At the place where I am being treated for cancer, there is some information displayed which says that the odds are 50-50 that a man will get cancer during his lifetime. For women, it is a 1 in 3 chance.
Thinking upon that a bit, a universal requirement to have some type of health "insurance" would seem to make sense. Even though the odds are high that you will eventually get cancer, the odds are lower if you are younger, I would think. Also, if you are younger, the odds are not zero. Therefore, you can make a risk pool that can include an entire population and be able to make a catastrophic policy possible, I would think. Premiums may necessarily be higher for older adults, of course.
So, where does this leave us now?
I don't know enough about the general case for the entire population, but I do know my own case.
As for pre-existing conditions, I caught a lucky break. I had a pre-existing condition, and under such a rule that would not require these to be covered, I would have been out of luck.
Should I now say that others would just have to be out of luck then, should they find themselves in a similar position as I was? I don't think I will just say "tough luck" in the answer to that question. For, in my own case, my last option would have been to move back to Houston and throw myself on the mercies of the public health care system there. This would have been a nightmare scenario that I would not have accepted. It would have meant certain death or permanent disability with a very uncertain and painful recovery, if that was even possible.
How can that be justified when a solution exists that would be affordable for the entire population? Once again, I cannot say for the entire population, but I can say for myself. The current system worked for me pretty well. I won't say that it is a good system for all, but it might have some good points that could be applicable for a good solution that everybody could live with.
You have to have the honesty, courage, and will to seek solutions to problems. It seems to me in our country today that we have a problem there.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
A suggestion to eliminate Obamacare
Don't change the money amounts of the subsidies. Let the subsidies go to the individual taxpayer as refundable credits that can only be used for healthcare.
The refundable credits can be used to buy healthcare products now offered, but optional as opposed to mandatory. Any unused credits can be deposited in health care savings accounts. These amounts can build over time so that they can make catastrophic health insurance policies affordable as one gets older and more likely to need them.
I could support something like this, but what I have read doesn't sound anything like this. Instead, it looks like they want to go on the cheap, and this will not win.
If you want to win, you will have to bite the bullet and do what you don't want to do. The Freedom Caucus is trying to go cheap, and this will undoubtedly fail in the long run at least, or even in the short run. If the GOP submits another cheapskate idea like this, it will be as much a debacle as the last one. But the damage will be greater. Every failure increases the likelihood that the Dems will gain power in the next election.
If the Dems win, they will try to go with universal single payer healthcare. You can bet on it.
The refundable credits can be used to buy healthcare products now offered, but optional as opposed to mandatory. Any unused credits can be deposited in health care savings accounts. These amounts can build over time so that they can make catastrophic health insurance policies affordable as one gets older and more likely to need them.
I could support something like this, but what I have read doesn't sound anything like this. Instead, it looks like they want to go on the cheap, and this will not win.
If you want to win, you will have to bite the bullet and do what you don't want to do. The Freedom Caucus is trying to go cheap, and this will undoubtedly fail in the long run at least, or even in the short run. If the GOP submits another cheapskate idea like this, it will be as much a debacle as the last one. But the damage will be greater. Every failure increases the likelihood that the Dems will gain power in the next election.
If the Dems win, they will try to go with universal single payer healthcare. You can bet on it.
Stupid party outdoes itself
In a matchup between the party of the stupid, which is the Dems, and the Stupid party, which is the GOP, I think the GOP loses. Why? There are plenty of stupid people, and the Dems know how to get their votes. The Stupid party just blunders their way into the Dems wheelhouse, and can lose just by being foolish and just plain stupid.
This business about Obamacare is dumber than dumb. For one thing, I know that Obamacare is not insurance. I wrote that myself on this very blog. But if the Stupid party gets its way, a case like mine leaves me out of luck. This despite the fact that my case is a one in a million occurrence and can be easily insured.
Unless the miscalled Freedom Caucus can definitely show that cases like mine will definitely be covered, I cannot in good conscience support their efforts. In fact, I must denounce their efforts as nothing but sheer money grubbing greed. They are making a "yuge" mistake.
I will never support the Dems, because I think they are evil. But the GOP cannot rule like this and expect to succeed. Single payer health care is all but inevitable, thanks to stupidity like this.
I cannot support them, this miscalled Freedom Caucus.
This business about Obamacare is dumber than dumb. For one thing, I know that Obamacare is not insurance. I wrote that myself on this very blog. But if the Stupid party gets its way, a case like mine leaves me out of luck. This despite the fact that my case is a one in a million occurrence and can be easily insured.
Unless the miscalled Freedom Caucus can definitely show that cases like mine will definitely be covered, I cannot in good conscience support their efforts. In fact, I must denounce their efforts as nothing but sheer money grubbing greed. They are making a "yuge" mistake.
I will never support the Dems, because I think they are evil. But the GOP cannot rule like this and expect to succeed. Single payer health care is all but inevitable, thanks to stupidity like this.
I cannot support them, this miscalled Freedom Caucus.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Democrats do not care about preserving the filibuster
The loss of this is probably not a good sign. I am assuming that the GOP will exercise the so-called nuclear option.
The Dems are framing this as a minority rights issue. This is misleading, as it is commonly understood that minorities mean non-white folks. Minorities in the Senate mean something different. It is meant in the political context as one who is not in the majority opinion. This has little to do with skin color or national origin. Conflating the two uses of the same word shows that this is a political argument, not a judicial one.
So, it is a political strategy to keep their constituents in a state of rage. First, by claiming that Hillary should be president because she got more votes; and now this. Note that this has little to do with the nominee himself. It has to be framed in other ways that have little to do with anything relevant with the rule of law.
The GOP tried to play it conservatively when they refused to do this during Bush's tenure, but the Dems are going to force them to go nuclear now because they hope to gain an advantage from it.
Of course there is a lot at stake here, policy wise. However, if the Dems are successful in this strategy, the GOP victory will be short-lived. You can bet that there will be payback.
Update:
Sure enough, Minority Leader Schumer waxed eloquently over the loss of the filibuster. The Dems want to be "compensated" for the treatment towards their guy, What-his-name. If they don't get it, they will just add up the score for the payback when they get their next chance.
The GOP could run up the score, but if they don't get the knockout blow, there will be payback.
Nevertheless, the GOP should not go wobbly. The Dems can say "no fair" all they like. But since the New Deal, the direction has been leftward. The GOP should use the power while they have it.
Update:
One more thing, and I'll leave it alone. If they Dems didn't filibuster this nominee, the filibuster would not be nuked. It would still exist. Therefore, for the next nominee, it could still be used. For whatever reason, they want to use it now, on this nominee.
You can believe that it is principle, or you can believe that it is just politics. Frankly, if it were principle, they would suffer a political price for it. I really think they expect to gain politically from this.
Just read their blogs and see that for yourself.
The Dems are framing this as a minority rights issue. This is misleading, as it is commonly understood that minorities mean non-white folks. Minorities in the Senate mean something different. It is meant in the political context as one who is not in the majority opinion. This has little to do with skin color or national origin. Conflating the two uses of the same word shows that this is a political argument, not a judicial one.
So, it is a political strategy to keep their constituents in a state of rage. First, by claiming that Hillary should be president because she got more votes; and now this. Note that this has little to do with the nominee himself. It has to be framed in other ways that have little to do with anything relevant with the rule of law.
The GOP tried to play it conservatively when they refused to do this during Bush's tenure, but the Dems are going to force them to go nuclear now because they hope to gain an advantage from it.
Of course there is a lot at stake here, policy wise. However, if the Dems are successful in this strategy, the GOP victory will be short-lived. You can bet that there will be payback.
Update:
Sure enough, Minority Leader Schumer waxed eloquently over the loss of the filibuster. The Dems want to be "compensated" for the treatment towards their guy, What-his-name. If they don't get it, they will just add up the score for the payback when they get their next chance.
The GOP could run up the score, but if they don't get the knockout blow, there will be payback.
Nevertheless, the GOP should not go wobbly. The Dems can say "no fair" all they like. But since the New Deal, the direction has been leftward. The GOP should use the power while they have it.
Update:
One more thing, and I'll leave it alone. If they Dems didn't filibuster this nominee, the filibuster would not be nuked. It would still exist. Therefore, for the next nominee, it could still be used. For whatever reason, they want to use it now, on this nominee.
You can believe that it is principle, or you can believe that it is just politics. Frankly, if it were principle, they would suffer a political price for it. I really think they expect to gain politically from this.
Just read their blogs and see that for yourself.
CSPAN 2
Flipping around the dial and came across the Senate debate on the Gorsuch nomination. When John McCain was talking, I had the volume down. Kinda wished that I didn't, as I would have liked to have heard what he said. It would give a clue as to what his intentions were. If McCain votes for the nuclear option, ( if it comes into play) then that would be significant. He was one of the ones who opposed the nuclear option with respect to Bush's nominees that were filibustered back then.
Senator Cardin from Maryland is speaking now. I listened for awhile, then he started in on some negative stuff, and that pretty much pegs him. No need to listen further.
The Gorsuch nomination is a big deal. Consider what would be the case today if Bork had been confirmed. Instead of Bork, we got Kennedy, and along with that, homosexual marriage.
Kennedy laid the groundwork for the decision. Without Kennedy, no homosexual marriages today.
But wait....
Bork died during Obama's term in 2012. We may have had a liberal court these past four years. Funny about that. Considering that Obama wanted gun control, we may well have had an adverse decision on that by now.
Moral: Once you get into the what if's, you start to get into the weeds. But the fact remains that this is a big deal. What happens in the future is anybody's guess.
Senator Cardin from Maryland is speaking now. I listened for awhile, then he started in on some negative stuff, and that pretty much pegs him. No need to listen further.
The Gorsuch nomination is a big deal. Consider what would be the case today if Bork had been confirmed. Instead of Bork, we got Kennedy, and along with that, homosexual marriage.
Kennedy laid the groundwork for the decision. Without Kennedy, no homosexual marriages today.
But wait....
Bork died during Obama's term in 2012. We may have had a liberal court these past four years. Funny about that. Considering that Obama wanted gun control, we may well have had an adverse decision on that by now.
Moral: Once you get into the what if's, you start to get into the weeds. But the fact remains that this is a big deal. What happens in the future is anybody's guess.
Rise and shine, 4.5.17
Feel a bit perky this morning. Well, not really. It is better than what it has been, so there's an improvement of sorts.
Not necessarily from the treatments at the center, though. I had lot of gas, so the doc prescribed some gas-x and it works. Thank goodness for that.
Aside from what goes on here, the bigger picture gives reason for confidence. The left has been caught in a lie again, and are hard at work trying to spin their way out of it. Reminds me of the passage in Huck Finn, where the "King" and the "Duke" were in a jam when they were caught in a lie. Huck noted how the King wouldn't give it up even then, and would tell even bigger lies. In fact, so big that he might have fallen for them himself if he didn't know better.
I have written several times that I try to think in terms of principles. What is the principle here? Stick with the truth. This may require a lot of faith and courage sometimes, because the liars seem to get the better of it a lot. But the only way a liar wins is if you give up. If you keep the faith, you will always win with the truth. This is true because; down at the bottom, human beings are moral creatures. If you can show a liar for what he is, you can beat him like a drum.
I truly believe that is what is happening to the left these days. They have become so attached to the liar's way that it has made them easier to beat. Their lies are losing force because they are becoming so transparent. Even a six year old can see through them. They aren't even good liars anymore!
Great days when that happens. Better days could be ahead.
Not necessarily from the treatments at the center, though. I had lot of gas, so the doc prescribed some gas-x and it works. Thank goodness for that.
Aside from what goes on here, the bigger picture gives reason for confidence. The left has been caught in a lie again, and are hard at work trying to spin their way out of it. Reminds me of the passage in Huck Finn, where the "King" and the "Duke" were in a jam when they were caught in a lie. Huck noted how the King wouldn't give it up even then, and would tell even bigger lies. In fact, so big that he might have fallen for them himself if he didn't know better.
I have written several times that I try to think in terms of principles. What is the principle here? Stick with the truth. This may require a lot of faith and courage sometimes, because the liars seem to get the better of it a lot. But the only way a liar wins is if you give up. If you keep the faith, you will always win with the truth. This is true because; down at the bottom, human beings are moral creatures. If you can show a liar for what he is, you can beat him like a drum.
I truly believe that is what is happening to the left these days. They have become so attached to the liar's way that it has made them easier to beat. Their lies are losing force because they are becoming so transparent. Even a six year old can see through them. They aren't even good liars anymore!
Great days when that happens. Better days could be ahead.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Will Perez's histrionics work?
Once again, it should be pointed out that Trump really did win the election. Now that the DNC chief has refused to apologize, it should be pointed out to him that any reference to the contrary is in fact contrary to what actually happened. Furthermore, given the attempts by the previous administration to derail the incoming administration before it could get established should be regarded with the most dire warning.
This kind of talk must not be countenanced. Neither should the continuing attempt to undermine the new administration.
Trump won the presidency. This must be respected because it is the law. It seems that Democrats have embraced a disrespect for the law because it seems to gain political advantages for them. This must stop, or there will be no law, except the law of the jungle.
Nobody wins when that happens.
This kind of talk must not be countenanced. Neither should the continuing attempt to undermine the new administration.
Trump won the presidency. This must be respected because it is the law. It seems that Democrats have embraced a disrespect for the law because it seems to gain political advantages for them. This must stop, or there will be no law, except the law of the jungle.
Nobody wins when that happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)