Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) I can already read your "you shouldn't be eating at McDonalds 5 days a week" complaint when someone has a heart attack with no insurance and sticks the taxpayer with a $100k bill for the emergency room. 100k is not reasonable, but either way this happens now, whether that person is covered or not. And again, how awful of me to expect that people will take care of themselves and be responsible for their own actions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) Insurance plans should have deductibles that differ based on an individual's income/wealth/debt-to-income ratios? Sounds like an administrative nightmare. Pretty sure the IRS and federal loan companies do a pretty good job of keeping track of those things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) This is a pretty important detail that can't just be hand-waived away. How do you reduce costs and provide basic health care access for every American if you're dead set against a full-blown socialized system and against the mandate that enables community rating and guaranteed issue? I dunno, not an expert there. I just know the solution doesn't have to be a single payer system where the government just sets a price and everyone falls in line.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Can someone just note how deep the contradiction between the first and 2nd paragraph is here? That you should be responsible for yourself as much as possible and once you can't society should help out? Yeah, SO contradictory.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:04 PM) /points up to Illinilaw See now there is someone who actually wants to discuss the real world. But before we can get to that discussion, we first have to determine, do we really want a system where everyone gets covered? Or do we prefer a system where the wealthy/lucky have an advantage? That is what Im trying to get to the bottom of when I talk with people like Jenks/Y2hh. Do they even really want a system where all people are covered? They act like its a crazy utopian idea, akin to eradicating all sickness. I think its a possibility. I want a system where first and foremost, if you have the means to pay, and you have issues with your health, YOU pay for it out of YOUR pocket, because it's not the rest of societies responsibility to pay for YOUR mistakes of smoking, eating McD's 5 days a week, not exercising blah blah. If you lost the life lottery, tough titties. It's still on YOU, the individual and/or your family to deal with it. That's how we operate in just about every other area of life, and I don't see why healthcare should be any different. That doesn't mean you pay dollar for dollar the cost of that health care, that means you can buy a product (insurance) of your choosing which you think is adequate to cover the ifs and maybes of life. And the government should make sure that insurance companies provide adequate choices (i.e., allowing for pre-exisiting conditions, providing catastrophe policies for those without the means to pay for a large policy they'll never use, etc.) and play fair in what they offer. Now, as that as a baseline, no one in this country should die or lack treatment because they don't have the funds to pay for it. No one should go broke because they have serious health issues. We're better than that. We're prosperous enough for that. I have no problem creating a system designed to help people in need. I just don't know if forcing everyone to be covered and then forcing everyone to share the costs is the right way to go about this. Reducing costs by some means, getting people to see nurse practitioners and walk-in clinics, opening up the borders for cheaper prescription drugs, etc.

I never understood why coaches can't talk about recruits. What's the harm?

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:07 PM) Had an opportunity to do a 1-on-1 with Groce today at Big Ten Media Day. Guy just oozes passion and it really looks like players enjoy playing for him. Bertrand, Egwu and Abrams were all there as well. He said the biggest surprise from year one as head coach was simply how much more time he had to commit to the program. From media requests to overall attention to the program, it was a huge step up from Ohio. Second biggest surprise was the strength of the conference and how even in conference play, you might have 4 or 5 straight games against top 25 teams. Obviously he was very high of the Big Ten conference, lauding the depth from top to bottom and mentioning how even teams in the bottom half are so talented and have really good players, and a lot of teams have a lot of good players returning. He's excited to add Rutgers and Maryland to the conference next season. He hates when people ask about him bringing in "his guys" and how he apparently inherited another coach's team but he was very adamant in saying that last year's team was "his guys" and how much he loved them and thanked them for the hard work. As for this season, he's really expecting a lot out of Abrams and Egwu, specifically in leadership roles, but more so to be more consistent and share the experience with the young guys. When asked about the loss to Miami, he said it motivates him and the returning players. "Guys tasted some Filet Mignon and got a couple bites, now you want more of that." He understands that it is expected of Illinois to compete and make the tournament every year. In regards to recruiting, he basically insinuated that Illinois sells itself. Specifically mentioned the Forbes ranking as one of the top schools, as well as the sell-out crows, the arena and the renovations, the facilities/upgrafdes, the Big Ten conference and most importantly, the people he has around him. Absolutely pleasure to talk to. You didn't turn off the recorder and ask about Cliff?!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) You asked me a theoretical question about whether lawyers/drs should make profit. I gave you a theoretical answer. Then y2hh started to make it some sort of large point about how I want govt intervention. It was a massive leap on his part and has caused much confusion. If he simply would have stuck to the original point: Insurance companies are making considerable money and paying their executives a lot of money. No one would be confused. But y2hh is now trying to change the subject into something completely different because he doesnt want to address the actual question: Do you think its okay for insurance executives to make millions of dollars while we have some people in the US who cant afford even basic health care? Its not about the govt, its about what you as a human think. The issue is we were having a discussion about the real world, you interjected with a theoretical opinion and Y2HH and I continue to debate things that are real. That's fine if you want to have a theoretical debate, but his point is the only way to get to your theoretical world is to have massive government intervention, which you stated you don't want. Hence the disconnect here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) You were the one that asked if attorneys should make profit. I answered that in no area should they make profit. In a better world the reason people become lawyers/drs is to use their abilities to help others, not to make money. My original response was to y2hh because he said insurance companies dont make a lot of profit, and I just happen to have a little bit of insight into how you can make a lot of money, but show very little profit. So I wanted to make sure it was clear that there are plenty of people in the insurance game making millions upon millions. IMO your concern of unfair justice doesn't present itself in this area of the law. The best of the best plaintiffs' attorneys get paid zero dollars until they obtain something for their client. And they can (and do) go up against the best of the best defense lawyers who get paid a set rate, regardless of the money involved.

*shakes head in massive confusion*

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) Absolutely Lawyers should make 0 profit. In fact if I really had my way lawyers would be far more regulated and their salaries would be fixed. That way we can ensure that everyone actually gets justice, not that one side has a lot more money so they have a disproportionate advantage. I don't really see that as a concern in the PI/Med Mal/WD arena that we're talking about.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) And interestingly I believe that it should be a 0 profit business. You can still have millionaire CEO's etc, they just dont get extra millions of profit on top of it. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...past-16-million I just have a fundamental problem with people getting rich off of other peoples sickness. I believe that we should live in a world where people can be guaranteed a basic level of medical treatment and not have to worry about being broke because of it. Call it rose colored glass optimism, but what is the point of all this if we arent going to actually improve the human existence? Should lawyers and doctors be in a 0 profit game too? They're involved as much as insurance companies.

BTW Tex, I forgot to add one of the "minimums" I don't agree with in this law is that plans have to include mental health services and pregnancy/maternity/newborn services. That applies even if you are buying an individual policy for a male. Why on earth would a male need to pay for pregnancy/maternity services? Why should he have to pay for something he will literally never, ever use? Why should someone be forced to buy mental health services if they've never had a history of any kind of mental health problem? SS said it yesterday - technically people are going to pay more for better policies with better coverage, but maybe people don't need that coverage? Maybe they don't want to spend the extra money on those things, so why are we taking that choice away?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) so...you disagree with the concepts of insurance in general. Yes, just like roads and police and fire service are dirty socialist ideals too. When you start taking away my options as a consumer based on mandates from the government, yes, I have an issue with that. I'm all about the government providing a playing field where reasonable and affordable insurance is attainable. I don't care for the government telling me what I have to spend or what kind of coverage I have to have. We're not totally there yet, but that's the direction we're heading.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) 9 out of 10? Do you have a link somewhere with that? But more interesting how high of a deductable are you wishing for? And do you expect the person to actually pay the deductable if they are in an accident, get ill, etc? Call it an educated guess mixed with an understanding of the economics behind insurance (the majority will never spend as much as they put in). How many people in college do you remember ever having a major surgery? Or someone who was involved in a major accident? I knew of probably 2 people out of hundreds. What was wrong with the 10k deductible? Something that wouldn't be easy for most but also a figure that wouldn't leave you financially ruined either. And of course i'd expect them to pay back.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism or do you just parrot what you hear? I find it interesting that there are people that can't handle a hundred dollars a month but could suddenly pay a large deductable. Why do you always assume i'm an unintelligent boob that can't think for himself and just listens to what Hannity tells me (note: I do NOTE listen to Hannity)? I consider an "everyone pays into the collective pool regardless of how much you take out" system socialistic. The only thing that's missing is the single entity owning everything, but when every entity involved is forced to do something as mandated by the single entity, it's the same thing. And the key is to that system is that 9 out of 10 people will NEVER need to pay the large deductible. You're saving money for those people that don't use it, money that could be better spent on other goods and services.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Without minimums you could shop for a plan that does not offer hospitalization, perscriptions, routine care, physical therapy, etc.? It would only cover a chat with a nurse once a year. That would be "insurance" and it would cost $25 annually. Now I understand that would be the dream scenario for conservatives but isn't even close to the goal if the reforms. Obviously this is the disconnect in my thoughts on healthcare and the socialist version. I think if you're 20 or 30 years old, totally healthy, and really only need a check-up once a year, you should be able to buy an incredibly cheap plan with a large deductible for catastrophic stuff. I think it's bogus that someone who doesn't use healthcare is now required to pay a hundred or more dollars a month in order to cover someone else.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:32 AM) Which of the mandatory minimums are you against? Any? You should have the freedom to shop around for the insurance plan you want.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 09:09 PM) No, not "this." Are you really under the impression that health insurance premiums have, in aggregate, held steady over the past 6-7 years? People have been seeing substantial yearly increases (5-15% or more) for a while now. If insurance companies are using ACA as an excuse to extract even more rents from the rest of the economy, well, that's even more damning evidence against their existence. edit: steadily increasing health care costs are a major impetus behind the PPACA in the first place. Now, it will be interesting to see what happens with prices over the next several years (though I think we've already started to see a reduction in premium increases in the last few years?), and it could very well be that Obamacare is a poorly designed policy. And, undoubtedly, some portion of people are going to be stuck paying more for "better" plans that they won't actually use because they won't need healthcare. But, really, every story I've seen that's had even a minimal amount of detail, with the exception of Crimon's claimed cost increases, has turned out to be vastly overstated or just ridiculously incorrect. edit2: as a kicker, my premiums for my pretty awesome, relatively inexpensive plan are dropping by 1% this year! Obamacare works!!! No, i'm saying that I don't think insurance companies increase premiums willy nilly or for some nefarious profit-driven motive. Yes, they obviously seek as much profit as possible, but competition doesn't allow them to jack up prices or get rid of plans for profit motives alone. I'll wait and see what my insurance company says, but I find it odd that they'd send out an email warning their insureds that they won't have the same options and prices will rise. I can't imagine that's just catastrophic plans since they're probably the least popular that is offered.

Wade sat out the 2nd game of the season. Not a good sign if you're a Heat fan.

Ha. Painter already complaining about the officiating and rule changes. Something along the lines of "a lot of good players will be taken out of games."

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) They didn't have any leverage because I would have switched to another insurer if they had arbitrarily quadrupled my rate. Now, every insurer is facing new costs and jacking up their prices accordingly. I can't bolt to someone else. This. SS I'm not sure how you're not seeing this. My wife's health insurance has changed companies I think three times in the last 6-7 years. CIGNA, AETNA and BCBS. And luckily the costs have been roughly the same each year, which means someone in their HR department calls around every year to get the best price. Now all the insurance companies can jack up the prices and blame it on these requirements. Before they had to operate within that fine line that the market would tolerate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 08:24 PM) so does anyone know what this post is referring to? http://news.yahoo.com/healthcare-gov-suffe...-181641521.html Sebelius testified that the site had never crashed, and at the exact same time she was testifying the system crashed. I have to believe it has "crashed" before too. It was a dumb thing to say. Add it to the list.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) If those plans were profitable before, then the only reason to cancel them would be to push people into even-more-profitable plans using the mandate as leverage. But the even-more-profitable-plans might be to offset the costs of adding in the mid-20's crowd and people with pre-existing conditions. My understanding is the insurance game is pretty competitive. There are a number of big companies out there that want an employer to do business with them. I doubt they just raise prices and/or change coverage just to make more money. In principle anyway. I'm sure they do to offset new costs or recoup losses from a prior year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 03:42 PM) So, if those low-premium, useful plans met the minimum requirements (or were very close, only requiring minor changes), why are the insurance companies no long offering them? It's a legitimate question. Probably so they can afford to pay the costs of people with pre-existing stuff. I'm sure it has to do with their bottom line.