US Elections (& Politics) :)

bigredfish said:
So lose your insurance or pay more is going to be the solution.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I have both a positive view, and a negative view.
The positive view: If we backpedaled the insurance system to where it was 50 to 60 years ago, it would cost a lot less. One example is the providers didn't fight the insurance companies. The individual paid the bill, then submitted it to the insurance for reimbursement. Now, we're paying extra employees of the provider to do this job for us. Another example is all of the covered things that previously weren't. Oregon, probably one of the worst, mandates coverage for birth control, reproductive health services, alcoholism, behavioral health treatment, tobacco cessation programs, gender affirming stuff, and other things that at least in some opinions should not be covered. Another example is how the drug companies are cleaning up.

The negative view: There are so many new treatments and drugs available that just didn't exist decades ago. I'm a consumer of a drug that is literally keeping me alive. I would have checked out last year without it. The published price is $16.5k/month and the insurance (medicare) supposedly pays 13.2k/month for it. $158k per year. 10 years ago I would have been gone and the insurance would not have paid out anything. I get insurance paid CT+MRI scans 4 times a year. 50 years ago these things didn't exist. Having spent a bunch of time at the hospital and getting tests last year, I'm totally blown away at all of the diagnostic devices and tests that exist, and I saw only a small sample of what exists.

Why is this negative? We're spending more and more money keeping people alive longer and improving their quality of life. New treatments and gadgets continue to be added, and each one adds to the total medical cost. If the trajectory doesn't slow down, our entire GDP and employment force will be dedicated to keeping people alive longer and improving quality of life. Yes, there is inefficiency and graft increasing the costs, but take that away, and we're still heading for an economic disaster with the well intentioned things that we won't be able to pay for, no matter how incompassionate it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, johnfitz and bigredfish
IDK if you have been following or reading about this dumb twat, but man, this cartoon is hilarious!

1760276033612.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, VorlonFrog and Oceanslider
bigredfish said:
So lose your insurance or pay more is going to be the solution.

I would love to see folks who Ra Ra this find out they have a self employed family member who is about to get fucked

And that article stretches way beyond reality and factually wrong in so many ways, Its not for the fucking wealthy or employed by a company who offers health care.
And you have to laugh at those who say it single handedly raised rates. Rates were already going through the roof with private insurance. Thats why it was created in the first place.
Insurance companies raise the rates, not "Obamacare". And they will continue to do so.

Christ the very first 3 bullet points of this garbage are demonstrably false
  • Blindly tossing fresh trillions down that hole is nuts: Time to fix it — or scrap it altogether.
  • The 10-year cost of Dems’ current demand totals almost a half-trillion dollars, to benefit primarily insurers and wealthier Americans.
  • Under the expiration that Democrats wrote into law, 1.6 million Americans (just 0.5% of the population) would see their subsidies return to pre-COVID levels.
And another
- Fact is, Obamacare was a calamity from the start: It raised taxes, destroyed the old (imperfect, but functional) private insurance market and slapped all kinds of requirements on insurers, spiking costs.

The "old" insurance market is still the same Insurers selling Obamacare. I dont think many even know that the fuck it is. Its still buying insurance from the same insurers, with offsetting subsidies depending on income, and with plans that aren;t garbage like was being sold by the "old insurance market" which didnt cover shit. 20 year olds can get buy with that gamble, older folks over say 40 not so much. And no insurer would take you with a pre existing condition. Its like the Men in Black used that light thingy and destroyed everybody's memory for a Fox News headline
Click to expand...
Insurance companies had to meet new guidelines, but their rates were guaranteed by the subsidies. When the Federal government is buying (or funding), the prices goes up. Student loan limits go up, and tuition goes up. Section 8 housing reimbursements go up, and rent goes up.

Obama famously stated that health insurance will be cheaper than your cell phone bill. Maybe for the person, but only because the government is paying the balance, effectively making Obama's claim a lie. If a person pays $20 for an ACA plan, but the government kicks in $1,980 every month, the plan does not cost $20. That is a massive amount of money flooding a system with a host of greedy bastards seeing a new way to get rich. Health care and pharmaceuticals followed suit to capture their piece of the government gravy train, adding unneeded programs and administrators to fund them (exactly like higher ed has done over the last 30 years)

Here's an older chart of comparative pricing. I can only imagine how much higher the line for medical costs has gone up since federal money started freely flowing into that system...

1760276668015.png
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: gwminor48, tigerwillow1, johnfitz and 2 others
sdkid said:
Insurance companies had to meet new guidelines, but their rates were guaranteed by the subsidies. When the Federal government is buying (or funding), the prices goes up. Student loan limits go up, and tuition goes up. Section 8 housing reimbursements go up, and rent goes up.

Obama famously stated that health insurance will be cheaper than your cell phone bill. Maybe for the person, but only because the government is paying the balance, effectively making Obama's claim a lie. If a person pays $20 for an ACA plan, but the government kicks in $1,980 every month, the plan does not cost $20. That is a massive amount of money flooding a system with a host of greedy bastards seeing a new way to get rich. Health care and pharmaceuticals followed suit to capture their piece of the government gravy train, adding unneeded programs and administrators to fund them (exactly like higher ed has done over the last 30 years)

Here's an older chart of comparative pricing. I can only imagine how much higher the line for medical costs has gone up since federal money started freely flowing into that system...

View attachment 229752
Click to expand...

Holy guaranteed student loans !

Knew it was bad .. that chart really shows it
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdkid, johnfitz and bigredfish
Understood

I think on “fixing” health care, which I’ve yet to hear a single idea from Republicans on, is going to take reverting back to everyone buying direct private insurance to expose the Insurance companies as the primary driver of costs.

I see healthcare n 3 buckets
  • employer shared cost
  • self employed and others not covered by employer plans (ACA)
  • retired (Medicare)

Well 4 if you consider disabled not of retirement age (Medicaid)

Employer shared means you pay less than going direct to an insurance company, but as a former business owner, that cost I pay on your behalf factors into the wages I pay you. My share while employed was about $500 p/mo

Self employed etc- this is what ACA was designed for. Taking the place of the employer paying a share. The plans I saw last year when looking at this route for Mrs bigredfish, were more than the cost sharing plans as employer based. In her example it was about $850 p/mo after a $700 mo offset from subsidies. She’s part time making about the poverty level. (We’re not close to poor, that’s a conscience decision based on not making too much before they start dinging your SS income) So yes, the insurance companies charge more for this group

Medicare. Between actual cost deducted from my SS check and my Medigap supplemental I pay about $500-600 p/mo. Very close to the same taken from my paycheck when I was working

Insurance companies have already stated they see on average an 18% increase coming for 2026
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tigerwillow1 and johnfitz
sdkid said:
Insurance companies had to meet new guidelines, but their rates were guaranteed by the subsidies. When the Federal government is buying (or funding), the prices goes up. Student loan limits go up, and tuition goes up. Section 8 housing reimbursements go up, and rent goes up.

Obama famously stated that health insurance will be cheaper than your cell phone bill. Maybe for the person, but only because the government is paying the balance, effectively making Obama's claim a lie. If a person pays $20 for an ACA plan, but the government kicks in $1,980 every month, the plan does not cost $20. That is a massive amount of money flooding a system with a host of greedy bastards seeing a new way to get rich. Health care and pharmaceuticals followed suit to capture their piece of the government gravy train, adding unneeded programs and administrators to fund them (exactly like higher ed has done over the last 30 years)

Here's an older chart of comparative pricing. I can only imagine how much higher the line for medical costs has gone up since federal money started freely flowing into that system...

View attachment 229752
Click to expand...



Problem with that chart is ACA wasn't passed until 2010.

Health insurance cost was out of control way before .gov subsidies
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnfitz
bigredfish said:
Agree, student loans backed by.gov was a bad idea. That was 100% raping the government by colleges.
Click to expand...
1760281382446.png
www.forbes.com

Students Begin To Tap The Brakes On The Campus Amenities Arms Race

Colleges spend billions on bigger and better campus amenities, believing they are key to effective student recruiting. Historically, students have supported new fees to fund these projects. But recently, they have begun to vote down proposed campus amenities, signalling a new, welcome frugality.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
  • Haha
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: samplenhold, johnfitz and bigredfish
Education became a 100% for-profit industry somewhere along the way.

I recall back in the late 70's paying $15 p/credit hour +books at North Texas State Univ (Texas Oil revenue offset costs for in-state students)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigerwillow1, Parley, samplenhold and 1 other person
bigredfish said:
Education became a 100% for-profit industry somewhere along the way.

I recall back in the late 70's paying $15 p/credit hour +books at North Texas State Univ (Texas Oil revenue offset costs for in-state students)
Click to expand...
When I attended Bost State College in 1972, the tuition was $150 per semester no matter how many credits you took. There were then some fees, which brought it up to about $185 per semester. I spent more in books than tuition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, tigerwillow1, johnfitz and 1 other person
  • Like
Reactions: johnfitz
HE'S OUTRAGED!!! LOL

Screenshot 2025-10-12 152550.png

Ranking Members Raskin, Swalwell Statement on Senate Republicans’ Misdirected Outrage Regarding DOJ’s Investigation of the Criminal Conspiracy to Overturn the 2020 Presidential Election

“There was no ‘spying’ on Members of Congress. Experienced federal prosecutors conducted an investigation setting forth overwhelming evidence of how President Trump worked with numerous persons, including private individuals, government officials, and Republican Members of Congress to carry out criminal acts designed to block the peaceful transfer of power and overthrow the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election. As part of this conspiracy, President Trump and his inner circle sought to enlist Republican Members in their efforts to submit false election certificates to Congress, to get Congress to reject the lawful election certificates, and to coerce Vice President Pence as the presiding officer over the electoral count. January 6 insurrectionists sought and obtained tours of the Capitol from Member offices in the days preceding their violent attack on the Capitol and its police officers. Even on the evening of January 6, 2021 when the Capitol was still being cleared of rioters, President Trump's allies were still calling Republican Senators to encourage them to refuse to certify Joe Biden as the rightful winner of the election.

“My Republican colleagues are likely not actually outraged at Jack Smith’s perfectly legitimate act of seeking four-days of phone records related to these crimes; they are outraged that anyone investigated the President’s insurrectionary plans on January 6 at all. This outrage should be directed at Donald Trump and his co-conspirators who put them on speed-dial during an Insurrection and sought to engage them in a criminal effort to block the peaceful transfer of power under the Constitution and overturn the will of the American people.
 
Zohran Mamdani, a mayoral candidate, has faced scrutiny for accepting nearly $13,000 in potentially illegal foreign donations to fund his campaign.

These donations include contributions from his mother-in-law in Dubai, among others, raising concerns about compliance with campaign finance laws.

The campaign has received at least 170 contributions from foreign donors, which could violate regulations.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: gwminor48, Parley and johnfitz
Mr. McGloin though he was asking a gotcha question, but did not like Brad Lander's answer... so his response is "I like penis."? LOL

Screenshot 2025-10-12 163525.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Arjun
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom