8 ms·
Well tens of millions of "stupid hicks" are about to lose their health insurance. How is that for a "good fact"? Sorry for being smug.
by codeonfire 10y ago
Well tens of millions of "stupid hicks" are about to lose their health insurance. How is that for a "good fact"? Sorry for being smug.
- zardo 10y agoI guess we'll see. We were all promised something tremendously better. Maybe he actually had an awesome plan this whole time and just didn't want to give it away. Edit: No seriously.
- taurath 10y agoThat they can't really afford in the first place. Bill Clinton himself has said if you're over the poverty line its the "craziest thing in the world".
- gozur88 10y agoAre these the same people who've seen their rates go up 85% in two years? Bloody ingrates!
- M_Grey 10y agoWell good news! Now you won't have it at all. Wait until you try medical bankruptcy on for size.
- andars 10y agoI will assume that gozur88 has some source on the 85% increase. If that isn't true, ignore this. A prerequisite for an 85% increase is some payment beforehand. If they had no health insurance, they wouldn't have been paying for health insurance, and therefore their rates could not increase.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bobwaycott 10y agoMy guess is an increase compared to the first-year prices under the ACA. Nobody who talks about the premium increases does so from the perspective that those who are impacted by the increases started at zero. I've seen mine nearly double each enrollment period.
- gozur88 10y agoSure, because anyone can afford $2500/month. It's practically free.
- M_Grey 10y agoJust wait until you have to pony up $3000 for one MRI.
- slowmotiony 10y agoThat... sounds like a better deal to me?
- gozur88 10y agoThat's what I was thinking. As long as I don't get more than six MRIs a year I come out ahead.
- gcp 10y agoThe problem with this reasoning (and by extension, any system where there's a possibility to opt out of healthcare) is that if you have a serious ailment that you can't afford to treat, we have to let you die. But I believe even in the USA you will get (emergency) treatment and the bills racked up, right?
- gozur88 10y agoYeah, that's true. The problem now is health care plans are so expensive the right thing to do from a green-eyeshades perspective is to pay the fine for not having a plan and go to the ER if you have a problem.
- kofejnik 10y agoThe problem with insurance is that literally everyone will have a serious ailment one day. Very few people die instantly, huge majority of deaths are from cancer and cardiovascular
- b1daly 10y agoThis line of argument would be more persuasive if any of the Republicans, Trump or otherwise, had proposed an alternative that amounts to more than letting people fend for themselves
- totalZero 10y agoFending for yourself is part of the American spirit. Pioneers, astronauts, immigrants, self-made businessmen, and even the founding fathers started from square one, survived great hardship and tough losses, and rose above it all. Lots of people get by just fine without health insurance. Not to mention that (A) employees in the US often have employer-provided health insurance; (B) many who live in the middle of nowhere are covered under medicare, medicaid, veteran's benefits, children's programs, and state programs; and (C) people who really depend on health insurance, ie those with big families or no savings, can still go out and buy it from a private company. It's not like people are sitting on the side of the highway in Appalachia, dying of appendicitis and the flu.
- madaxe_again 10y agoWalls of flames here today. Suggest we flag political stories - HN is not the place. And that's coming from me.
- douche 10y agoIt's going to take a few days for people to calm down and blow off the steam from the fervor pitch they've been worked up to. Then we can get back to talking about functional programming and startups and shit.
- andars 10y agoPerhaps flag comments. But I think that it is essential to have political stories be visible today, so that we can try to understand why the election results are what they are. I posted this particular story because I have seen what it criticizes on HN more than anywhere else. Perhaps the article is wrong, but I thought an external opinion would be useful. Perhaps HN is not the place for political discussion. But it has been in the past, and will be in the future, so I think that this article is excellent to contemplate.
- ersii 10y agoI would say that this was the perfect piece to be published on that exact day. I do fear that the tone of the article is too smug, even for "smug liberals" and that it might have been passed by plenty of people - especially the usual Vox readers. I don't think it makes the article justice by trying to simply place it as "right" or "wrong". I'd be content to just point out that I think it covers a lot of history, divides and for lack of a better word, emotions or perspectives. I'm not liberal, but I too constantly need to fight the need to be smug towards others and their choices. Thank you for posting it. It was a worth the time to read.
- madaxe_again 10y agoSays the unbelievably smug guy.
- venomsnake 10y ago
- codeonfire 10y agoTrump and the GOP could absolutely repeal Obamacare — and 22 million people would lose health insurance http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/trump-and-the-gop-could-absolutely-repeal-obamacare-—-and-22-million-people-would-lose-health-insurance/ar-AAk4BS1 http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/trump-and-the-gop-...
- jessaustin 10y agoWhy not just put them on Medicare?
- norea-armozel 10y agoThey won't. That's the logical option and should've been the first one picked too. But the Republicans oppose that because "single payer is socialism and socialism is eevvvviilll." Come on this nonsense has to stop. Just accept that single payer will solve a problem the markets refuse to solve.
- bobwaycott 10y agoWhich part of the GOP now in control of the federal and most state governments wants to do that?
- hueving 10y agoThey effectively lost it with the implementation of Obamacare. The premiums and deductibles are so high that the plans only really protect against catastrophic loss for an obscene monthly cost.
- MaysonL 10y agoThe rate of increase of health care costs has been significantly lower since Obamacare passed than it was before.
- reefoctopus 10y agoI do not believe this is true. Please cite your sources.
- MaysonL 10y agoMedical Care - Bureau of Labor Statistics Data[0]: default is 10 year view, but changing it to 2000-2016, and adding yearly data, see [1] [0]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SAM?output_view=pct_12mths http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SAM?output_view=pct_1... [1]http://imgur.com/a/lUR7o http://imgur.com/a/lUR7o
- hueving 10y agoCost of care has always been super high. What has changed is how much of that people have to pay because of health insurance going to shit.
- hueving 10y ago60% YoY premium increase for the last 2 years on my parents' plan with a $13k deductible. Highest increases they have ever had. It's an anecdote, but it's certainly antithetical to what you said.
- k__ 10y ago> the plans only really protect against catastrophic loss Isn't that the idea of insurance?