Sure you can have health insurance (not sure how you will pay for it).

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/80#post_3539301
I am middle class. My subsidy is squat when compared to the increase in my monthly premium to give access to crap I do not need, like mental health insurance, maternity insurance....etc....
The medicaid expansion was written into the law as mandatory. The states had to sign on, unfortunately the author did not consult the Supreme court first....probably to busy telling everyone we could keep our doctor and insurance if we liked it.
I am unclear what you mean on the insurance pools. Here in New mexico we didnt make our own pool, it was done on the federal level. The same companies in the pool are the same companies I have the option to go to period....So your telling me the insurance companies would have reduced their rate had the state set up the pool instead of the fed? I am missing something.
Sure drugs cost 400% more than to actually manufacture. but that percentage comes down considerably if you factor in the Research and development stage of the drugs and the trials as well...Drugs are patented, so generics can not be made till after so many years due to the patent. Do you change patent laws to curb this? I asked what you would change....how would you reduce the cost, you gave me examples of "extreme" cost in return without stating how you would correct this.
Also keep in mind, 50% of Texas doctors do NOT accept Medicaid........
You obviously have never had insurance from a large corporation. My wife's insurance covers birth control pills and ******, neither of which either of us use. We also have mental health and maternity, both we never use. However, to keep overall premiums down, they provide these medicines and services for everyone on the plan. You saw what I paid, so apparently the insurance provider you use must REALLY like you to bend over and take it for the team.

States can deny the Medicaid expansion of the law. That's quite apparent because Texas and Rick Perry did just that. And yes, the main idea behind ACA was that every State would create funded insurance pools that are subsidized by state funds. More competition, lower costs.

You're fooling yourself if you think generics aren't released due to patent laws. Those "extreme costs" are what keep medical services unaffordable for those who need those medications. How to correct it? Regulate the amount pharmaceuticals can charge for name-brand drugs, and allow them to provide a generic version as soon as it's available, which is the problem because those companies want to suck out as much profits as possible before putting a generic version out. That's not a multi-billion dollar market for nothing. You also set federal standards for charge rates for services and products provided by hospitals and medical service providers. Only allow any provider to charge $50 for an X-Ray of a foot, instead of one place charging $100, and another service charging $200 for the same X-Ray that probably costs them $10 to make now that most X-rays are digitized and aren't even put on film. Same with MRI's, blood work in a lab, CAT Scans, or any other external medical procedure performed.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/80#post_3539303
I am pretty sure there are better ways to argue your point without implying the OP should kill themselves.
Expecting an alternate explanation of the statement as harmless in
3...
2....
1....
Darth (Selective compassion is awesome) Tang
Phixer said he doesn't fear death. Granted, he didn't give his reasoning's why he didn't care if he died tomorrow, next year, or 50 years from now, but it's an honest question. I never implied that he go out and commit suicide. I simply asked that if him or anyone else thinks there's "something better on the other side" than the world they live in today, why wait for the inevitable? That's what I don't understand about religious people. They preach about Heaven and the afterlife, and how glorious it will be when your time comes to be at those Pearly Gates. I would think that if there really is this euphoric place where you never get sick, you never want for anything, and you supposedly can be back with the one's you've loved in the past, that would beat ANYTHING that you can do on this Earth in your present state. If you honestly believe there's such a place, seems to me you wouldn't want to wait to get there. Oh wait, there's that clause where if you intentionally kill yourself, then your entrance to said Utopia is DENIED. Hmmm. Wonder why they made that provision for entry? Maybe because if it wasn't, the population on this planet would be a 10th of what it is today?

 

[phixer]

Because no one knows whats on the other side, thats why it's called faith. As long as Im independent and not a burden or dependent upon society why rush it. Know what I mean? When you become a burden thats natures way of telling you it's time to go? Just an opinion.

Aggie, if talking about Christianity it means saved by faith, not by works. There is no "clause" due to a commandment,(except blasphemy) that would condemn ones soul to "hell" otherwise everyone is screwed.

Therefore if someone was to take their own life that dosent mean their soul goes to a "hell" they simply ask for forgiveness and are forgiven. Saved by faith, not works. Other religions believe in a saved by works principle.

You seem like a pretty compassionate and caring person , many within the church feel the same way without all of the other strings. Faith is the only requirement.

 

[2quills]

You obviously have never had insurance from a large corporation.  My wife's insurance covers birth control pills and ******, neither of which either of us use.  We also have mental health and maternity, both we never use.  However, to keep overall premiums down, they provide these medicines and services for everyone on the plan.  You saw what I paid, so apparently the insurance provider you use must REALLY like you to bend over and take it for the team.:laughing:
States can deny the Medicaid expansion of the law.  That's quite apparent because Texas and Rick Perry did just that.  And yes, the main idea behind ACA was that every State would create funded insurance pools that are subsidized by state funds.  More competition, lower costs.
You're fooling yourself if you think generics aren't released due to patent laws.  Those "extreme costs" are what keep medical services unaffordable for those who need those medications.  How to correct it?  Regulate the amount pharmaceuticals can charge for name-brand drugs, and allow them to provide a generic version as soon as it's available, which is the problem because those companies want to suck out as much profits as possible before putting a generic version out. That's not a multi-billion dollar market for nothing.  You also set federal standards for charge rates for services and products provided by hospitals and medical service providers.  Only allow any provider to charge $50 for an X-Ray of a foot, instead of one place charging $100, and another service charging $200 for the same X-Ray that probably costs them $10 to make now that most X-rays are digitized and aren't even put on film.  Same with MRI's, blood work in a lab, CAT Scans, or any other external medical procedure performed.
I agree with what you're saying. But why would any doctor with ambition wish to play along with that idea? Now you're talking about having to modifying education and finance to incorporate those ideas. No one is going to want to pay today's costs of obtaining a PhD to work in a sallary capped field. That's the problem with these grand schemes. Sounds great on paper but...

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/80#post_3539327
It is for me. Civility goes out the window when faced with self preservation. People will help each other only so much, then they will help themselves.

Just too many examples of this throughout history. I.e the lifeboat scenario, looting and what happens when people are crowded together with diminshing resources they dont get nicer, they become more aggressive.

I remember this when doing the disaster relief for Fukisima, all that gets documented is people helping each other out, crying, hugging and smiling because thats what we want to see. They dont print the stories of looting and theft that reflect the true nature of people when in desperate situations. I've seen it happen the world over even in Japan , a culture where self-preservation is taboo. If pushed enough very few will react favorably. Wish it wasnt so but I cant deny what I've seen. You may be right Bang Guy, I've just never experinced this and I believe I've experienced more than most.

Please stay out west and God bless your independence. Live long & prosper.

 

[2quills]

This is why I keep my guns. :ideclare:

 

[darthtang aw]

You obviously have never had insurance from a large corporation.  My wife's insurance covers birth control pills and ******, neither of which either of us use.  We also have mental health and maternity, both we never use.  However, to keep overall premiums down, they provide these medicines and services for everyone on the plan.  You saw what I paid, so apparently the insurance provider you use must REALLY like you to bend over and take it for the team.:laughing:
States can deny the Medicaid expansion of the law.  That's quite apparent because Texas and Rick Perry did just that.  And yes, the main idea behind ACA was that every State would create funded insurance pools that are subsidized by state funds.  More competition, lower costs.
You're fooling yourself if you think generics aren't released due to patent laws.  Those "extreme costs" are what keep medical services unaffordable for those who need those medications.  How to correct it?  Regulate the amount pharmaceuticals can charge for name-brand drugs, and allow them to provide a generic version as soon as it's available, which is the problem because those companies want to suck out as much profits as possible before putting a generic version out. That's not a multi-billion dollar market for nothing.  You also set federal standards for charge rates for services and products provided by hospitals and medical service providers.  Only allow any provider to charge $50 for an X-Ray of a foot, instead of one place charging $100, and another service charging $200 for the same X-Ray that probably costs them $10 to make now that most X-rays are digitized and aren't even put on film.  Same with MRI's, blood work in a lab, CAT Scans, or any other external medical procedure performed.
Ok so I read this response. And the first two paragraphs left me dumbfounded and speechless for a full five minutes. Apparently You arent grasping the issue here at all. So lets try it again.
As to your first paragraph. Your wife's corporation is picking up 70% of the healthcare tab for your family. This is why it is "cheaper" for you versus the plans on the private market and Insurance pools, even with all the extra stuff. Take the portion you pay and double that, then double it again...and that is roughly the true price of the plan/premium. The reason you get this great rate is through corporate tax breaks and write offs to do so. Give individuals the same write offs and tax breaks and I wont complain about the price of the new aca. As it would truly be cheaper. Instead I get a pathetic subsidy that does not even equal by 1/2 what the corporations are getting. So apparently you have never never worked for a corporation and seen how the money is actually handled or figured. I have.
As to your second statement. You clearly stated to make the ACA work correctly you have to force state to participate in the medicaid portion as was written by law. The Supreme court ruled this is not possible. So therefore your idea is crap and discounted. Thus meaning the program is broken. So how do you fix it now? As to the state exchangesd, they are no different from the exchanges on the federal side. There is nothing in the law stating states will pick up a portion of the medical tab when they build these exchanges. All it says is the exchanges will be made where people can purchase insurance to qualify for a FEDERAL subsidy. To my recollection there is no state subsidies in the law aside from medicaid aspect....which amounts to a whole 10% by 2020. Meaning the fed is still picking up the tab for the greater majority. The other side of that coin....Half of the texas doctors currently dont accept medicaid. If you suddenly expand the program....where do these people go to get their medical treatment? There currently aren't enough doctors in texas to handle the influx of people the medicaid rolls would contain.
Neither of those two paragraphs/solution address the cost of medical insurance. It just shifts the cost.
As to your third paragraph, it is clear you are clueless to patent laws. Let me explain so you understand why prescriptions are the way they are.
When an company discovers a drug, they file a patent. The FDA allows generic drug manufacturers to file an “abbreviated new drug application” which lets them produce a generic drug without doing full clinical trials.
The patent protection protects the innovator company, which can spend $1 billion to bring a new drug to market. There are a lot of drugs that never make it to market. They maybe make it half way and then there’s a safety issue, or it doesn’t work. The government gives them a 20-year patent protection, but the clock starts ticking on that far before the drug comes to market. Meaning it could take 6-10 years from initial creation through clinical trials. meaning they only get ten years of sales protection. For example Lipitor took 7 years to get through trials and to the market for sale. meaning they only got 13 years of protected sales to recoup their cost and make a profit. Then Generics can hit the market. The first six months after the patent expires companies bid to be able to supply the generics for the next six months. meaning after the patent runs out, one or two generics will be available the next six months. Typically cheaper than the original, but not by much. After that it is a free for all for the generic manufacturers. anyone can make and sell the generic.
See generic companies do not do any Research or have any up front costs or trials. They basically let the other guys do that then come in years later for the easy money for little investment. By this point the drug has a 20 year proven track record, No pending lawsuits surrounding it, and a proven market. The generic companies basically have no skin in the game. And now you want to give them immediate access for no investment? 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years. If you allow generics to hit the market immediately, you can kiss Research and development of new medicines good bye.

 

[darthtang aw]

Phixer said he doesn't fear death.  Granted, he didn't give his reasoning's why he didn't care if he died tomorrow, next year, or 50 years from now, but it's an honest question.  I never implied that he go out and commit suicide.  I simply asked that if him or anyone else thinks there's "something better on the other side"  than the world they live in today, why wait for the inevitable?  That's what I don't understand about religious people.  They preach about Heaven and the afterlife, and how glorious it will be when your time comes to be at those Pearly Gates.  I would think that if there really is this euphoric place where you never get sick, you never want for anything, and you supposedly can be back with the one's you've loved in the past, that would beat ANYTHING that you can do on this Earth in your present state.  If you honestly believe there's such a place, seems to me you wouldn't want to wait to get there.  Oh wait, there's that clause where if you intentionally kill yourself, then your entrance to said Utopia is DENIED.  Hmmm.  Wonder why they made that provision for entry?  Maybe because if it wasn't, the population on this planet would be a 10th of what it is today?
Please, it is clear you don't understand the concept within various religions as to reasoning behind staying apart of this planet until it is your time to go. I truly dilike when people knock on those of faith that have no understand of faith or have taken the time to actually study the faith. Reminds me of a pastor I once knew that would ridicule the Mormon faith for their beliefs but constantly got their belief system wrong.

 

[darthtang aw]

And while I am at it, I am beginning to notice a pattern.
And the rich don't abuse the system the same way, if not worse? 
You also stated this.

With the Republican proposal, the wealthy and upper class get the subsidies because they have the means to reduce their taxes with expanded tax deductions than the lower and middle class.

Aren't you the guy claiming to make millions in the real estate market. Does this not make you rich? Why do you type as if you dont fall into this class using the very same loop holes you demonize. Cough cough cayman cough properties cough.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539353
Ok so I read this response. And the first two paragraphs left me dumbfounded and speechless for a full five minutes. Apparently You arent grasping the issue here at all. So lets try it again.
As to your first paragraph. Your wife's corporation is picking up 70% of the healthcare tab for your family. This is why it is "cheaper" for you versus the plans on the private market and Insurance pools, even with all the extra stuff. Take the portion you pay and double that, then double it again...and that is roughly the true price of the plan/premium. The reason you get this great rate is through corporate tax breaks and write offs to do so. Give individuals the same write offs and tax breaks and I wont complain about the price of the new aca. As it would truly be cheaper. Instead I get a pathetic subsidy that does not even equal by 1/2 what the corporations are getting. So apparently you have never never worked for a corporation and seen how the money is actually handled or figured. I have.
As to your second statement. You clearly stated to make the ACA work correctly you have to force state to participate in the medicaid portion as was written by law. The Supreme court ruled this is not possible. So therefore your idea is crap and discounted. Thus meaning the program is broken. So how do you fix it now? As to the state exchangesd, they are no different from the exchanges on the federal side. There is nothing in the law stating states will pick up a portion of the medical tab when they build these exchanges. All it says is the exchanges will be made where people can purchase insurance to qualify for a FEDERAL subsidy. To my recollection there is no state subsidies in the law aside from medicaid aspect....which amounts to a whole 10% by 2020. Meaning the fed is still picking up the tab for the greater majority. The other side of that coin....Half of the texas doctors currently dont accept medicaid. If you suddenly expand the program....where do these people go to get their medical treatment? There currently aren't enough doctors in texas to handle the influx of people the medicaid rolls would contain.
Neither of those two paragraphs/solution address the cost of medical insurance. It just shifts the cost.
As to your third paragraph, it is clear you are clueless to patent laws. Let me explain so you understand why prescriptions are the way they are.
When an company discovers a drug, they file a patent. The FDA allows generic drug manufacturers to file an “abbreviated new drug application” which lets them produce a generic drug without doing full clinical trials.
The patent protection protects the innovator company, which can spend $1 billion to bring a new drug to market. There are a lot of drugs that never make it to market. They maybe make it half way and then there’s a safety issue, or it doesn’t work. The government gives them a 20-year patent protection, but the clock starts ticking on that far before the drug comes to market. Meaning it could take 6-10 years from initial creation through clinical trials. meaning they only get ten years of sales protection. For example Lipitor took 7 years to get through trials and to the market for sale. meaning they only got 13 years of protected sales to recoup their cost and make a profit. Then Generics can hit the market. The first six months after the patent expires companies bid to be able to supply the generics for the next six months. meaning after the patent runs out, one or two generics will be available the next six months. Typically cheaper than the original, but not by much. After that it is a free for all for the generic manufacturers. anyone can make and sell the generic.
See generic companies do not do any Research or have any up front costs or trials. They basically let the other guys do that then come in years later for the easy money for little investment. By this point the drug has a 20 year proven track record, No pending lawsuits surrounding it, and a proven market. The generic companies basically have no skin in the game. And now you want to give them immediate access for no investment? 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years. If you allow generics to hit the market immediately, you can kiss Research and development of new medicines good bye.
You watch too much Hannity. My wife's insurance is cheaper because they have over 15,000 employees nationwide paying into the same insurance system. When you have that many individuals paying into a plan, the provider is going to give them significant cost incentives. As far as the hospitals getting tax breaks? Of course they do. But they also pay a significant price for providing those benefits to their employees. Why do you think it's the norm now to hire contract workers as opposed to hiring individuals to work directly for the company? A corporation can save at least 30% in overhead costs by hiring contractors because they don't have to provide them benefits. When a corporation hires someone directly for $20/hr, they are actually paying that individual $45/hr when you roll in all the benefits. On the flip side, they can hire a contractor for the same job for $35/hr flat rate and come out ahead.

Private insurance was never intended to be affordable. It's always been that lonely alternative for those who don't work for large corporations or employers that provide benefits like health insurance, 401k's, vacation time, sick leave, etc. As I've state before, the main reason my wife stays on at her hospital is for the benefits. Why should we eat up a big chunk of our retirement funds paying for health insurance when we're both still capable of working for another 10 or so years? However, there are millions of individuals that aren't in our financial positions that have an alternative. Prior to ACA being implemented, if those individuals were to quit their corporate jobs that provide those types of benefits, they'd be homeless or destitute by the time they reached retirement if they had to go to the ridiculous private insurance route you apparently have chosen to use.

If the idiot Tea Baggers would've given the full plan a chance to work, and kept the lawsuits out of the Supreme Court, we would've been able to find out if it was flawed or not. Now that option is off the table? Who knows how to fix it to get the overall costs down with the exception of more individuals joining the program to get the overall costs reduced.

Half the doctors in Texas don't take Medicaid because they can't get paid. The Feds offered Rick Perry millions in Medicaid aide and he refused it. He claims "Texans can take care of their own people", yet children of lower income families can't get low-cost medical care because of it. Senior citizens are getting their benefits reduced to the point that they can't afford to stay in their nursing homes because their SS benefits don't cover all the bill. Meanwhile, Perry hold millions in our Rainy Day Fund that could be used to offset these costs, but instead he uses our money on his million dollar security detail, and his $100,000/year rent on his 6,000 sq. ft. house for just him and his wife because he needs a place that reflects how a "Governor of a state of this magnitude should live".


Patent laws for drugs are a joke. You know why drug companies have to file those patents in the first place, and play those ridiculous rules? The FDA. You know how many of the drugs you use every day that you say these companies deserved to charge these ridiculous prices are readily available in Europe and in other foreign countries for half the cost? Because they aren't shouldered by the antiquated laws set forth by the FDA to get a new drug approved to even get a patent or go on the market in the first place. My sister-in-law used to fly to Paris three times a year to obtain an "experimental drug" to fight her ovarian cancer that the FDA wasn't planning to approve for another 10 - 15 years. It saved her life. There are countless other drugs available overseas that are known to save lives and cure diseases that aren't available in the US because of stupid FDA regulations. You want kickbacks? Wonder how many FDA regulators and administrators are in bed with the major pharmaceutical companies.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539354
Please, it is clear you don't understand the concept within various religions as to reasoning behind staying apart of this planet until it is your time to go. I truly dilike when people knock on those of faith that have no understand of faith or have taken the time to actually study the faith. Reminds me of a pastor I once knew that would ridicule the Mormon faith for their beliefs but constantly got their belief system wrong.
There is no logical reasoning. If you had the choice of living in a dump, or living in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, which would you choose? For a multitude of individuals, Mother Earth is the dump, and that mansion is this supposed afterlife religion make you believe exist. You talk of faith, but the irony of that word is you honestly can't have a concrete definition of its meaning. Faith for one individual can be completely opposite for another. You even validate that point with your statement about misinterpretations of the meaning between the various religions around the world. Different religions can't even agree what "faith" truly is. I have no illusions of grandeur that when I do eventually die, I'll meet this Supreme Being and come into his fold of eternal happiness. There's no categorical proof that Heaven, or whatever you want to interpret that "side" to be, exists. Until the day comes that someone dies, goes there for whatever period of time, has the intellectual knowledge of knowing they were there and can come back to provide definitive proof "it" exists, then it's nothing more than a fantasy drummed up by some 6000 year old book, and ingrained into the brains of followers of these churches who care more about your pocketbook than your salvation.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539355
And while I am at it, I am beginning to notice a pattern.
You also stated this.
Aren't you the guy claiming to make millions in the real estate market. Does this not make you rich? Why do you type as if you dont fall into this class using the very same loop holes you demonize. Cough cough cayman cough properties cough.
You bet I take advantage of the same tax loopholes in that flawed system. Why wouldn't I? A fool and his money are soon parted. But I also see how the other side lives, and how they are left behind because of these same laws. Our tax system is corrupt, and awards those at the top of the food chain while hosing those who are on the bottom. I find it laughable when someone like Romney whose known to be worth over $250 million, has the same effective tax rate as an individual who makes $60,000/year. I do find charitable venues that allow me to help those who need help. I have the luxury of doing that. But you have others, many Republicans, that are in the same position as myself that would walk over someone destitute before handing them a dime. "I've got mine. Keep your stinking hands off it. Sucks to be you."

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/80#post_3539272


Yes, providing the newborn animals are strong enough to survive to begin with. The runts and the weak are normally eaten. Sounds pretty barbaric I know but once the concept is understood it really makes sense, no burden on the herd and the species ensures it gets stronger by abandoning the weak. When the jackrabbits begin to overpopulate the snakes and hawks take care of them otherwise they consume all the food and starve to death. Disease and aggression also increases. Sound familliar? Cancer rates are increasing everywhere. Disease and crime flourish in overpopulated areas.

If man kind would only emulate and accept nature we wouldn't have these problems. Instead we seem to think it's our duty to control it.
It is fascinating how folks of a certain mind invoke the "natural way" and "survival of the fittest" without understanding either term in the slightest. In nature "fittest" does not refer to strongest, nor fastest, but only to those organisms possessing traits that improve the probability of successfully reproducing. Nothing more is required nor implied. This means that sometimes physically weak animals are preserved. A female rat will continue to nurse her smallest, weakest offspring well after the larger, more robust littermates have weaned and gone off to test themselves against others. What is important in this is not that the strongest survive, but to understand what test is imposed. In nature it is clearly reproduction. But what about in civilized human populations. There is a cut of the population that would have us believe that only the physically toughest should survive, and if given free rein they "naturally" would. That is one view of "fittest", but there are other views that are applicable to human populations. I personally am not physically strong (numerous surgeries and medical conditions have prolonged my life). There are those who would say that I am not fit to survive, and my death would thin the herd. OTOH, I am very intelligent and well educated, and my research has resulted in significant advances in human understanding of the biology of aging and its underlying diseases. I have also passed our accumulated knowledge to thousands of individuals in the next generation. I guess I am just one of many who, under a "survival of the fittest" regime, where fittest is defined as physically strongest, would not be in the pool. I am egocentric enough to think that my early deletion from the population would constitute a small (indeed, very small) loss to the species. So please don't argue that that the eugenic approach in human populations would strengthen the herd - it wouldn't since human beings and their civilization constitute more than a free-for-all battle. Instead, go live with the lions (oops... bad example, since members of a lion pride will protect and feed an injured member, despite the cost to the herd). Perhaps, with chimps (another bad example, since a chimp troop will care for its oldest members even though they can no longer hunt or gather). Come to think of it, altruism is a very common feature of all organizations of animals.

 

[darthtang aw]

You bet I take advantage of the same tax loopholes in that flawed system.  Why wouldn't I?  A fool and his money are soon parted.  But I also see how the other side lives, and how they are left behind because of these same laws.  Our tax system is corrupt, and awards those at the top of the food chain while hosing those who are on the bottom.  I find it laughable when someone like Romney whose known to be worth over $250 million, has the same effective tax rate as an individual who makes $60,000/year.  I do find charitable venues that allow me to help those who need help.  I have the luxury of doing that.  But you have others, many Republicans, that are in the same position as myself that would walk over someone destitute before handing them a dime.  "I've got mine.  Keep your stinking hands off it. Sucks to be you."
Did you inherit the millions you have? Or did you start out as the "other side". If you made millions you weren't left behind, thus your argument is flawed. Since you are proof the system doesn't leave the otherside behind.
But I see it is more of a "do as I say not as I do" aspect for you. Funny, you dont see anti abortionists having abortions. so why should you take advantage of loopholes you are against? It shows a sort of hypocrisy.
I have another question concerning your millions. If you have indeed made millions....explain this statement you made a bit more.

Why should we eat up a big chunk of our retirement funds paying for health insurance when we're both still capable of working for another 10 or so years?

How would insurance eat up a big chunk of your millions?
Your other responses I will address later. This middle class American has a business to run.

 

[darthtang aw]

There is no logical reasoning.  If you had the choice of living in a dump, or living in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, which would you choose?  For a multitude of individuals, Mother Earth is the dump, and that mansion is this supposed afterlife religion make you believe exist.  You talk of faith, but the irony of that word is you honestly can't have a concrete definition of its meaning.  Faith for one individual can be completely opposite for another.  You even validate that point with your statement about misinterpretations of the meaning between the various religions around the world.  Different religions can't even agree what "faith" truly is. I have no illusions of grandeur that when I do eventually die, I'll meet this Supreme Being and come into his fold of eternal happiness.  There's no categorical proof that Heaven, or whatever you want to interpret that "side" to be, exists.  Until the day comes that someone dies, goes there for whatever period of time, has the intellectual knowledge of knowing they were there and can come back to provide definitive proof "it" exists, then it's nothing more than a fantasy drummed up by some 6000 year old book, and ingrained into the brains of followers of these churches who care more about your pocketbook than your salvation.
I can address this real quick. Your statement continues to show a lack of understanding of religions and their tenants still.
For a "multitude" of believers, mother earth is not a dump. just because their is a belief there is something better, does not equate to the current situation being horrible.
We can stop on this portion of the discussion as it is a waste of time. By your wording it is clear you down upon anyone that holds a belief in an afterlife. You view them as ignorant. So why continue a discussion bound to be chock full of ignorance.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539384
Did you inherit the millions you have? Or did you start out as the "other side". If you made millions you weren't left behind, thus your argument is flawed. Since you are proof the system doesn't leave the otherside behind.
But I see it is more of a "do as I say not as I do" aspect for you. Funny, you dont see anti abortionists having abortions. so why should you take advantage of loopholes you are against? It shows a sort of hypocrisy.
I have another question concerning your millions. If you have indeed made millions....explain this statement you made a bit more.
How would insurance eat up a big chunk of your millions?
Your other responses I will address later. This middle class American has a business to run.
I came from your typical middle class family. I pretty much paid my way through college, and studied Electrical Engineering. Worked in the oil industry for a decade, and during that time hooked up with old college friends who showed me the in's and out's of commercial real estate. Got lucky with the purchase of several properties that were considered "rural" and useless at the time. Used the profits from that endeavor to go into the residential real estate market, then to foreign investments. Does anyone at the lower end of the food chain have the same opportunities as I did? Not in this day and age. Back in the 70's and 80's, we didn't have immediate information about available real estate properties, and the potential they brought. Some of those purchases were literally from being at the right place at the right time. With the advent of the Internet and the Technology Age we're in today, it makes it extremely difficult for the average citizen to take advantage of any industry and getting a foot ahead of the thousands of others pursuing the same idea.

Any "loophole" I take advantage of in regards to my tax deductions fall within the tax laws laid out by the IRS. Having more wealth affords you with deductions middle incomer's like yourself can't take advantage of simply because you don't have the cash to disburse in legal shelters. The difference with me and an antiabortionist is I'd have no problem paying more taxes if I knew that the money would go where I'd expect it to go. Instead it filters into the coffers of Washington politicians who use it for their own personal gains. Until the tax laws change, I'll simply keep doing what I'm doing.

Money is money sir. Are you saying you would willingly pay more for something simply because you have the money to do so? So because I have the wealth to pay the exorbitant premiums for private insurance, I should go ahead and do it because I can? That's how wealthy people become poor. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. Back in the 70's and 80's, someone who was a millionaire was said to have enough riches that they'd never have to work another day of their life. Now financial analyst say a million probably isn't enough for the average person to retire on, depending on your lifestyle and expectations of the definition of "retirement". If your dream is to take several vacations a year, some simply "staycations" that you can drive to, and maybe purchase a second vacation home or possibly an RV to drive yourself to places, a million won't cut it for that retirement dream. One day, you'll be too debilitated to move around, and you'll be forced to either live your days in your home, or end up in some assisted living/nursing home. The average cost of even a mid-level nursing home is around $3000 - $5000/month. And that's just for you. Doesn't include your spouse's cost as well. So even if that "chunk" is small, it's a chunk regardless.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539386
I can address this real quick. Your statement continues to show a lack of understanding of religions and their tenants still.
For a "multitude" of believers, mother earth is not a dump. just because their is a belief there is something better, does not equate to the current situation being horrible.
We can stop on this portion of the discussion as it is a waste of time. By your wording it is clear you down upon anyone that holds a belief in an afterlife. You view them as ignorant. So why continue a discussion bound to be chock full of ignorance.
Didn't say they were ignorant. Being "uninformed" is a more accurate word.

Go to the Middle East, parts of Mexico, and many portions of Africa and ask those individuals what the definition of horrible may be.

 

[phixer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/80#post_3539272


Yes, providing the newborn animals are strong enough to survive to begin with. The runts and the weak are normally eaten. Sounds pretty barbaric I know but once the concept is understood it really makes sense, no burden on the herd and the species ensures it gets stronger by abandoning the weak. When the jackrabbits begin to overpopulate the snakes and hawks take care of them otherwise they consume all the food and starve to death. Disease and aggression also increases. Sound familliar? Cancer rates are increasing everywhere. Disease and crime flourish in overpopulated areas.

If man kind would only emulate and accept nature we wouldn't have these problems. Instead we seem to think it's our duty to control it.
It is fascinating how folks of a certain mind invoke the "natural way" and "survival of the fittest" without understanding either term in the slightest. In nature "fittest" does not refer to strongest, nor fastest, but only to those organisms possessing traits that improve the probability of successfully reproducing. Nothing more is required nor implied. This means that sometimes physically weak animals are preserved. A female rat will continue to nurse her smallest, weakest offspring well after the larger, more robust littermates have weaned and gone off to test themselves against others. What is important in this is not that the strongest survive, but to understand what test is imposed. In nature it is clearly reproduction. But what about in civilized human populations. There is a cut of the population that would have us believe that only the physically toughest should survive, and if given free rein they "naturally" would. That is one view of "fittest", but there are other views that are applicable to human populations. I personally am not physically strong (numerous surgeries and medical conditions have prolonged my life). There are those who would say that I am not fit to survive, and my death would thin the herd. OTOH, I am very intelligent and well educated, and my research has resulted in significant advances in human understanding of the biology of aging and its underlying diseases. I have also passed our accumulated knowledge to thousands of individuals in the next generation. I guess I am just one of many who, under a "survival of the fittest" regime, where fittest is defined as physically strongest, would not be in the pool. I am egocentric enough to think that my early deletion from the population would constitute a small (indeed, very small) loss to the species. So please don't argue that that the eugenic approach in human populations would strengthen the herd - it wouldn't since human beings and their civilization constitute more than a free-for-all battle. Instead, go live with the lions (oops... bad example, since members of a lion pride will protect and feed an injured member, despite the cost to the herd). Perhaps, with chimps (another bad example, since a chimp troop will care for its oldest members even though they can no longer hunt or gather). Come to think of it, altruism is a very common feature of all organizations of animals.
Sorry Doc, but that has not been my experience at all. The fittest does indeed refer to strongest, there are many forms of strength to include intellect. Strength is predicated on ones environment. Would you have survived without surgical intervention? How were you able to get this surgery while many others are not and therefore perish? Perhaps it was because you were stronger than them in terms of personal economic resources.

Your own example proves natural selection, you have a better life than that of a ditch digger. Is this because you worked harder or because you were born smarter? I would argue the latter.

Addressing the female rat scenario where the strongest rats nurse first (not the runt), they do so because they are stronger. Although the runt may be allowed to nurse last, the runt gets whats left, it's existence results in overpopulation and more competition for diminishing resources which results in aggression. Nature corrects this problem as well by increasing the spread of disease and the attraction of more predatory animals. Lions are considered to be stronger than rats. Lions eat the runts.

I have the utmost respect for you but the medical profession has skewed your judgement in this area (in addition to exacerbating the problem) because it seeks to preserve life in an overpopulated world with diminishing resources. I dont expect you may ever see it this way because of the commitment and dedication you have given to a highly focused profession. To see it differently would fundamentally undermine your lifes work and contradict the hippocratic oath. Furthermore human intervention dosent seem to be working when observing reality i.e. traffic, waiting lines, crime , disease, poverty etc...

In nature the weak do not survive therefore strengthening the species by not placing an undue hindrance on the rest of the heard.
There is a difference between living and surviving , or existing dependent upon machines becoming a burden to others due to ones own selfish fear of death.

 

[phixer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539386
I can address this real quick. Your statement continues to show a lack of understanding of religions and their tenants still.
For a "multitude" of believers, mother earth is not a dump. just because their is a belief there is something better, does not equate to the current situation being horrible.
We can stop on this portion of the discussion as it is a waste of time. By your wording it is clear you down upon anyone that holds a belief in an afterlife. You view them as ignorant. So why continue a discussion bound to be chock full of ignorance.
Didn't say they were ignorant. Being "uninformed" is a more accurate word.

Go to the Middle East, parts of Mexico, and many portions of Africa and ask those individuals what the definition of horrible may be.
I can answer this since I've lived in all of these areas. Most people see a lack of resources and opportunity as contributing to their misery. There simply are too many people for the amount of resources in those areas. Two solutions; more resources or fewer people. Interesting how the worst countries in the world all have the same thing in common...overpopulation. Education can result in a lower population over time, death and disease will thin the herd much faster.

 

[phixer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/100#post_3539384
Did you inherit the millions you have? Or did you start out as the "other side". If you made millions you weren't left behind, thus your argument is flawed. Since you are proof the system doesn't leave the otherside behind.
But I see it is more of a "do as I say not as I do" aspect for you. Funny, you dont see anti abortionists having abortions. so why should you take advantage of loopholes you are against? It shows a sort of hypocrisy.
I have another question concerning your millions. If you have indeed made millions....explain this statement you made a bit more.
How would insurance eat up a big chunk of your millions?
Your other responses I will address later. This middle class American has a business to run.
I came from your typical middle class family. I pretty much paid my way through college, and studied Electrical Engineering. Worked in the oil industry for a decade, and during that time hooked up with old college friends who showed me the in's and out's of commercial real estate. Got lucky with the purchase of several properties that were considered "rural" and useless at the time. Used the profits from that endeavor to go into the residential real estate market, then to foreign investments. Does anyone at the lower end of the food chain have the same opportunities as I did? Not in this day and age. Back in the 70's and 80's, we didn't have immediate information about available real estate properties, and the potential they brought. Some of those purchases were literally from being at the right place at the right time. With the advent of the Internet and the Technology Age we're in today, it makes it extremely difficult for the average citizen to take advantage of any industry and getting a foot ahead of the thousands of others pursuing the same idea.

Any "loophole" I take advantage of in regards to my tax deductions fall within the tax laws laid out by the IRS. Having more wealth affords you with deductions middle incomer's like yourself can't take advantage of simply because you don't have the cash to disburse in legal shelters. The difference with me and an antiabortionist is I'd have no problem paying more taxes if I knew that the money would go where I'd expect it to go. Instead it filters into the coffers of Washington politicians who use it for their own personal gains. Until the tax laws change, I'll simply keep doing what I'm doing.

Money is money sir. Are you saying you would willingly pay more for something simply because you have the money to do so? So because I have the wealth to pay the exorbitant premiums for private insurance, I should go ahead and do it because I can? That's how wealthy people become poor. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. Back in the 70's and 80's, someone who was a millionaire was said to have enough riches that they'd never have to work another day of their life. Now financial analyst say a million probably isn't enough for the average person to retire on, depending on your lifestyle and expectations of the definition of "retirement". If your dream is to take several vacations a year, some simply "staycations" that you can drive to, and maybe purchase a second vacation home or possibly an RV to drive yourself to places, a million won't cut it for that retirement dream. One day, you'll be too debilitated to move around, and you'll be forced to either live your days in your home, or end up in some assisted living/nursing home. The average cost of even a mid-level nursing home is around $3000 - $5000/month. And that's just for you. Doesn't include your spouse's cost as well. So even if that "chunk" is small, it's a chunk regardless.
In terms of economics, how does it benefit society by spending 3-5K a month on someone who cant even wipe their own ss.