Continuation Biden for President? Pt 3

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Biden? You sure that wasn't Sanders? ...

Sanders.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If "Yeah the first black woman elected to the executive office isn't black enough..." doesn't sum up the "Nothing is ever good enough" problem with the Left I'm not sure what possibly could.

Seriously don't know where you get this unless you think that black people that aren't African American aren't actually black, or aren't black enough. You do know that there are a lot of black people that live in the UK, Europe, the Pacific countries, and even Central Asia none of whom are African Americans?

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Can't argue with that. Phantom Wolf is trying to make a liar out of Kamala Harris using slight of hand.

Totally incorrect, I'm trying to point out two things to people. First that not all black people are African Americans, not even all of those that live in the US. Mostly this comes from the comment that Emmanuel Acho makes in the video below at that 50-second mark where he says, "I have to address something y'all 'cause so many have asked. 'do I say black people or African American?' and the simple and shortest answer is black because it's not only most accurate it's also least offense. Keep in mind not all black people in America are African. There are Jamaicans there are Cubans but, also there's some black people that don't identify as African because that heritage got stripped from them during slavery."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Now that is a black man addressing that question and specifically pointing out that Jamaicans generally don't identify as African Americans, but rather as Jamaicans. Now Kamala might do so, I don't know, and if she specifically has stated it, then fine that's her choice and should she call herself an African American I won't argue with her. However, if she hasn't then as a Jamaican and Indian it would seem that addressing her as a Black Woman is the better option. This is not an attempt to belittle her or to "make a liar out of her" but rather to address her ethnicity in what we're told is the better and less offensive way.

Secondly, I'm also trying to point out that both Kalama and Obama are first-generation black Americans. This is something that I find interesting, that the first Black President and the first Black Vice President have black ancestry that comes from recent migration to the US rather than from those that were brought there as slaves in the 1800's.

It makes me wonder whether white people are more comfortable voting and electing people who don't have that ancestry. Again this isn't a criticism of either Obama or Kamala, but a query as to the racism in the US and if it is less towards those blacks that are recently arrived as to those who have had their roots in America for many generations.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

How do you think blacks got to the Caribbean?

You missed my point, it was never about whether Kamala had ancestors who were slaves, I am well aware that she did, but rather whether the distance, i.e. "her ancestors weren't slaves to our ancestors" has an effect on the way that white people view her, meaning are they are more accepting of her as a black woman than they would be a black woman who's ancestry was in the US.

Now I am totally okay with being proven wrong here, and my American wife tells me that racists don't see ancestry, just skin colour, and as she is Hispanic and also had experience of such, I am happy to accept that those that are openly racist would indeed just see skin colour. However, I am more interested in those that don't actually believe that they are racist, and how differently they react towards a black person that is a recent immigrant or born to one, and those blacks who have been oppressed in the country for generations.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If "Yeah the first black woman elected to the executive office isn't black enough..." doesn't sum up the "Nothing is ever good enough" problem with the Left I'm not sure what possibly could.

This isn't a "left" thing, but it's brought up by observers who happen to be left and right. It's a technicality that some people with an anti-identity politics agenda in general play up.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You missed my point, it was never about whether Kamala had ancestors who were slaves, I am well aware that she did, but rather whether the distance, i.e. "her ancestors weren't slaves to our ancestors" has an effect on the way that white people view her, meaning are they are more accepting of her as a black woman than they would be a black woman who's ancestry was in the US.

This I definitely think is something modern people don't care too much about. Part of that is Americans in particular are entrenched in the "black","white", "Asian" checkbox racial categories.

Most people don't seem to be inquisitive enough to make distinctions like that. And it's something minorities in the U.S. greatly internalize, from what I've seen and experienced.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sanders.

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

This is why we need new definitions for everything. If social/political discourse is just doomed to stay in "Label the parts instead of having an actual argument or point to make" mode we at least need the labels to mean something that the political scales and divides created to describe the rise of the European Nation-State between the Napoleonic Wars and WW1 don't really describe social/political philosophies in 2020 all that well.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

I've posted this video multiple times before, but to some, Socialism is "basically the views of Hitler."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

Many such people would likely equate Putin with Socialism - apart from Toupee Fiasco's sychophants that decided he's great since their leader compliments him.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Kamala isn't an African American. Her father is Jamaican and her mother was Indian. That makes her black, not a person of colour if you prefer, but she isn't and African American.

That's not how this works. Most immigrant families, regardless of skin color, integrate fairly well in the US in 1-2 generations - and this definitely includes most black people from the Caribbean, and definitely Jamaica - See among others, Biggie Smalls, Kerry Washington, Mike Tyson and Colin Powell.

Im reminded of back when Obama's Kenyan ancestry suddenly became a reason for people to declare he wasn't "black American", which mostly unsavory people pushed back in 2008. Most people don't care, especially when Harris is an AKA, a Howard grad, and has used Mary J. Blige's "Work That" as her campaign theme.

[crackers]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

How do you think blacks got to the Caribbean?

They came there on cruise ships, on vacation, and liked it so much they decided to stay. How else could blacks have possibly gotten to Jamaica?”

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

Yes, it is silly. But the problem is that Sanders spoonfeeds his enemies with evidence for those comparisons. He himself will say “Castro did some good things” and “honeymoon in the Soviet Union”.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel said the same thing in the UK. Jeremy Corbyn dressed a bit like Lenin and had a history of saying positive things about Marx while John McDonnel threw a copy of Mao’s little red book across the dispatch box to the Chancellor, who then picked it up and said “oh you have a signed copy!”

They need to be smarter about how they define themselves if they want to appeal to people who are ready to believe that Socialism is authoritarian.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

I agree. It really is a buzzword that most people don't understand. So many things even hard core right wingers support is actually a form of socialism. That includes crop and ethanol subsidies, unemployment, SSI, the fire department, the police department and the marines.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

I've posted this video multiple times before, but to some, Socialism is "basically the views of Hitler."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Classic.

I posted today that most voters are clueless. This proves my point.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, it is silly. But the problem is that Sanders spoonfeeds his enemies with evidence for those comparisons. He himself will say “Castro did some good things” and “honeymoon in the Soviet Union”.

Because with Sanders that is the point.

Let us be clear here. For 99% of progressives, the progressive/centrist divide has absolutely nothing to do with actual policy or political philosophy and everything to do with how confrontational they are, how much of a chip on their shoulder about "the system" they have, and how many progressive buzz words he uses.

These little moments of "Oh I'm not that far on the left... or am I *coyish giggle* I'll never tell" he keeps "accidentally" making are not accidents.

As multiple people have noted Sanders and Biden don't have radically different actual opinions on policies and the direction this country should be going. Sander's fandom is entirely based around him not actually working within the system, treating his inability to compromise as some noble quality.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because with Sanders that is the point.

Let us be clear here. For 99% of progressives, the progressive/centrist divide has absolutely nothing to do with actual policy or political philosophy and everything to do with how confrontational they are, how much of a chip on their shoulder about "the system" they have, and how many progressive buzz words he uses.

These little moments of "Oh I'm not that far on the left... or am I *coyish giggle* I'll never tell" he keeps "accidentally" making are not accidents.

As multiple people have noted Sanders and Biden don't have radically different actual opinions on policies and the direction this country should be going. Sander's fandom is entirely based around him not actually working within the system, treating his inability to compromise as some noble quality.

I'm not sure I agree with the percentages. That said, I agree with the sentiment.

Ever see how many bills that have titles that are ridiculously misleading? Republicans are famous for doing this. They defend The Mom and Apple Pie Act, but the details of the bill is more The Dog Crap and Screw the Middle Class Act.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because with Sanders that is the point.

Let us be clear here. For 99% of progressives, the progressive/centrist divide has absolutely nothing to do with actual policy or political philosophy and everything to do with how confrontational they are, how much of a chip on their shoulder about "the system" they have, and how many progressive buzz words he uses.

These little moments of "Oh I'm not that far on the left... or am I *coyish giggle* I'll never tell" he keeps "accidentally" making are not accidents.

As multiple people have noted Sanders and Biden don't have radically different actual opinions on policies and the direction this country should be going. Sander's fandom is entirely based around him not actually working within the system, treating his inability to compromise as some noble quality.

There are some big differences such as Medicare for all.

[JoeMorgue]

You can take any two politicians no matter how politically close they are and find one pet project they disagree on.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You can take any two politicians no matter how politically close they are and find one pet project they disagree on.

I think that kind of difference is more than a pet project. But okay, then, free college paid for by a tax on Wall Street as well. There are genuine differences which surely is not on some esoteric level for people who may at some point in their life have health and education concerns (in other words, that niche of people with a human body and those who may need to earn an income).

[JoeMorgue]

"Medicare for all" is just "Universal Healthcare" rebranded because "Medicare" is one of the few forms of socialism that give the Republican's AARP base a stiffie.

And Joe Biden is all in on Univeral Healthcare.

And that's what I mean. The difference between Biden and Sanders is all tone, branding, and forcefulness of their message.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Medicare for all" is just "Universal Healthcare" rebranded because "Medicare" is one of the few forms of socialism that give the Republican's AARP base a stiffie.

And Joe Biden is all in on Univeral Healthcare.

And that's what I mean. The difference between Biden and Sanders is all tone, branding, and forcefulness of their message.

Huh? That's not how I understand things at all.

[Venom]

From what I understand, Biden's public option + ACA plan is very similar to the healthcare systems of the first-world industrialized countries that Bernie Sanders keeps mentioning in his speeches.

Sanders' proposal "Medicare for All" is actually above and beyond that of what we see in the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore.

It's definitely a step towards universal healthcare, it just isn't the single-payer brand MEDICARE FOR ALL that Berniecrats adamantly call for.

[dirtywick]

I prefer the Australian model. The market can decide if public or private insurance is more viable.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Venom

From what I understand, Biden's public option + ACA plan is very similar to the healthcare systems of the first-world industrialized countries that Bernie Sanders keeps mentioning in his speeches.

Sanders' proposal "Medicare for All" is actually above and beyond that of what we see in the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore.

It's definitely a step towards universal healthcare, it just isn't the single-payer brand MEDICARE FOR ALL that Berniecrats adamantly call for.

I think it comes down to this: how much would it cost you the patient if you had Covid or cancer? If you're in the UK, you get the treatment, and that's all. My understanding from forumites here is that even if you have great insurance in the US, you pay tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Seriously don't know where you get this unless you think that black people that aren't African American aren't actually black, or aren't black enough. You do know that there are a lot of black people that live in the UK, Europe, the Pacific countries, and even Central Asia none of whom are African Americans?



Totally incorrect, I'm trying to point out two things to people. First that not all black people are African Americans, not even all of those that live in the US. Mostly this comes from the comment that Emmanuel Acho makes in the video below at that 50-second mark where he says, "I have to address something y'all 'cause so many have asked. 'do I say black people or African American?' and the simple and shortest answer is black because it's not only most accurate it's also least offense. Keep in mind not all black people in America are African. There are Jamaicans there are Cubans but, also there's some black people that don't identify as African because that heritage got stripped from them during slavery."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Now that is a black man addressing that question and specifically pointing out that Jamaicans generally don't identify as African Americans, but rather as Jamaicans. Now Kamala might do so, I don't know, and if she specifically has stated it, then fine that's her choice and should she call herself an African American I won't argue with her. However, if she hasn't then as a Jamaican and Indian it would seem that addressing her as a Black Woman is the better option. This is not an attempt to belittle her or to "make a liar out of her" but rather to address her ethnicity in what we're told is the better and less offensive way.

Secondly, I'm also trying to point out that both Kalama and Obama are first-generation black Americans. This is something that I find interesting, that the first Black President and the first Black Vice President have black ancestry that comes from recent migration to the US rather than from those that were brought there as slaves in the 1800's.

It makes me wonder whether white people are more comfortable voting and electing people who don't have that ancestry. Again this isn't a criticism of either Obama or Kamala, but a query as to the racism in the US and if it is less towards those blacks that are recently arrived as to those who have had their roots in America for many generations.



You missed my point, it was never about whether Kamala had ancestors who were slaves, I am well aware that she did, but rather whether the distance, i.e. "her ancestors weren't slaves to our ancestors" has an effect on the way that white people view her, meaning are they are more accepting of her as a black woman than they would be a black woman who's ancestry was in the US.

Now I am totally okay with being proven wrong here, and my American wife tells me that racists don't see ancestry, just skin colour, and as she is Hispanic and also had experience of such, I am happy to accept that those that are openly racist would indeed just see skin colour. However, I am more interested in those that don't actually believe that they are racist, and how differently they react towards a black person that is a recent immigrant or born to one, and those blacks who have been oppressed in the country for generations.

I don't think this nit pick is worth this much passion.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think it comes down to this: how much would it cost you the patient if you had Covid or cancer? If you're in the UK, you get the treatment, and that's all. My understanding from forumites here is that even if you have great insurance in the US, you pay tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

It would be very strange to pay 10s of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Cancer could add up to tens of thousands because of the multi-year nature of the disease. You could pay 10,000 dollars per year, multiple times.

Most US insurance has an "out of pocket maximum" per year. I think I had an out of pocket maximum of 12,000 dollars last year when I had an Obamacare plan. I could be wrong about that. I know i have had out of pocket maximums that were around 6,000 dollars.

Typical US insurance plans have a deductible, which is the amount you have to pay before the insurance company pays anything at all. After the deductible is met, the insurance plan pays most of the cost, perhaps 80% or 90%, unitll you have paid the "Out of pocket maximum", which may be 10,000 dollars. After that the insurance company pays everything. If you have "great insurance", your out of pocket maximum is probably around 5,000 dollars. I think that's what mine is right now, and I have pretty great insurance.

If you run up more than that, then there's something odd going on.

It's kind of nuts.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Venom

From what I understand, Biden's public option + ACA plan is very similar to the healthcare systems of the first-world industrialized countries that Bernie Sanders keeps mentioning in his speeches.

Sanders' proposal "Medicare for All" is actually above and beyond that of what we see in the UK, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Singapore.

It's definitely a step towards universal healthcare, it just isn't the single-payer brand MEDICARE FOR ALL that Berniecrats adamantly call for.

And then there's Trump's healthcare plan: "I prefer people who don't get sick."

Biden's plan may not be quite what Bernie wants, but it's far better than what we have. It's like we have a cheap hamburger right now, Biden offers a Porterhouse Steak and Bernie wants Filet Mignon. I'm fine with the Porterhouse steak.

[dirtywick]

Prescriptions are separate from deductibles and out of pocket though. And then there’s in and out of network costs.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Prescriptions are separate from deductibles and out of pocket though. And then there’s in and out of network costs.

I guess it must vary by plan. My prescriptions are part of both my deductible and out of pocket.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It would be very strange to pay 10s of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Cancer could add up to tens of thousands because of the multi-year nature of the disease. You could pay 10,000 dollars per year, multiple times.

Most US insurance has an "out of pocket maximum" per year. I think I had an out of pocket maximum of 12,000 dollars last year when I had an Obamacare plan. I could be wrong about that. I know i have had out of pocket maximums that were around 6,000 dollars.

Typical US insurance plans have a deductible, which is the amount you have to pay before the insurance company pays anything at all. After the deductible is met, the insurance plan pays most of the cost, perhaps 80% or 90%, unitll you have paid the "Out of pocket maximum", which may be 10,000 dollars. After that the insurance company pays everything. If you have "great insurance", your out of pocket maximum is probably around 5,000 dollars. I think that's what mine is right now, and I have pretty great insurance.

If you run up more than that, then there's something odd going on.

It's kind of nuts.

Thanks for your answer.

What I had been hearing about before was that people with 80% coverage of say a $400,000 bill for chemotherapy still having to pay $80,000 upfront. I would be happy to hear things are not as dire as that.

Still sounds expensive to me, and of course there is the whole "it's cheap for people with money" logic - if you can afford great insurance your medical bills are lower, but if you are too poor for that to be in your budget then you will pay more if you get sick.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Hey, being the foil in a comedy routine is hard work. So is being a stage magician's assistant.

Are you saying Bernie Sanders is basically the straight man to the mainstream Democrats' clown show?

A clown would be an improvement over Trump.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Thanks for your answer.

What I had been hearing about before was that people with 80% coverage of say a $400,000 bill for chemotherapy still having to pay $80,000 upfront. I would be happy to hear things are not as dire as that.

Still sounds expensive to me, and of course there is the whole "it's cheap for people with money" logic - if you can afford great insurance your medical bills are lower, but if you are too poor for that to be in your budget then you will pay more if you get sick.

If you want a quick overview with good links rather than personal anecdotes - https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fi...t-cancer.html/

As noted in that article:

Quote:

...snip...

You might think your excellent insurance will save you from astronomical out-of-pocket costs, but that might not be the case. The report found high co-insurance, deductibles, occasional out-of-network care, and uncovered treatments really add up, even for those with a good plan.

Those costs seem high, but possibly manageable. However, U.S. News & World Report found different statistics that are way more severe. Newly approved drugs can cost up to $10,000 per month, and patients are expected to pay 20-30% of these costs. That means a year’s worth of these new drugs could take $24,000 to $36,000 out of your pocket — and that’s before health insurance premiums.



...snip...

[timhau]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's silly is that so many foolish people equate Socialist with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships. It would be like equating Capitalism with Authoritarianism and Dictatorships because of Putin.

Not exactly. Countries that self-identify as "socialist" have, without fail, had repressive authoritarian regimes. Countries that self-identify as having some form of capitalist economy range from Pinochet's Chile to really rather pleasant, prosperous places like Canada or Australia. What messes up the comparison is the American parlance of referring to e.g. the Nordic countries as "socialist". We never self-identified as such, and despite high taxation, private enterprise and free market economy are doing OK up here.

[BobTheCoward]

And here is the obvious reminder that medicare for all looks nothing like Medicare.

Unless they expect 400 million people to navigate Part A vs Part B and respective co-pays and coverage limits.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by shemp

And then there's Trump's healthcare plan: "I prefer people who don't get sick."

Biden's plan may not be quite what Bernie wants, but it's far better than what we have. It's like we have a cheap hamburger right now, Biden offers a Porterhouse Steak and Bernie wants Filet Mignon. I'm fine with the Porterhouse steak.

And while we'd be pleased with either, the dining establishment at which we're seated only offers ground round. Porterhouse and Filet Mignon will be added to the menu the day georgia flips both seats, or when hell freezes over. Just ask Mitch.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It would be very strange to pay 10s of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

Cancer could add up to tens of thousands because of the multi-year nature of the disease. You could pay 10,000 dollars per year, multiple times.

Most US insurance has an "out of pocket maximum" per year. I think I had an out of pocket maximum of 12,000 dollars last year when I had an Obamacare plan. I could be wrong about that. I know i have had out of pocket maximums that were around 6,000 dollars.

Typical US insurance plans have a deductible, which is the amount you have to pay before the insurance company pays anything at all. After the deductible is met, the insurance plan pays most of the cost, perhaps 80% or 90%, unitll you have paid the "Out of pocket maximum", which may be 10,000 dollars. After that the insurance company pays everything. If you have "great insurance", your out of pocket maximum is probably around 5,000 dollars. I think that's what mine is right now, and I have pretty great insurance.

If you run up more than that, then there's something odd going on.

It's kind of nuts.

Question.
Is that 'out of pocket' per year or per occasion?
What kind of insurance payments would that mean per month (what you pay to the insurance company, I mean), if I may ask? (this answer could of course be something of a generic answer).

Even if per year, it sounds ridiculously high, to me. Whether 10 or even 5 thousand dollars per year, it would mean that for normal things (dentist work, a simple emergency visit to the hospital and such), you would in essence not be insured, because you have to pay for it anyway.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Darat

If you want a quick overview with good links rather than personal anecdotes - https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fi...t-cancer.html/

As noted in that article:

Thanks for that. Good link. Horrific reading.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Thanks for your answer.

What I had been hearing about before was that people with 80% coverage of say a $400,000 bill for chemotherapy still having to pay $80,000 upfront. I would be happy to hear things are not as dire as that.

Still sounds expensive to me, and of course there is the whole "it's cheap for people with money" logic - if you can afford great insurance your medical bills are lower, but if you are too poor for that to be in your budget then you will pay more if you get sick.

It is, in some ways, even stupider. Changing jobs, or becoming unemployed, while having health issues can wreak havoc on a families finances, even today. Our medical situation is tied to our employment situation, which is just crazy. However, the kind of scenarios you are describing are mostly a thing of the past. Obamacare helped a lot. Medical bankruptcies plummeted after it was put into effect. It may not be the best possible law, but it achieved some of its goals.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It is, in some ways, even stupider. Changing jobs, or becoming unemployed, while having health issues can wreak havoc on a families finances, even today, but the kind of scenarios you are describing are mostly a thing of the past. Obamacare helped a lot. Medical bankruptcies plummeted after it was put into effect. It may not be the best possible law, but it achieved some of its goals.

Okay, that's good!

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It is, in some ways, even stupider. Changing jobs, or becoming unemployed, while having health issues can wreak havoc on a families finances, even today. Our medical situation is tied to our employment situation, which is just crazy. However, the kind of scenarios you are describing are mostly a thing of the past. Obamacare helped a lot. Medical bankruptcies plummeted after it was put into effect. It may not be the best possible law, but it achieved some of its goals.

Yep: it wasn't just the marketplace and pre-existing conditions, it was also yearly and lifetime caps gone, kids staying on their parents' insurance until they hit 26 years of age, an end to ressission ("You said you had acne as a teen? Well, we say those were pre-cancerous lesions, so we won't cover your breast cancer chemo now that you're 57 years old - and we'll keep your money and cancel your insurance, shoulda told us sooner.") Dolt 45 couldn't even pretend that he'd cover pre-existing conditions affordably, just that he'd make insurance companies cover them at some unknown price, never mind the other issues.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by erwinl

Question.
Is that 'out of pocket' per year or per occasion?
What kind of insurance payments would that mean per month (what you pay to the insurance company, I mean), if I may ask? (this answer could of course be something of a generic answer).

Even if per year, it sounds ridiculously high, to me. Whether 10 or even 5 thousand dollars per year, it would mean that for normal things (dentist work, a simple emergency visit to the hospital and such), you would in essence not be insured, because you have to pay for it anyway.

It's per year, at least for every plan I've ever dealt with.

And, you're right. As a 57 year old man on an Obamacare plan, I was paying something like 600 dollars per month for a plan that had a 5,000 dollar deductible. That's right. I would pay 7,000 dollars if I didn't get sick, plus an additional 5,000 dollars if I did, before the insurance companies paid a cent. And why was I on Obamacare? Because I was unemployed.

And yet it was still better than what there was before Obamacare. Trump was, and still is, trying to get rid of Obamacare, but we were told we shouldn't worry, because he has a secret plan to replace it. Assuming his efforts fail in the Supreme Court, as they are expected to, at least we won't have to worry about that for the next four years, but the health care system is still horribly messed up in America, and we certainly are not going to see huge changes for at least two years.

ETA: And the figures I throw around are greatly simplified. In reality, most plans come with tables that take one or two pages to explain exactly how much you will pay for several different categories of health care expenses.

[Mader Levap]

Healthcare in USA is designed to kill off poor people.