Political/Current Events Random, Pics, and Videos Thread - Page 52 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-13-2012, 10:28 AM   #1021
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
An insurer evaluates every single individual, and provides the individual with a premium price which the insurer expects can net him a profit.
Again, I am feeling dense here, but I think your point is slipping past me. In the quote above, you are talking hypothetical, correct? In reality, US health insurance providers rarely evaluate individuals for their health conditions before issuing the policy.

This is because the vast majority of Americans receive their health insurance via group policies through their employers.

Quote:
Pre-regulation, if the 1% were unable to afford care, their insurance policy would expire, and the insurance company would not renew their policy. It just isn't profitable to do so. When that happens, the cost of health care for the 99% remains relatively affordable.
I admit to not being completely up to date on existing regulations regarding health insurance. Can you explain this more explicitly? I'm thinking this is a reference to pre-existing conditions clauses.

Quote:
If, however, you acquire an expensive chronic illness, they will determine that you cost more than they can make on you. This spreads personal responsibility to not get aids, or diabetes, or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to me that I would be responsible for someone else's health.
Yeah, althose irresponsible women getting breast cancer and those lazy bums contracting MS.

Quote:
I will see if I can pull these numbers up, but I was under the impression that the program was paid for entirely by member premiums.

After a brief search, these are my discoveries:
The only number i was able to turn up was 28% member paid.
That cheap rate is therefore likely a combination of understanding that the general pool is likely above-average in terms of health and fitness and that it is subsidized by the US government to the tune of 72%.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:12 AM   #1022
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Today in the news:

Quote:
President Obama has officially requested an increase [of $1.2 trillion] to the statutory debt limit.
Quote:
Keeping his oath to the public trust Rand Paul returned money he didn’t need to the U.S. Treasury...The Kentucky Republican and tea-party favorite said Thursday he’s returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury — money from his operating budget that his office never spent. The half million dollars represents about 16 percent of Paul’s annual budget
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:19 AM   #1023
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default






we all gotta grow up sometime...
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:34 AM   #1024
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

they did this in **** germany too:

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 12:30 PM   #1025
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,333
Total Cats: 43
Default

Enginerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 12:45 PM   #1026
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
they did this in **** germany too:

BS YOUTUBE VIDEO
Where is that 1000 coming from? And how is this legal? And why is that fhaggot mayor?
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 01:45 PM   #1027
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 02:02 PM   #1028
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pensacola, Fl.
Posts: 81
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun View Post
Where is that 1000 coming from? And how is this legal? And why is that fhaggot mayor?
gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. I'll leave why is he mayor to your imagination.
UrbanFuturistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 02:08 PM   #1029
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanFuturistic View Post
gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. I'll leave why is he mayor to your imagination.

Jimmy Conway: "You took your first pinch like a man and you learned the two greatest things in life."
Young Henry: "What?"
Jimmy: "Look at me. Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut."
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 04:13 PM   #1030
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pensacola, Fl.
Posts: 81
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Jimmy Conway: "You took your first pinch like a man and you learned the two greatest things in life."
Young Henry: "What?"
Jimmy: "Look at me. Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut."
Yeah, that's lost on me. What are you really trying to say?

Nvm. Goodfellas. Either way, what's it got to do with what I said?
UrbanFuturistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 04:55 PM   #1031
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

not much.

but they want you to violate the laws of the streets.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 05:32 PM   #1032
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,042
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Again, I am feeling dense here, but I think your point is slipping past me. In the quote above, you are talking hypothetical, correct? In reality, US health insurance providers rarely evaluate individuals for their health conditions before issuing the policy.
It would indeed be *hypothetical* if it were just a hypothesis, but in reality, this is how health insurance was run before government regulations which effectively "governmentized" private for-profit insurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
This is because the vast majority of Americans receive their health insurance via group policies through their employers.
Employer group policies are extremely popular because it is a very effective way of getting healthy "low cost" people to buy (and pay for) health insurance. The idea is that the low-cost people see a lower price for insurance because the "employer" pays for a certain percentage of the insurance. (The second order effect here is that the employee receives a reduced compensation package in the form of lower wages, less vacation, skimpier raises, etc.) And of course, the less-healthy "high cost" people will most definitely purchase the group insurance, because they would have purchased it anyways if the employer hadn't financed part of it. You should note that tobacco users are becoming a BIG issue with some MAJOR companies - some companies are beginning to ban tobacco users from their work force (and they're testing for tobacco use, too). There are a couple reasons for this, but one of the main ideas is that tobacco use HUGELY increases health risk, and therefore insurance premiums. Companies who ban tobacco use are therefore able to purchase lower-cost group insurance, effectively reducing the cost of labor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post


I admit to not being completely up to date on existing regulations regarding health insurance. Can you explain this more explicitly? I'm thinking this is a reference to pre-existing conditions clauses.
In the past, there was no such phrase as "pre-existing condition" if you had a long term, high cost problem, your insurance company would drop you at the end of your policy, and (depending on what clauses you paid for), they would also stop paying for your medical treatment. (If your coverage paid for complete treatment of all conditions which began during your policy, then they would pay for all treatment after the termination of your policy, but you paid a higher premium during your policy because you were higher risk.) If you went to a new insurance company, and you had a "pre-existing condition", they would either refuse to insure you, or else your insurance contract would have a clause which relieved them from covering any medical issues related to or arising from your current medical issue. (If you started a policy with diabetes, they wont cover your diabetes, and they won't cover the costs of any medical expenses related to having a toe cut off which resulted from your diabetes)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post


Yeah, althose irresponsible women getting breast cancer and those lazy bums contracting MS.
If you're responsible, you get mammograms regularly, and you catch the breast cancer in time for removal (case in point, my mommy). It doesn't make sense for the insurance company to drop your policy, because after they pay for the removal of the cancer, you will continue to be a healthy premium-payer. As far as the other-stuff which *is* a surprise, and *is* costly (such as your example of MS, to which the cause is still unknown), your opinion will likely vary, but my understandably disputable opinion is "survival of the fittest". Maybe one day I'll die by my words, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post


That cheap rate is therefore likely a combination of understanding that the general pool is likely above-average in terms of health and fitness and that it is subsidized by the US government to the tune of 72%.
Nope, it's not subsidized by the US Government. The US Government does not generate profits, and therefore cannot subsidize anything. It is subsidized by you... THANKS!! (Oh, and it also takes healthy people out of the pool of insurance buyers who would be paying a higher cost for other insurance plans, which in turn increases the rates that everyone else pays for their insurance)
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 07:13 PM   #1033
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 07:16 PM   #1034
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 04:48 AM   #1035
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

A post encompassing two different subjects!

First off, I've actually gotten not so mildly irritated at well-respected press using statism completely..I don't know, effed upily. But blaming all - or even just part of - the bad in society on statism is as foolish as blaming all of - or even just part of - the good in society on statism. Saying statism is bad for (insert reason here) is logically equivalent to saying the entire Human race is bad because Hitler. Saying statism is good for (insert reason here) is equivalent to saying the entire human race is good because Joe Perez.

"Statism" is a category almost as encompassing as "the human race". Any form of government, except for one (anarchy) falls under it. Hearing news people go off on how it is good or bad because X makes me convinced the news /has/ gone full retard.

Secondly, and this is an interesting topic for me. I mean, I know how two people on here are going to react to this news article, but I'm interested in what other people have to say and the reasonings for them that will incur. Disclaimer: It's from the Daily Fail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ody-parts.html

Now, if the guy had thrown - even by accident - something at the train and it caused the lady to get a broken leg, wrist, and an injured shoulder, I do not think anyone in here would disagree with me in saying that the guy would be liable for her injuries.

Does this change when it is his body parts? Seriously, do people think the court overreached? Do you think it was a stupid decision, or a smart one? And, most importantly, why do you think this?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 10:35 AM   #1036
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

Stupid. Why is anyone liable? How are his parents/family liable? The kid is old enough to be on his own. If he was young enough to need adult supervision, and was killed because his parents were not paying attention then maybe.

Or maybe the train station is liable for not better notifying people that a train is coming. They said it was raining and he was using an umbrella. It's more reasonable to argue that the train station did not do a good enough job in notifying people of an incoming train. Or maybe they need to set up barriers to stop flying body parts. I mean since it is feasibly possible to predict that if someone was hit body parts would fly.

In the end, no one should be liable. The lady must assume the risk of things that could possibly happen in the world when she left that morning.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 11:15 AM   #1037
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pensacola, Fl.
Posts: 81
Total Cats: 1
Default

I agree with FRT. I think had he been acting with malicious intent, the lawsuit would be justified. But it was an accident, not even a suicide. Then again, this is Chicago were talking about here.

There should have been something that distinguished this train from other, slower moving trains, at the very least. So I could see a suit against Amtrak as being justified. But then, I never liked the same level crossings in the city anyhow. Where we lived in the suburbs, you always had to go over or mostly under to get to the platform.

Suing this boys family is only going to add insult to the injury of losing their child in such a horrific fashion. I could see both raising suit against Amtrak, but again, this is very left leaning Chicago were dealing with here, so it's not surprise to me that this woman is looking for what ultimately equates to a handout.
UrbanFuturistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 11:26 AM   #1038
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Isn't is common to sue the family of the teenager who crashed his car full of friends who all die the the accident?

how is this any different?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 02:46 AM   #1039
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

So, it's official. The DHS is interested in what YOU are saying about it - and are paying a company to spy on you to find out what you are saying about it.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 02:51 AM   #1040
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

more jon stewart and rp
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 52 08-28-2016 05:18 AM
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 AM.