where you would even contemplate not wanting to pay extra.
Those vaccines that you took that stopped you from getting the measles or the mumps or polio, that city air you breathe that isn't out of a backwater Chinese fog infested hellhole, that system that was in place when you broke a bone and you had a safe, speedy recovery...
The fact that you think every old person that is/was driving the cost of insurance up wasn't once a young, invulnerable thing like you with a similarly selfish viewpoint.
The fact that right now you are enjoying the products of someone-who-has-a-MUCH-more-physically-intensive-job-than-you's labor, which likely means they require more medical care.
The lack of critical thinking associated with your viewpoint is, frankly, to me, breathtaking.
I didn't have to sit here and think of these bullet points. They're obvious. In fact, dare I say, to someone like yourself that has spent a lot of time on an off-topic message board, you've basically had these bullet points waved in your face time and time again because you've literally subjected yourself to other peoples' experiences.
So to ignore that, the only conclusion is that you are deliberately, willfully ignorant.
Which, just so you know, is a symptom of many people your age, which in turn is one of the reasons the health insurance system was so broken that something had to be done about it.
Congratulations on being a walking, talking stereotype for why this legislation was needed.
User 250141
Banned
Qazaq's on the money.
zero shift
Banned
Its amusing to me how people try to vastly exaggerate how "well off" Russia was prior to switching to Communism. Not that I support Leninism or Stalinism, but people act that Russia was pretty much at the level Austria-Hungary was in development. The Soviet Union is amazingly underplayed.
That's actually false as well. Chronic diseases and medical costs ballooning are the reason for the increase in insurance
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/what-makes-u-s-health-care-so-overpriced-its-not-2D11582695
Only like 15% of medical costs go to the elderly
Russia previous to communism was nothing short of a clusterfuck. They are the one nation that always seems to get the short end of the stick. They got fucked before, during and after communism. I have a hard time of thinking of a time when they weren't getting bent over the table and reamed.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
What a weird question to ask coming from you. I've always saw you as one of the more fiscally liberal guys on this board. Quite the change of heart now the bill is coming towards you.
I agree that the wealthy should pay more of their fair share to at least cover societal necessities like health care. But in the absence of rich paying for health insurance, surely you'd be able to understand that the healthy paying for the sick is a much better option than making the sick pay for everything, especially since the healthy could easily become the sick the next day.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Isn't Medicare fairly efficient (in terms of cost or whatever? I'm not too versed in this) compared to regular insurance?
(i just remember reading medicare is pretty efficient for being elderly care only...)
- Status