Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Koa » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:55 pm UTC

Opposite conclusion? I saw a miss is all, there are going to be many more chances. The main limit is time, time for the public to forget, time for the seeds to grow, time for complacency, time for elections. We're all very quick to forget the nature of fascism, where it comes from and what it looks like. Though it might not even always take a fascist angle, who knows? It took a long time to groom a Trump, maybe three or four decades, though they were still learning the ropes. I see great potential over the next century. I see no defense. If you can explain how it's overblown I'm all ears. I would love to think that.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:25 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:(Trump is indeed complex... And/or predictable, probably feeling the need to distract from the Healthcare thing...)

So Trump is attacking Obama for not doing enough against Russian election hacking in favor of Trump.

You know, I think I agree with Trump on this one.


Unfortunately, that's not what (I think) Trump is going for.

Trump is saying that the hacking was a hoax made up by... somebody. If Trump really cared about it, he wouldn't have reversed Obama's "retribution", which was closing down a few facilities in Maryland / New York

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 5c30b3509b

The Trump administration is moving toward handing back to Russia two diplomatic compounds, near New York City and on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, that its officials were ejected from in late December as punishment for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.


This story is a few months old, but Trump had the information about the election stuff since inauguration at very least.

--------------------

Otherwise, it seems incredibly petty to be blaming the last President for not doing something... when Trump himself seems to not be doing anything about it either.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Trump presidency

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

Koa wrote:It's hazardous to consider that someone who thinks Trump is less complex or intelligent is doing so simply because of political disagreements.


Correction: It's hazardous to believe a human being is less complex than any other human being for pretty much any reason.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:48 am UTC

Thesh wrote:They are also getting rid of coverage for preexisting conditions, so a lot of people will be fucked.
I see this complaint about US health insurance a lot, but I don't understand it. It's health insurance, but people seem to think it's some sort of healthcare discount service or something.

Is there something I'm missing?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:26 am UTC

K-R wrote:
Thesh wrote:They are also getting rid of coverage for preexisting conditions, so a lot of people will be fucked.
I see this complaint about US health insurance a lot, but I don't understand it. It's health insurance, but people seem to think it's some sort of healthcare discount service or something.

Is there something I'm missing?


It actually is, sort of; the insurance companies negotiate the price down, which causes the hospitals to jack up the price so it can be negotiated down "more", resulting in a sticker price that can be 3 times the actual price. But when you walk in without insurance, you get stuck with the sticker price.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:57 pm UTC

K-R wrote:Is there something I'm missing?
It isn't about discounts. It's about coverage. Have a job, get cancer, get treated, go into remission, change jobs, which forces you to change insurance carriers, then have your cancer reoccur. The new carrier can deny any coverage for conditions which existed prior to the date of issuance, at any price. Go broke by being effectively uninsured with regards to the cancer.

Following that line of thought, consider that the carriers might love to look at your genome as a condition for insurance. Then a genetic predisposition towards any disease or disorder could be used to deny coverage as a preexisting condition. Of course insurance companies wouldn't do that, would they?

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:05 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The new carrier can deny any coverage for conditions which existed prior to the date of issuance, at any price. Go broke by being effectively uninsured with regards to the cancer.
That's how insurance is supposed to work. You don't insure against things that have already happened.

Mutex
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:49 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The new carrier can deny any coverage for conditions which existed prior to the date of issuance, at any price. Go broke by being effectively uninsured with regards to the cancer.
That's how insurance is supposed to work. You don't insure against things that have already happened.

Which makes it completely inadequate as a model for providing a functioning healthcare system.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:59 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Which makes it completely inadequate as a model for providing a functioning healthcare system.
And that is the crux of the matter. When one is talking about insurance while the other is talking about a system, they will talk past each other, each knowing (correctly) that they are right.

First decide whether we want a health care system, or we are content to leave it catch as catch can. Each approach has its issues. Health insurance is just one tool, which can be used in either scenario. But it should not be used as a proxy for one of them.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The new carrier can deny any coverage for conditions which existed prior to the date of issuance, at any price. Go broke by being effectively uninsured with regards to the cancer.
That's how insurance is supposed to work. You don't insure against things that have already happened.
There is no natural law about how insurance is supposed to work. It's a contractual agreement between two parties. It can be defined any way the two parties wish, barring any legal obligations imposed by some government entity.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:There is no natural law about how insurance is supposed to work. It's a contractual agreement between two parties. It can be defined any way the two parties wish, barring any legal obligations imposed by some government entity.
No, you can't just call things 'insurance' and have them magically become insurance. That's not how words work.

elasto
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:48 pm UTC

K-R wrote:No, you can't just call things 'insurance' and have them magically become insurance. That's not how words work.

Aside: Actually, that's very much how words work. Words sometimes shift so much that they come to mean the opposite of what they used to:

10 Words That Mean the Opposite of What They Used to Mean

I guess you can argue words shouldn't work like that but that's like King Canute trying to order the waves...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

They missed out "decimate", I see...

Mutex
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
They missed out "decimate", I see...

That doesn't quite mean the opposite now, even though it's changed a fair amount.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:27 pm UTC

K-R wrote:No, you can't just call things 'insurance' and have them magically become insurance. That's not how words work.
Quit thinking that the word itself is anymore than a shorthand for the process I just described. In health insurance a company like Anthem(in the US), cuts deals with employers to provide protection against accident or illness. What they charge reflects the cost of hedging that risk, plus any profits. Their need to negotiate contracts with providers is them trying to quantify how much the risk they are hedging. The Wikipedia has a pretty concise article.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:50 pm UTC

Well, you could argue that "spare 10%" and "kill 10%" are opposites, but then you could argue "spare half" and "kill half" are opposites despite being the same.

Mutex
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Well, you could argue that "spare 10%" and "kill 10%" are opposites, but then you could argue "spare half" and "kill half" are opposites despite being the same.

Wait, decimate used to mean "kill 10%", when did it mean "spare 10%"? The current meaning is basically "kill lots".

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:51 pm UTC

It used to mean "kill 10% as a warning to the rest". Now it means "kill all but 10%". Doesn't have to be exactly 10% remaining, but most people see the "dec-" part and think the etymology comes from there being 1/10th as many people as there were before.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:21 pm UTC

(Roughly) 10% to (effectively) 90% was the primary 'opposite meaning' use I had in mind, but also "keep sufficiently intact to continue to be useful" (the original reasoning) has become "utterly suppress" (probably by mistaking "decimate" for the demihemisemihomophonic "devastate", and even extends towards total destruction). But I'm sure I've mentioned this before. ;)

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:58 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Mutex wrote:Which makes it completely inadequate as a model for providing a functioning healthcare system.
And that is the crux of the matter. When one is talking about insurance while the other is talking about a system, they will talk past each other, each knowing (correctly) that they are right.

First decide whether we want a health care system, or we are content to leave it catch as catch can. Each approach has its issues. Health insurance is just one tool, which can be used in either scenario. But it should not be used as a proxy for one of them.

Jose


Point noted. I'll try to be clearer about which I mean in my future complaints and laments. Thanks.

By the way, belated thanks to LaserGuy for that lovely summary of the WaPo article back on p. 45 of this thread. That took some time, and I appreciate it.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Vash » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:07 am UTC

Trump is slowly going to manipulate the country into an unfettered dictatorship before Republican politicians realize that it's too late. Or conservative voters (and even legislators) will end up going along with it. We are screwed. All liberals, buy guns now.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:09 am UTC

elasto wrote:
K-R wrote:No, you can't just call things 'insurance' and have them magically become insurance. That's not how words work.

Aside: Actually, that's very much how words work.
Yellow arson fridge after slowly horse, fourteen never atom machination.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:58 am UTC

K-R, I can't figure you out if you want to make a semantic point, or a wider political point. You propose a fairly strict scope for the word "insurance". You want to exclude schemes that cannot for test for pre-existing conditions. Do you only object to using the word for schemes that fall outside of your proposed scope, or do you also object to those schemes themselves?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:43 am UTC

He can define it however he wishes, however business's and insurance companies use contracts which describe in some detail exactly what each will pay, and when, and under what conditions. And that is how they define it. A win for contract law.
First decide whether we want a health care system, or we are content to leave it catch as catch can.
I suppose you might say this is pedantic, but catch as catch can is itself a healthcare system, so we have one in any case.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:21 pm UTC

Moving along from the pedantic Trainwreck, the Senate Bill is facing increasing opposition now that Trump has gone back into hibernation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/p ... -bill.html
It's gonna be close, McConnell has almost limitless power to offer amendments that target wavering senators. Eg pay off or give exceptions to Alaska for their vote.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:21 pm UTC

It's not facing opposition. It's a dog and pony show; they will each get a "concession" and tout that what they didn't like was fixed and that the process worked.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:27 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:catch as catch can is itself a healthcare system
...in the same sense that atheism is a religion.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:59 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:It's not facing opposition. It's a dog and pony show; they will each get a "concession" and tout that what they didn't like was fixed and that the process worked.

That's not how the house bill passed. The first time, it didn't work because moderates and conservatives hated it in the GOP. It passed the second time because they went extra conservative and then dared the moderates to kill it. The Senate is slightly different, but it could end up the same way. Get one wing behind you, and dare the other wing to kill the bill (and suffer the flack).

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:54 pm UTC

The GOP, I think, knows that passing this healthcare bill is political suicide. Oddly enough, they also know that not passing this healthcare bill is political suicide, so they're actively trying to push a bill that's *just garbage enough* to not pass both houses of Congress.

We're watching an entire political party trying to play with matches and lighter fluid without burning the house down, which certainly isn't a recipe for disaster, amirite?

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:55 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:K-R, I can't figure you out if you want to make a semantic point, or a wider political point. You propose a fairly strict scope for the word "insurance". You want to exclude schemes that cannot for test for pre-existing conditions. Do you only object to using the word for schemes that fall outside of your proposed scope, or do you also object to those schemes themselves?
One of two things is true.
1. US health insurance is the same thing the rest of the world calls 'insurance', and expecting them to cover pre-existing conditions is utterly moronic.
2. US health insurance isn't actually insurance at all, it's just a thing you arbitrarily give money to and then it arbitrarily gives you less money back later, which means there's no point in it existing.

elasto
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:01 pm UTC

There is a third option of course: That it's kind of like what the rest of the world calls insurance, but has differences too.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:08 pm UTC

K-R wrote:1. US health insurance is the same thing the rest of the world calls 'insurance', and expecting them to cover pre-existing conditions is utterly moronic.
How is that? Remember what insurance is: a system by which many put in money, and few pull out a benefit, but nobody knows who those few will be, which is what encourages the many to put in the money because they might be one of the few. Insurance is based fundamentally on ignorance. Without ignorance, insurance could not exist.

That said, insurance companies want to rid themselves of this ignorance, so that they can choose who gets to join the club. If they succeed a little bit, they make a little bit more money. But it's like aviation: Push the stick, the houses get bigger. Pull on the stick, the houses get smaller. Keep pulling, and the houses will get bigger again.

If the insurance companies know everything there is to know about our health, they will cease to exist as insurance companies and become your alternative #2.

Pre-existing conditions is just one example of ridding themselves of ignorance (or the ability to act on it), but it's a big one, because of the way insurance is tied to employment. Severing that link is problematic because of the bulk discount they get and the pre-tax dollars it's delivered with. HSAs are a step towards this, but yanno, health care is complicated.

Who knew?

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Mutex
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:09 pm UTC

K-R wrote:2. US health insurance isn't actually insurance at all, it's just a thing you arbitrarily give money to and then it arbitrarily gives you less money back later, which means there's no point in it existing.

Wut.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:08 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:The GOP, I think, knows that passing this healthcare bill is political suicide. Oddly enough, they also know that not passing this healthcare bill is political suicide, so they're actively trying to push a bill that's *just garbage enough* to not pass both houses of Congress.

We're watching an entire political party trying to play with matches and lighter fluid without burning the house down, which certainly isn't a recipe for disaster, amirite?

I think McConnell does want to pass this. Even though he has other things that are important, politicians usually do what they promised.

PS KR either misspoke or has never heard of the lottery. I'm guessing misspoke because lots of inefficient things exist that theoretically don't have to.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:34 pm UTC

K-R wrote:One of two things is true.


I'm calling you out on the False Dilemma fallacy. Maybe both are true, maybe neither are true. You just stated two facts in a row and didn't even explain why these two facts are related. But anyway...

1. US health insurance is the same thing the rest of the world calls 'insurance', and expecting them to cover pre-existing conditions is utterly moronic.
2. US health insurance isn't actually insurance at all, it's just a thing you arbitrarily give money to and then it arbitrarily gives you less money back later, which means there's no point in it existing.


For #2: Most insurance schemes you give money to, and then they give less money back.

* Life Insurance only works out in your favor if you die earlier than expected. If you're the typical person to live to life-expectancy (or longer), it would have been far better to invest the money and then pass on a sizable estate rather than pay for life insurance for ~30 years.

* Car insurance only works out in your favor if you crash more often than expected. If you're the typical person who takes care of their car and rarely gets into accidents (a bit of luck here, but it happens), then you pay for all this insurance without taking very much in return.

* Health Care insurance only works out in your favor if you are sicker than expected. If you're an especially healthy person who never even has to go to the doctor, then its far better to just save money

Indeed, from this perspective... the point of insurance is to pool your money together (which costs some inefficiency and overhead: so there's always going to be less money distributed back out). Because large, catastrophic events are hard for the typical person to budget for. Its hard to budget ~$8000+ for the case when you lose your car in a car crash, so its often better to get an insurance company that'd cover that. If you hit a property (or a person), you may be sued for $100,000+ in damages. Having your car-insurance pay for that can save you from bankruptcy.

--------------

For #1: Maybe its moronic to expect insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. But you haven't actually put forth an argument yet. Whether or not to cover preexisting conditions is the entire point of the debate, which you've (tried to) avoid by giving a false dilemma.

I don't think anyone here has really tried to argue in favor of allowing insurance companies to charge more for preexisting conditions. That's an exceptionally conservative stance (only the Freedom caucus seems to take that stance). Even most Republicans seem to want to have some degree of protection for pre-existing conditions. So I'd be interested if you elaborated on your #1 point.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:14 pm UTC

K-R wrote:One of two things is true.
1. US health insurance is the same thing the rest of the world calls 'insurance', and expecting them to cover pre-existing conditions is utterly moronic.
2. US health insurance isn't actually insurance at all, it's just a thing you arbitrarily give money to and then it arbitrarily gives you less money back later, which means there's no point in it existing.
So this is true, why? Could you supply an example of what the rest of the world means by insurance?

But leaving that for a moment, at least part of your description in the second statement is materially false. Some illnesses costs could exceed any premiums paid. Which is why health insurance is so desirable in one form or the other. If you have an understanding of statistics you will understand why it is possible in theory.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:54 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:For #2: Most insurance schemes you give money to, and then they give less money back.
Well, obviously. If an insurance company gave out more money than was put in, it wouldn't be an insurance company for very long.

For #1: Maybe its moronic to expect insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. But you haven't actually put forth an argument yet.
It's insurance. You insure against the risk of something happening. You can't insure against the risk of a pre-existing condition, because it's already happened. That's like getting into a crash and then going to buy car insurance.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:21 pm UTC

K-R wrote:It's insurance. You insure against the risk of something happening. You can't insure against the risk of a pre-existing condition, because it's already happened. That's like getting into a crash and then going to buy car insurance.
No, there are some subtleties involved which are worth paying attention to.

That doesn't really apply; a condition is not itself an expense, it is something that leads to an increased risk of an expense in the future. And the reason this is a big deal is that people have insurance with one company, discover a pre-existing condition, change jobs (voluntarily or not) and thus have to change insurance companies, and the new insurance company sees an increased risk of {expense}. But the increased risk of expense occurred when covered by the first company, but "increased risk of expense" isn't a covered peril.

It's not like getting into a crash and then buying car insurance. It's like falling out of a window, and finding that your policy covers falling, but not hitting the ground.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:33 pm UTC

The problem is that the insurance offers more services than just insurance. It offers negotiating power or a legal team. You could pay your own way with health, but you can't negotiate with the hospital on prices, so even if you knew exactly what you would need you'd still pay more than if you had insurance. That's part of why I think discounts and rebates should be severely restricted; if a hospital charges one person $5000 they shouldn't be able to charge another $15000.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:41 pm UTC

People here are using two different definitions of the term "pre-existing condition", and are consequently talking past each other.

K-R is thinking of "pre-existing condition" like this: you have cancer, you know you have cancer, you are presently in need of treatment for the cancer you have right at this moment. There is no "risk" to pool with other people; there is only the 100% certainty that you definitely need cancer treatment.

Others seem to be thinking of "pre-existing condition" like this: you had cancer once, and statistically that means you're more likely to get cancer again, but it's not a 100% certainty, so the concept of insuring it still makes sense.

What's the legal definition of the term "pre-existing condition" as pertains to health care legislation on the subject?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests