|
Post by sitzmark on Oct 26, 2020 22:06:21 GMT -5
Its a donation to MASR, and aggressive downside prediction...I would pay $50 to say I was wrong. Ooops just realized I typed 3 days vs 30 days...we can keep the bet but if the market drops 30% in 3 days...we have a lot bigger issues...lets just hope the election goes the other way LOL. 3 days was pretty much a slam dunk. Good cause - let's make it interesting. 30 day Option it is. Greater chance to be covid driven than solely who wins elect.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Oct 27, 2020 8:07:58 GMT -5
MB, if everyone is so worried then take your accounts and convert them to Federal bonds now. Like this week. Then your risk goes to zero. You may not make much but you will not loose any. Another question is why is your dad who is at 76, still invested in stocks that have any kind of risk? The Market is going to go down because it can only go up for so long. History tells us this but it will only be partially caused by the election. It will mostly be caused from the bankruptcies, loan defaults, unemployment, evictions and general bad business climate that the pandemic has caused across the entire globe. I am going to say this now because this is what we are going to hear from now on. This will not be anybody's political blunder. It is a pandemic. So when the blame game starts I am not listening to any of that bullshit. Also, no one can answer my question about what the republicans plan would be if they repealed the ACA and with details. Because promontory riders response of get a job is basically a non response. Of course it won't be if Joe wins the election. Now it's a pandemic? Basically no one's fault? There has been a lot of finger pointing up to this point. Lot of companies hiring out there. I am not one of the people on here that does not look at both sides. I have clearly stated that the onslaught of the pandemic was not the presidents fault. I have only stated that his down playing of the disease has made it worse. And I will repeat, when the market tanks it will not be caused from one candidate or the other. I am also not going to listen you all the bullshit that you guys spout off at each other. One slanted fuckup story after another. That is problem on here. No one can look at things clearly and objectively. I guess that is our country now. You still do not know enough about the ACA or how the healthcare systems in this country work so you can not answer my question. NO one on here can. All they can offer is blame or disdain. not answers. This is because you guys are more interested in talking about whos to blame and not focusing about the problem.
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyBrook on Oct 27, 2020 8:11:56 GMT -5
Hawk, what question do you have about ACA/healthcare system...there are more than a few that can answer your questions...to a point. Obviously, we have not seen the plan from the Republicans. I see this as a healthy debate, discussing this stuff is important. I dont think anyone has crossed the line and everyone is free to participate or not participate....even Zenny has hung around This video will help, pretty easy to understand as evidenced by some (sarcasm) www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Oct 27, 2020 8:28:05 GMT -5
OK then, Basically the ACA we got was not the total plan that was originally designed. It was stripped down in the process of getting it approved so we will never know how well it would have work so that discussion has to be shelved. So what is the republican plan in full with details? I have not seen or heard this. Some of this has been broached but Specifically: - will it cover preexisting conditions? - What is the plan for people that loose coverage if they get laid off or even fired? - What is the responsibility of businesses to provide affordable insurance for there workers and what are the stipulations. - What happens to homeless or disabled people that cannot get insurance. - How will they control the costs of basic things like inflated costs for general medical procedures or ever general products. - How will they deal with the Pharmaceutical companies to reduce price gauging.
MB discussion is great. I implore that rational discussion with intelligent thoughts be done. By everybody. Going on a blog and drumming up crazy shit is not what I consider intelligent thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Oct 27, 2020 9:00:17 GMT -5
OK then, Basically the ACA we got was not the total plan that was originally designed. It was stripped down in the process of getting it approved Yep, a point I have made multiple times. And it’s been stripped down even more over the last 3+ years. And as you outlined, STILL no specific alternatives on the table from those in congress and the executive branch who are so vehemently opposed to anything related to the ACA.
|
|
|
Post by rippy on Oct 27, 2020 9:05:12 GMT -5
“ No one can look at things clearly and objectively. I guess that is our country now”......True!!
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Oct 27, 2020 9:43:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MonkeyBrook on Oct 27, 2020 9:47:45 GMT -5
OK then, Basically the ACA we got was not the total plan that was originally designed. It was stripped down in the process of getting it approved so we will never know how well it would have work so that discussion has to be shelved. So what is the republican plan in full with details? I have not seen or heard this. Some of this has been broached but Specifically: - will it cover preexisting conditions? - What is the plan for people that loose coverage if they get laid off or even fired? - What is the responsibility of businesses to provide affordable insurance for there workers and what are the stipulations. - What happens to homeless or disabled people that cannot get insurance. - How will they control the costs of basic things like inflated costs for general medical procedures or ever general products. - How will they deal with the Pharmaceutical companies to reduce price gauging. MB discussion is great. I implore that rational discussion with intelligent thoughts be done. By everybody. Going on a blog and drumming up crazy shit is not what I consider intelligent thoughts. Like you and 330m others, I have my thoughts on the above but until we see the plan, I will not form any opinions....I think it is safe to say, we are not going to see details of said plan, and they will need to put the whole repeal of ACA into process, so there is time. Didnt DJT hand Leslie Stahl a huge binder w the plan buried deep inside? Ha ha ha. I had to laugh at that move. I can tell you my thoughts on pharma and price gauging when we have a beer.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Oct 27, 2020 10:06:50 GMT -5
OK then, Basically the ACA we got was not the total plan that was originally designed. It was stripped down in the process of getting it approved so we will never know how well it would have work so that discussion has to be shelved. So what is the republican plan in full with details? I have not seen or heard this. Some of this has been broached but Specifically: - will it cover preexisting conditions? - What is the plan for people that loose coverage if they get laid off or even fired? - What is the responsibility of businesses to provide affordable insurance for there workers and what are the stipulations. - What happens to homeless or disabled people that cannot get insurance. - How will they control the costs of basic things like inflated costs for general medical procedures or ever general products. - How will they deal with the Pharmaceutical companies to reduce price gauging. MB discussion is great. I implore that rational discussion with intelligent thoughts be done. By everybody. Going on a blog and drumming up crazy shit is not what I consider intelligent thoughts. A political football that has been kicked around since BC's days in the WH. Those who have tried to present a plan have been tarred and feathered - maybe mocked and jeered is more accurate - so no incentive for the opposition (majority in legislature) to move a plan forward as long as they can maintain control without it. The overriding opposition to ACA is what makes a replacement (with pre-existing and lower cost) unsustainable - the mandate. Without a universal participation mandate (or repeal of EMTALA, or both) the numbers don't work financially for the insurers/medical providers - leaving aside the cream ($$) being skimmed by insurance companies in the form G&A (compensation levels, high overhead, etc.). The cream is certainly excessive but still not enough to compensate for the coverage expense needed. It was coverage for pre-existing and the elderly that forced the issue initially. As premiums increased to cover those built-in expenses, younger healthier people began dropping out or selecting coverage that was extremely basic. Medicare followed suit with TEFRA/DRG's and more expense was pushed to private insurance as the aging boomer generation began to need ever increasing medical services. Insurance companies followed suit by dropping pre-existing/elderly, excluding high-cost procedures, or raising premiums to the point more and more people couldn't afford coverage. Through EMTALA the US already has universal coverage - "free of charge" (to the users). As more people take advantage of the EMTALA provisions those costs get pushed to insurance companies and ultimately to the privately insured, who in response begin to drop out because of high-cost and use EMTALA as their medical insurance. Added to that is the explosion of medical technology that everyone wants to take advantage of but not pay for. Can't cover pre-existing, and drugs, and, and ... without a corresponding way to pay for it. In short you can't put 10# of "stuff" in a 5# bag without it splitting open. You can tape it here and there, and turn the rips around to the back so you can't see the stuff leaking out, but hide as one tries eventually reality wins in the end. There is no winning with a plan that doesn't address reality. So.... Edit: An apparently there is no winning with a plan that does address reality. So....
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Oct 27, 2020 10:22:14 GMT -5
OK then, Basically the ACA we got was not the total plan that was originally designed. It was stripped down in the process of getting it approved so we will never know how well it would have work so that discussion has to be shelved. So what is the republican plan in full with details? I have not seen or heard this. Some of this has been broached but Specifically: - will it cover preexisting conditions? - What is the plan for people that loose coverage if they get laid off or even fired? - What is the responsibility of businesses to provide affordable insurance for there workers and what are the stipulations. - What happens to homeless or disabled people that cannot get insurance. - How will they control the costs of basic things like inflated costs for general medical procedures or ever general products. - How will they deal with the Pharmaceutical companies to reduce price gauging. MB discussion is great. I implore that rational discussion with intelligent thoughts be done. By everybody. Going on a blog and drumming up crazy shit is not what I consider intelligent thoughts. A political football that has been kicked around since BC's days in the WH. Those who have tried to present a plan have been tarred and feathered - maybe mocked and jeered is more accurate - so no incentive for the opposition (majority in legislature) to move a plan forward as long as they can maintain control without it. The overriding opposition to ACA is what makes a replacement (with pre-existing and lower cost) unsustainable - the mandate. Without a universal participation mandate (or repeal of EMTALA, or both) the numbers don't work financially for the insurers/medical providers - leaving aside the cream ($$) being skimmed by insurance companies in the form G&A (compensation levels, high overhead, etc.). The cream is certainly excessive but still not enough to compensate for the coverage expense needed. It was coverage for pre-existing and the elderly that forced the issue initially. As premiums increased to cover those built-in expenses, younger healthier people began dropping out or selecting coverage that was extremely basic. Medicare followed suit with TEFRA/DRG's and more expense was pushed to private insurance as the aging boomer generation began to need ever increasing medical services. Insurance companies followed suit by dropping pre-existing/elderly, excluding high-cost procedures, or raising premiums to the point more and more people couldn't afford coverage. Through EMTALA the US already has universal coverage - "free of charge" (to the users). As more people take advantage of the EMTALA provisions those costs get pushed to insurance companies and ultimately to the privately insured, who in response begin to drop out because of high-cost and use EMTALA as their medical insurance. Added to that is the explosion of medical technology that everyone wants to take advantage of but not pay for. Can't cover pre-existing, and drugs, and, and ... without a corresponding way to pay for it. In short you can't put 10# of "stuff" in a 5# bag without it splitting open. You can tape it here and there, and turn the rips around to the back so you can't see the stuff leaking out, but hide as one tries eventually reality wins in the end. There is no winning with a plan that doesn't address reality. So.... Very good summation Sitz of the Actuarial issues witht he ACA. The Republican side has always had a bone about the Mandate to have coverage, especially when it resulted in individuals being fined for not having coverage (and at that, coverage that met ACA minimums. IE, a catastrophic only plan doesn't count). The problem with no mandate but covering pre-existing conditions is that the Actuaries rapidly run out of solvency for the carriers with that model. Just too much going out and not enough coming in to stay solvent for long. This is the great conundrum of universal medical coverage and holds true even if we moved to a single payer (federal) system. Without system cost controls in place, you can't lose pre-exisiting conditions while not having mandatory buy in. I always thought a "way around" the mandate that still sort of mandates coverage but puts that decision in the individuals hand was to set up an enrollment window for the country, say 6 months, where there are no pre-existing conditions. If you have signed onto a plan in that window, provided you never lapse coverage that qualifies as an ACA plan in ANY plan of that type, you never get locked out by a pre-existing condition even if you shop around and change plans. However, if you chose not to enroll during the open window, then by your choice, you have accepted that you can be screened out for pre-existing conditions going forward. So in this sense, there kind of is a mandate (if you want to be free of a pre-existing claus to screen you out or to higher coverage costs) but no actual tax penalty if you don't. There are several other areas the ACA missed on, my biggest pet peave is that it left medical insurance a state by state run/maintained thing so that a NH resident gets very limited choices in ACA marketplace of plans/carriers where just south a MA resident gets dozens by comparison. It really needed to eliminate the selling across state lines, health insurance shoud have been taken out of state regulation and nationalized, making the same plans available to ALL US residents. As it is, it isn't even close to Universal coverage as the coverage and costs can vary so widely state by state.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Oct 27, 2020 12:17:21 GMT -5
OMG. Someone who actually has a broad understanding and can speak intelligently about a topic and not just cut and paste from some fanatical blog and quote as truth! Leave it to Stitz. It was my understanding that a more nationalized approach was originally included but was blown out during the negotiations. The senate majority wanted the states to have more control of their destiny.
In the long run it is an easy target to say to the voters that ACA doesn't work. All they say is look at how much your insurance has increased. But as Sitz mentions above, there are broader reasons why costs were going to go up. I would argue that ACA has slowed the cost increase and would, if not cannibalized made an even bigger impact.
One fact that the "get a jober's" don't understand is this. Hospitals can not refuse to admit people by law. Insurance is not needed to get treatment. So if you remove the insurance that is in place, people are going to go anyway and probably more because all the nice preventative maintenance and wellness programs will go away for people at risk. Guess who pays for all these people without insurance? The people with jobs that can pay. So you thought it was expensive now........
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Oct 27, 2020 15:13:27 GMT -5
OMG. Someone who actually has a broad understanding and can speak intelligently about a topic and not just cut and paste from some fanatical blog and quote as truth! Leave it to Stitz. It was my understanding that a more nationalized approach was originally included but was blown out during the negotiations. The senate majority wanted the states to have more control of their destiny. In the long run it is an easy target to say to the voters that ACA doesn't work. All they say is look at how much your insurance has increased. But as Sitz mentions above, there are broader reasons why costs were going to go up. I would argue that ACA has slowed the cost increase and would, if not cannibalized made an even bigger impact. One fact that the "get a jober's" don't understand is this. Hospitals can not refuse to admit people by law. Insurance is not needed to get treatment. So if you remove the insurance that is in place, people are going to go anyway and probably more because all the nice preventative maintenance and wellness programs will go away for people at risk. Guess who pays for all these people without insurance? The people with jobs that can pay. So you thought it was expensive now........ Hawk, nothing that we can (or should) solve in a ski forum. The intricacy of the problem is great, but revolves around one simple thing - money. Too many (fattened) oxen get gored by "fixing" it. First need to decide what the objective is and there's no consensus on that. Universal coverage could boost overall economic productivity (sick people aren't productive). Insurance by nature is a socialistic concept. Is good health a "right" or a privilege that comes with the ability to pay? Why does greed/abuse/fraud always follow on the coattails of good intentioned government action? No sooner is a law passed than efforts are underway to exploit the margins of the legislation for maximum financial gain. What do we want to accomplish as a people? At least drive a stake in the ground and work toward it. Not happening. Have ben around the "healthcare issue" all my life. (step) Grandfather was a physician in NJ with a successful practice. He set up a clinic at his home to treat people who could not afford insurance or medical care in any other way. He'd be sued every which way but Sunday if doing that today. A few other relatives are currently in healthcare practice. Brother has been in physician malpractice insurance for years and recently founded an upstart dental reinsurance company. I've been in medical diagnostics/biotech//laboratory informatics for 30 years - responsible for launching a few medical instrument product lines and negotiating the complexities of FDA/international clearances and marketing the equipment worldwide. So have seen the issues from many sides and had to understand them for business reasons. Best I can do is observations ...
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Oct 27, 2020 16:03:58 GMT -5
Very good summation Sitz of the Actuarial issues witht he ACA. The Republican side has always had a bone about the Mandate to have coverage, especially when it resulted in individuals being fined for not having coverage (and at that, coverage that met ACA minimums. IE, a catastrophic only plan doesn't count). The problem with no mandate but covering pre-existing conditions is that the Actuaries rapidly run out of solvency for the carriers with that model. Just too much going out and not enough coming in to stay solvent for long. This is the great conundrum of universal medical coverage and holds true even if we moved to a single payer (federal) system. Without system cost controls in place, you can't lose pre-exisiting conditions while not having mandatory buy in. I always thought a "way around" the mandate that still sort of mandates coverage but puts that decision in the individuals hand was to set up an enrollment window for the country, say 6 months, where there are no pre-existing conditions. If you have signed onto a plan in that window, provided you never lapse coverage that qualifies as an ACA plan in ANY plan of that type, you never get locked out by a pre-existing condition even if you shop around and change plans. However, if you chose not to enroll during the open window, then by your choice, you have accepted that you can be screened out for pre-existing conditions going forward. So in this sense, there kind of is a mandate (if you want to be free of a pre-existing claus to screen you out or to higher coverage costs) but no actual tax penalty if you don't. There are several other areas the ACA missed on, my biggest pet peave is that it left medical insurance a state by state run/maintained thing so that a NH resident gets very limited choices in ACA marketplace of plans/carriers where just south a MA resident gets dozens by comparison. It really needed to eliminate the selling across state lines, health insurance shoud have been taken out of state regulation and nationalized, making the same plans available to ALL US residents. As it is, it isn't even close to Universal coverage as the coverage and costs can vary so widely state by state. Certainly things to consider Mach. It might become a "wild west" if carriers were permitted to sell across state lines ... but then again the major players basically do it already - BCBS Kaiser, UHC, etc. - just under the guise of branch entities. Risk does vary state-by-state - some with the average residents more healthy than the national norm and others ... yeh not so good. As enacted ACA was a starting point for further refinement as successes and failures presented. Heels dug in on all sides - expand/eliminate. It is troubling from a liberties standpoint to demand people pay for something they don't (feel they) want/need, but that is the nature of insurance. Until they need it and then you better give grandma perfect care or we'll sue you to the moon. When you work on a successful team everyone works together for the same goal. The USA ... not so much right now.
|
|
|
Post by dickc49 on Oct 27, 2020 16:43:57 GMT -5
I think the biggest issue with the ACA is that the Democrats more or less expelled the Republicans from the legislation. It was created and passed solely by the Democratic party. During this process, Ted Kennedy died, and the people of Massachusetts, seeing the SH!T show that was going on, elected a Republican to make the Democrats work with Republicans to come up with a system that was bipartisan with the hops that the hoopla would then die down. The end result was we got the Senate version of the ACA that was never meant to be the final product. Anyone remember Nancy Pelosi and the house deciding to "deem the law passed"?
The political parties have been at it ever since and we lose as a result. I am beginning to think we might be better off if the Supreme court tossed the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel and then make the two parties start over and do what should have been done in the first place. The problem with that is each party is going to insist that this that or another thing is a deal killer, and we will end up spinning our wheels for at least 4 or more years.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Oct 28, 2020 7:35:40 GMT -5
Hawk - I misspoke ... didn't mean to say shouldn't discuss the ACA/healthcare issues here, just that we shouldn't expect to solve anything. War and Peace would be like cliffsnotes compared to what it would take to cover all sides of the issues. No one would read half of what needs to be discussed. People get paid to do it and don't. dickc49 - agree Kennedy was the one lightning rod of the healthcare debate ... all the way back to Nixon. But are you sure about your timeline? Romney (and "Romneycare") preceded Ted's death. What helped ACA move forward was the insurance industry jumping onboard with the mandate ... more customers, more revenues. Their fight was still trying to negotiate as little coverage as possible for the ACA plans to limit exposure. Get rid of the mandate and the insurance lobby will flip sides again and return to their previous fight agains affordable coverage for pre-existing and/or those who are in need of high cost care. They'll happily dump that risk - not because they are heartless ... it's just business. When I entered the medical industry (early 80's) I was on a plane going to a medical conference/tradeshow in who-knows-where. Ended up sitting next to one of the speakers at the conference. A physician. The topic of healthcare as a right or privilege came up - in my naiveté and idealism (thinking back to the clinic my grandfather had) I expounded on how medicine was an noble calling and therefore it was important to do all we could to make sure everyone had access to proper medical care ... kind of a moral right. He said "that's bullshit, you don't work for free and neither should I. I owe nothing to people who can't pay me." OK-end of discussion. He wasn't wrong, but just seemed like life/health should be on a higher plane (obviously not the one I was flying on ). Welcome to the real world.
|
|