|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12860305)
The person who "barely uses healthcare today" often becomes the opposite down the road. That's the nature of growing older. Also,we've seen from this pandemic that the idea of tying healthcare access to employment is an exceedingly poor idea. The sceanrio of lose employment, lose health insurance has played out for millions in the last few months.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12860396)
In theory, though, at least, if you lose your job then that's a valid case for enrollment in an ACA plan, and if you are unemployed that should mean big subsidy. So in today's environment, you should not be 'without' insurance if you lose your job - right?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12860218)
For what it's worth, I view the President is something of a figurehead. I expect the president to be presidential, to lead, to inspire. I expect them to surround themselves with smart people and to listen to them. I expect them to hold broad policy positions, then allow others to implement them. The biggest complaint I have of our current President is that he lacks all these characteristics, and it has a serious negative effect on the country. Kamala Harris, like Obama, would likely be an inspirational leader.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12860408)
I lost my job and healthcare whilst my wife was undergoing treatment for Ovarian Cancer. Fortunately I was able to get another job before I left my former employer. Plus I got severance pay so I actually made out. But the outcome could have been devastating.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12860396)
In theory though, at least, if you lose your job then that's a valid case for enrollment in an ACA plan, and if you are unemployed that should mean big subsidy. So in today's environment, you should not be 'without' insurance if you lose your job - right?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12860454)
Not wanting to make light of your obviously difficult situation (back then) but presumably, you would have gone on "COBRA" for 18 months. And if this had been in the last 10 years or so, you could have enrolled in a ACA-compliant plan and received a healthy subsidy if you had no income.
going through a traumatic and extremely stressful time, it's just one more thing to add to everything else. footnote there was looting of some Walnut Creek stores in broad daylight today. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/...tests-looting/ |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 12860146)
I work in the US healthcare sector, and am wholly opposed to M4A.
From a business perspective, the reimbursement provided by Medicare is a pittance compared to that offered from insurance companies. If every hospital were only a Medicare/Medicaid hospital, many would close - especially rural ones like mine. From a personal perspective, I am one of the middle, making less than $100k, that would be taken to the cleaners by the policy as proposed. My taxes would increase far beyond the $100 a month that I currently pay in insurance premiums for my wife and I. I agree that US healthcare should be better, but I don’t see why I should be forced to subsidize others when at present I barely use what healthcare I do have. Thats not a popular opinion here, but it is what it is |
Re: 2020 Election
Looks like ANTIFA will be declared a terrorist organisation
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12860477)
Looks like ANTIFA will be declared a terrorist organisation
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/u...group.amp.html Pretty weak attempt by Trump to deflect from the real issues. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 12860468)
COBRA is very expensive, I was preparing for it but never had to use it. Back then employee contributions to company healthcare was minimal, and
going through a traumatic and extremely stressful time, it's just one more thing to add to everything else. footnote there was looting of some Walnut Creek stores in broad daylight today. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/...tests-looting/ I think some posters here don't realize how wasteful and inefficient the US system is. To mention just one thing from my past experience- underuse of services before the deductible, and wasteful overuse in a year OOP is reached- I doubt if such inefficiencies are factored into estimates of how much would be saved by having a state system, which I expect just take into account administrative savings. Doctors' pay has been mentioned, but that only accounts for a small part of US overspend. Under a state system taxes would go up, but that would be more than matched by an increase in pay in lieu of health insurance. |
Re: 2020 Election
Looting hits Long Beach, Santa Monica as countywide curfew goes into effecthttps://www.latimes.com/california/s...wn-l-a-stunnedSomebody I know is in the middle of this, quite scary. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12860484)
More bluster from Trump to try and do something that’s meaningless.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/u...group.amp.html Pretty weak attempt by Trump to deflect from the real issues. Activists in the media (and on social media) will take the bait, give every Trump tweet tons of oxygen and will play up the extremists on both sides to generate conflict and clicks. This really will be an election for the (to use Nixon's term) "silent majority" - who will be completely ignored by the media. Which candidate will find the best non-traditional means to reach them? Still plenty of room for a wild card. What if someone like Bloomberg decides to launch a last-minute third party run with something like a "unity ticket" ploy with a moderate Republican? I would not trust any polling coming out without giving a thorough look under the hood first at the methodology. "Polls" were wrong in the lead-up to 2016; the exit polls, however - using traditional methods - were spot on, nailing both Michigan and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect the "polls" were using Mook-style analytics and that was why they got it so wrong. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12860553)
Trump will try to run a Nixon '68 style campaign. That means pumping up the volume on Twitter and trying to make groups like Antifa etc look like the face of the Democratic Party.
Activists in the media (and on social media) will take the bait, give every Trump tweet tons of oxygen and will play up the extremists on both sides to generate conflict and clicks. This really will be an election for the (to use Nixon's term) "silent majority" - who will be completely ignored by the media. Which candidate will find the best non-traditional means to reach them? Still plenty of room for a wild card. What if someone like Bloomberg decides to launch a last-minute third party run with something like a "unity ticket" ploy with a moderate Republican? I would not trust any polling coming out without giving a thorough look under the hood first at the methodology. "Polls" were wrong in the lead-up to 2016; the exit polls, however - using traditional methods - were spot on, nailing both Michigan and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect the "polls" were using Mook-style analytics and that was why they got it so wrong. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12860553)
Trump will try to run a Nixon '68 style campaign. That means pumping up the volume on Twitter and trying to make groups like Antifa etc look like the face of the Democratic Party.
Activists in the media (and on social media) will take the bait, give every Trump tweet tons of oxygen and will play up the extremists on both sides to generate conflict and clicks. This really will be an election for the (to use Nixon's term) "silent majority" - who will be completely ignored by the media. Which candidate will find the best non-traditional means to reach them? Still plenty of room for a wild card. What if someone like Bloomberg decides to launch a last-minute third party run with something like a "unity ticket" ploy with a moderate Republican? I would not trust any polling coming out without giving a thorough look under the hood first at the methodology. "Polls" were wrong in the lead-up to 2016; the exit polls, however - using traditional methods - were spot on, nailing both Michigan and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect the "polls" were using Mook-style analytics and that was why they got it so wrong. I had the misfortune the other night to be surfing channels, and caught a glimpse of Lou Dobbs on Fox. Lou Dobbs is one of Trump's attack dogs. He was doing a segment on 'voter fraud'. He lined up "experts" who had tons of 'evidence' of voter fraud through mail voting. Doesn't matter how wrong he is, this is the message being pushed out by the Trump machine and it will land on fertile ears. He was totally supportive of Trump's battle with Twitter. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12860553)
Trump will try to run a Nixon '68 style campaign. That means pumping up the volume on Twitter and trying to make groups like Antifa etc look like the face of the Democratic Party.
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12860553)
I would not trust any polling coming out without giving a thorough look under the hood first at the methodology. "Polls" were wrong in the lead-up to 2016; the exit polls, however - using traditional methods - were spot on, nailing both Michigan and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect the "polls" were using Mook-style analytics and that was why they got it so wrong.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:19 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.