- This topic has 706 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM #795832March 16, 2016 at 6:22 PM #795842
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=La Jolla Renter]
What about the biggest Obama care lie of all…“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
I have seen nothing but increases of my individual plan.[/quote]
How is this relevant to the discussion?
(Premiums have increased at the slowest rate in more than 3 decades since the law was passed.)[/quote]sk, you’re joking … right?? Do YOU have “obamacare?”
Oh, and this issue is extremely relevant to this discussion. The “obamacare debacle” is the biggest gubment scam of the 21st century and actually the biggest scam on our country’s people that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The ACA is a horrible hodgepodge collection of ill thought-out muck and mire that should have never seen the light of day, let alone actually become law![/quote]
No, I’m not joking. If you’re asking whether I have qualifying insurance, the answer is yes. Almost all medical insurance sold today is “Obamacare”, whether it is purchased on a state exchange, the federal exchange, bought on the open market, or through employment. You may think it’s a debacle. Believe it or not, what you think of it, doesn’t actually change the data much. And the data is that the uninsured rate is down substantially. No measurable number of people have lost their jobs as a result of the law. And premiums have risen at the slowest rate in decades. Your single experience is pretty much irrelevant.
And the discussion that brought it up had to do with socialism. So no, it is not any more relevant to the discussion than your experience.[/quote]I am aware that plans on and off the exchanges have to be “ACA compliant.” One large insurer that left SD at the end of 2013 returned in November of 2015 to offer two 2016 Bronze PPOs on the open market. Besides paying $2200+ month for a United Health PPO offered by my retirement assn, those open-market Bronze PPOs and my current exchange PPO are the only choices I have for PPOs in SD County. Those are all terrible choices but I have to take one and can’t afford the one my retirement assn offers.
I don’t know if the residents of AZ have more choice than we do but the “system” is really “sewed up” in CA. Essentially, there is just ONE PPO available in each of the 19 CC regions in CA.
SK, if you actually drill down to the facts, you will find that the reason there are so many more people “insured” today than were covered in 2013 is because they are on (expanded) Medicaid/Medi-Cal in the states which adopted it. In addition, more of the truly “poor” were rustled up and signed up for Medicaid/Medi-Cal by hundreds of “outreach groups” around the nation. In CA, somewhere between 65 and 75% of newly-covered (since 2013) individuals are now Medi-Cal recipients. Covered CA wants many more of their enrollees to be on Medi-Cal, ESPecially those currently accepting “subsidies” who are over 55 years old. CA very badly wants this population to be on Medi-Cal ASAP so the “clock” can begin running on their “managed-care premiums” for Medi-Cal (whether they ever visit MC providers … or not). This is the sole reason for many thousands of MC “forced placements” behind a CC enrollee’s back.
I don’t know if AZ (where you live) adopted expanded Medicaid or if they did, they will exercise their right to “estate recovery” on Medicaid managed care premiums as CA has done. CA has been gearing up for nearly a year now (mainly the AG’s office) to begin slapping open-ended liens on everyone over the age of 55 who owns real property in the state and has been on Medi-Cal even one month (and had one month of “managed care” premiums paid on their behalf) whether “forced placed” on Medi-Cal … or not. Of course, no property owner over the age of 55 and in their right mind wants a Medi-Cal lien on their property, ESPecially if they were “force-placed” into Medi-Cal against their will and/or without their knowledge.
You’re over 55, aren’t you SK? What does 12 months x $634 equal? That is currently the approximate monthly “managed care premium” (incl “admin fee”) for a monthly Medi-Cal managed care premium for the 55+ set in CA. Raise that by $12-$30 month per year and start tallying your lien beginning at age 55. 120 months = ten years. How much will the lien on your propertie(s) likely be by the time you reach 65 and are Medicare-eligible?
In essence, the ACA has taken away all our choices (caused multiple major carriers to leave our market) and “mandated” we buy a certain kind of healthplan. We must have a “comprehensive ACA-compliant” plan which, in CA, covers maternity services, autistic child services and a host of other services which a great many of us will never use or need. The “paternal” gubment has also declared that we are no longer allowed to have the (perfectly decent & affordable) HDHP plan we used to have because it had a $5K deductible and a $12K OOP maximum and we are all too stupid (and too “broke”) to “budget” for such an occurrence. It has also arbitrarily decided that some types of our pension income don’t count towards income for the purposes of qualifying for a subsidized healthplan on CC, knocking many middle-class and even upper middle-class CC enrollees over the age of 55 in the “Medi-Cal eligible” category weeks or months AFTER CC ALREADY determined their eligibility to sign up for a plan and their subsidy amounts for the year! Even though we will receive that pension every month for the rest of our lives! All these machinations have been done by CC/Medi-Cal for the sole purpose of future estate recovery.
Suffice to say, I have assisted 7 other individuals and families (besides myself) with signing up for a plan on CC and the story is always the same. All of these people (over-55 head of household) are homeowners (except one) and all are hounded mercilessly by CC 2-3 times per year to “prove” their incomes to CC over and over and over again in order to keep their plan.
Completely unbeknownst to me, I myself have been “bumped” from my plan by CC/Medi-Cal (after paying my premium on time every month automatically) 3 times in 2015 for a total of about 49 days. One time, I was on a 15-day road trip and only found out I had no coverage when I arrived home and found a letter from Medi-Cal in the mail. Thank G@d, I did not need to use my plan on my trip! I did manage to get the problem straightened out with Medi-Cal (for now) but NONE of the premiums I paid for the “uncovered” periods were ever refunded to me and my carrier refused to refund them to me and they rec’d my subsidy as well for those “uncovered” periods. They claim they didn’t disenroll me so they are not at fault! I am not alone but am one of tens of thousands of “moving targets” in CA for CC to incessantly hound in hopes of eventually turning into force-placed Medi-Cal recipients so the state can “lien” us forthwith to mark their rights to our estate.
I can’t imagine in my wildest dreams how non-computer savvy, non-former bureaucrats, and/or possibly English-challenged individuals are successfully “fixing” their forced Medi-Cal placements. It’s extremely difficult to do even for CC enrolled agents and the most savvy, ex-gubment bureaucrats (such as myself) with a full command of the English language!
CC enrollees under the age of 55 very likely wouldn’t even be bothered to “prove” their incomes and are able to keep their plans and file their tax returns …. in peace. Especially those with W-2 income as CALHEERS has access to the CA EDD records. Why is this so? No estate recovery is legally possible if they are on Medi-Cal so why bother?
It’s that simple. If you could put yourself in our shoes for even one moment, SK, you would think twice about signing up for “obamacare” in CA. I’m glad to hear that you found an acceptable off-exchange healthplan to purchase in your state. I am in hopes that at least one off-exchange carrier will offer at least ONE silver (or greater) PPO plan for 2017 in SD County this fall. We’ll see what happens.
And yes, this discussion is ALL RELEVANT to this thread!
March 16, 2016 at 7:42 PM #795844Anonymous
Guest[quote=zk]Saying that Jim Crow laws were systemic racism is not holding a race accountable for anything. It’s holding a government responsible.[/quote]
I claimed that systemic racism doesn’t exist today. There are no more Jim Crow laws today. You had to go back in history, generations back, to come up with an example of of systemic racism.
But that’s not exactly the relevant point in this election.
The more important point about race and politics in America today is your use of the word “government” in this context. I agree with you; a long history of unethical government policy is the reason for racial inequality in America today.
However the message from the American left has never been that government is responsible – it has always been that white people are responsible. This is why we have terms like “white privilege ” and the entire gamut of politically correct speech in all of its absurdities.
Since the civil rights movement half a century ago, more than two generations of white Americans have been bombarded with the message that they are responsible for racial disparity in America – that the burden of solving the problem lies with them, and if the problem is not solved in their lifetime the burden will be passed to their children.
In the interview with Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly, respective icons of the left and right wing media, Jon Stewart has one topic to choose as his “zinger” question. Of all the real problems facing America today, Stewart chose “white privilege”:
I’m a huge fan of Jon Stewart and have very low regard for O’Reilly. But this interview captures what is wrong with the message of the American left. The Democratic party should be dominating middle America at this point in history, but they are barely holding on.
The rise of Trump can be attributed to two major forces:
– The general decline of the Republican party due to the hypocrisy of its core platform of religious fundamentalism.
– Middle America’s frustration over the left’s obsession with racial payback.
March 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM #795847zk
Participant[quote=harvey]
I claimed that systemic racism doesn’t exist today. There are no more Jim Crow laws today. You had to go back in history, generations back, to come up with an example of of systemic racism.
[/quote]
Actually, that’s not what you claimed. You claimed that:
[quote=harvey]
There is no such thing as systemic racism.
A group distinguished simply by its physical characteristics cannot be collectively guilty of racism or any other ethical transgression.
All acts of racism are committed by individuals – by people, not groups.[/quote]
In that quote, you claim that there is no such thing as systemic racism. Your claim was not that there’s none today. You claim that all racism is committed by individuals.
More to the point, I didn’t bring up Jim Crow laws to rebut your supposed claim that systemic racism does not exist today. I brought them up as part of my rebuttal to this:
[quote=harvey]The flaw in claims of “systemic” racism and “white privilege” is that they imply that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members should therefore be held accountable for those decisions.
[/quote]As I said, it is not true that the claim that systemic racism implies that a race is a group that collectively makes decisions and that all members therefore should be held accountable for those actions. And I thoroughly explained why in my previous post, the Jim Crow example being just a part of that explanation.
[quote=harvey]
However the message from the American left has never been that government is responsible – it has always been that white people are responsible. This is why we have terms like “white privilege ” and the entire gamut of politically correct speech in all of its absurdities. [/quote]
“White privilege,” as I understand it, doesn’t mean that all white people are racist nor that all white people are responsible for the travails of minorities. It means that minorities suffer from racism while whites don’t (or at least that whites don’t nearly to the extent that minorities do), and that that racism has impeded the success of those minorities, to at least some degree. You might have a different understanding of “white privilege” than I do, but surely you don’t argue that whites have suffered from racism as much as minorities.In my opinion, it’s of little consequence what’s happened to minorities in the past and who’s responsible for it. It is of great consequence what happens to them henceforth. If minorities were, on average, as financially successful as whites, the whole country would be better off (financially). So it’s valuable for us to do what we can to help them get there. If they want to. In my opinion, the main impediment to the success of many subcultures in America (both minority and white) is their culture. If they prefer to keep the culture that they have and be relatively unsuccessful, that’s fine with me. But if they want to be more financially successful, I think they need to change their culture. And I think we should help them with that, if we can.
March 16, 2016 at 8:53 PM #795848SK in CV
Participant[quote=bearishgurl
It’s that simple. If you could put yourself in our shoes for even one moment, SK, you would think twice about signing up for “obamacare” in CA. I’m glad to hear that you found an acceptable off-exchange healthplan to purchase in your state. I am in hopes that at least one off-exchange carrier will offer at least ONE silver (or greater) PPO plan for 2017 in SD County this fall. We’ll see what happens.
And yes, this discussion is ALL RELEVANT to this thread![/quote]
No. It’s not relevant to the discussion about socialism. If it was, you could explain why it is relevant. You cant. I have had insurance purchased on healthcare.gov. it worked great. Most of your arguments make no sense. There is no requirement to supply any income information. If someone doesn’t want medi-cal, they don’t have to have it. Nobody has to purchase insurance on the exchange. If there are insufficient choices, it’s not the fault of the law. It’s the fault of the insurance companies. They design the plans. None of them had to change any of their plans until next year. They chose to.
March 17, 2016 at 10:54 AM #795864GuestI don’t believe the word “systemic” makes any sense in the context of racism. The use of the word is a politically-motivated contrivance. But let’s not go down the rat hole of debating semantics of a single word.
[quote=zk]
In my opinion, it’s of little consequence what’s happened to minorities in the past and who’s responsible for it. It is of great consequence what happens to them henceforth. If minorities were, on average, as financially successful as whites, the whole country would be better off (financially). So it’s valuable for us to do what we can to help them get there. If they want to. In my opinion, the main impediment to the success of many subcultures in America (both minority and white) is their culture. If they prefer to keep the culture that they have and be relatively unsuccessful, that’s fine with me. But if they want to be more financially successful, I think they need to change their culture. And I think we should help them with that, if we can.[/quote]I think we are generally in agreement but you seem to be ignoring my point as it pertains to Trump’s message.
Who is “we” and “us” and “they” in your text above?
I believe that those who are more fortunate -“we” – should help those who are less fortunate: “them.”
The dialog in America for many decades has been that “we” are whites and “they” are minorities.
America need policies that provide a net benefit to society with a bias toward helping the poor. America does not need policies like affirmative action that simply help some at at the expense of others.
A prevailing theme in American politics today is that “we” and “them” – those with opportunity and those without – are delineated by race. In the year 2016 that is an absurd oversimplification. And many people are tired of it.
It’s unfortunate that a charlatan like Trump is the candidate that is able to capitalize on this frustration. But it is not surprising considering the political landscape.
March 17, 2016 at 12:58 PM #795874no_such_reality
ParticipantLooks like police have released the video from the gas station altercation.
March 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM #795876Participant[quote=harvey]
Who is “we” and “us” and “they” in your text above?
[/quote]
“They” are the people who need help changing their culture (if they want to change it). “We” are the people who can help them. Mostly the government, but also anyone else willing to help.
Saying, “you need to change your culture if you want to improve your financial situation” is obviously a highly-charged situation. And I don’t think the political will to say such a think will exist in the foreseeable future.
March 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM #795878ParticipantWhat if what needs to change is the financial culture of our country?
March 17, 2016 at 1:17 PM #795879Participant[quote=harvey]
America need policies that provide a net benefit to society with a bias toward helping the poor. America does not need policies like affirmative action that simply help some at at the expense of others.
[/quote]
I agree. The idea shouldn’t be (say, in the case of hiring for some jobs) to force the profile of the batch of people you hire to match the profile of your society by taking a certain number of people from certain groups regardless of their qualifications (affirmative action). The idea should be to have a society where, if you hired the most qualified candidates, the profile of those candidates would be similar to the profile of the society. And if certain groups don’t care to do their part in trying to join that batch of qualified candidates, despite having had the opportunity to do so, well, then, they’re not going to get that job, and that’s on them.
March 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM #795880Participant[quote=no_such_reality]What if what needs to change is the financial culture of our country?[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean.
In what way could the financial culture of our country change to give equal opportunity to those whose culture doesn’t emphasize education and adapting to today’s economy?
Or do you mean something else?
March 17, 2016 at 2:24 PM #795883ParticipantIt has crossed my mind that the attacker on the MC could be a university student as well … someone those kids were already acquainted with. Hence, them not bothering to get his plate number.
March 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM #795882Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Looks like police have released the video from the gas station altercation.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article66431532.html
[/quote]
I watched it and observed a few things. Even though it was 3 am, no one from inside the Kwik Stop came out to see what was going on. Kwik Stop Convenience stores/gas stations are usually open 24 hours, esp in cities. Perhaps the attendant window was facing another direction.The MC driver was very tall, “white appearing” and young with long hair. He literally blocked the black car the college kids had just finished gassing up so they couldn’t leave without backing out (if there was no one parked behind them) and attempting to go around him. This was a very in-your-face, overt challenge. However, the kid pumping the gas had a hood on, so I’m not sure the MC driver could see what “race” each kid was before he drove up. In other words, it doesn’t yet seem to me like it was a planned “hate crime.”
The kid who claimed he tried to break up the fight (dark sweatshirt) didn’t try very hard, IMO. When he put his hands in his pockets and briefly stood near his trunk, I thought he was going to grab a tire bar or something from it, but he didn’t open it.
The gas-pumping kid in the dark sweatshirt made a call on his phone as the attacker was backing off towards his MC.
The kid who was banged up (in the light sweatshirt) had every opportunity to get a plate number when the MC driver got on his bike to drive away but apparently didn’t. He stood right behind the bike, motioning for the MC driver to leave … or “good riddance.”
The kid who wasn’t the primary attack target (gas-pumper, dark sweatshirt) had MULTIPLE opportunities to get that MC plate number but didn’t. Now they’re telling the press, essentially, that they were victims of a “hate crime” supposedly fueled by the Trump campaign.
Yes, it is definitely an assault but a “hate crime?”
I’ve been a passenger in a vehicle on several occasions where people have tried to run us off the road, brandish or flip us off, etc. THE VERY FIRST THING I’VE EVER DONE is GET THE PLATE NUMBER, even if I wrote it on my hand in eyeliner!
I guess I’m more geared to that due to my experience working in the criminal justice system but maybe the common person doesn’t think of it.
It will be very interesting to hear what any witnesses have to say.
March 17, 2016 at 4:24 PM #795887FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=zk][quote=harvey]
Who is “we” and “us” and “they” in your text above?
[/quote]
“They” are the people who need help changing their culture (if they want to change it). “We” are the people who can help them. Mostly the government, but also anyone else willing to help.
Saying, “you need to change your culture if you want to improve your financial situation” is obviously a highly-charged situation. And I don’t think the political will to say such a think will exist in the foreseeable future.[/quote]
The helpers also need to change their culture in order to help. They will help themselves in the process, because one day they will be the ones needing help.
I agree with you on the value for education and adapting to changes.
When I hear “people are tired of it” I think Trump supporters.
Lots of working-class, lower-middle to middle class White people now want to go back to the past. It’s a self-defeating wish because of the forces of globalization and the move to a digital economy. In this new economy, more objective measures of qualifications (grades, university degrees, etc.. ) will be needed to move up the social ladder.
The post WWII period of social mobility was an anomaly that will not repeat itself.
When you see Sarah and Todd Palin as role models for millions of people who disdain education, you wonder what those people are teaching their kids. That’s part of fucked up culture.
March 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM #795890joec
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
The helpers also need to change their culture in order to help. They will help themselves in the process, because one day they will be the ones needing help.I agree with you on the value for education and adapting to changes.
When I hear “people are tired of it” I think Trump supporters.
Lots of working-class, lower-middle to middle class White people now want to go back to the past. It’s a self-defeating wish because of the forces of globalization and the move to a digital economy. In this new economy, more objective measures of qualifications (grades, university degrees, etc.. ) will be needed to move up the social ladder.
The post WWII period of social mobility was an anomaly that will not repeat itself.
When you see Sarah and Todd Palin as role models for millions of people who disdain education, you wonder what those people are teaching their kids. That’s part of fucked up culture.[/quote]
I think many studies have shown that if you aren’t born into a decent life, your chances of getting ahead are pretty slim now…This is why there is a somber mood for a lot of folks if they lack the education or good job already. Job security is pretty non-existent and many white collar jobs are getting outsourced now as well (law, finance, tech been for a while)…
You already have too many college grads, let alone grads with useless degrees. People in the “better” areas from wealthier families also start off enrichment classes at age 4 and by the time they go off to college, they are so far ahead of the poor, lower income person that I think for nearly 90% of the people in that category, the chance of you improving or getting the better jobs is pretty low.
I saw a study about Howard grads (mostly black college) computer grads interning at Facebook or Google and nearly all of them aren’t hired. This is, of course due to those Howard grads starting to code at 16 or so compared to the Google guy who was coding by 6 (or younger to brag)…
Just so much harder for those folks since we’re in a global economy as well and you might as well hire the physics wiz from Singapore than the not-fitting-in black kid (not that the black kids even really wanted to hang out with the typical Google guy/gal talking about various tv shows and playing ultimate Frisbee…).
College admissions is already a bit harder since nearly everyone thinks you have to go now to make a half decent living due to an over supply of labor in the world so everyone has a degree.
Also, I think I have seen studies which actually mentioned that having a solid middle class is actually not the norm. The post ww2 period was only possible due to Western Europe and pretty much every industry power being bombed to kingdom come and the US was the only country still with solid infrastructure and manufacturing in tack. Unless something drastic happens, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the gap between rich/poor widening more similar to historical times.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.