Democrats: we like old white guys

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,029
PDX

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,966
I'm a Democrat and I don't care about the race or gender of the candidates. :confused:
Good. Also, you might want to check-in with the party you follow, and see if you still qualify to be a member. The bylaws clearly state that someone's gender and race are of utmost importance now, and there are correct choices to ensure you're on "the right side of history."
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
I’d maybe consider Biden as he’s the most center, assuming he stays center. It’ll either be Biden or no one at all for me (where I live the D candidate will win regardless). While I don't catastrophize Trump's term as some people do, I'm no fan of his. I’d be more than happy to support a minority center candidate capable of beating Trump. But I cannot vote for candidates who support:
1. Abolishing private insurance (ergo private medical practice) and creating socialized medicine (govt funding and management of healthcare, going way beyond universal healthcare)
2. Free college - I'd ideally like to see college be more affordable, not free. A well planned college experience is an investment in one's future.
3. Guaranteed minimum income (considering we already have GMI-like programs in effect that need work)
4. Reparations
5. Voting rights for prisoners - No, they losing a bunch of their rights is part of the punishment of prison. They should get their right to vote back after they're released or complete parole, as it is in almost all states.​
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,067
16,584
The Misty Mountains
Please, you carry more water for (D) than Gunga Din.:p
I was a Republican, and have been an Independent for decades.

I admit, I have changed over the decades, I started in the military, but then I emerged to work on the labor side of the business structure, and witnessed first hand management perspective, which may not be universal with all corporations, but is a prevalent attitude, the expendability of the work force, along with an attitude directed at the work force oh sorry, we just can’t afford that for you, because it means less for us.

I continue to choose the better party and the better candidates. I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr, although I saw their faults and then the degradation of the GOP as a party of honest conservative principles started in earnest the 1980s. I remember when Lorenzo was screwing over Eastern Airlines because he did not have submissive employees, and Bush Sr excused it as just business.

Not helping my view of conservatism, is recognizing a primary motivator, Me>We. At least in the 1960s, Republicans had some heart. Universal health care was a Republican Idea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

But then the GOP went rogue and flushed all their moderates, stopped pretending they were a big tent party, and went into hard core The End Justifies The Means mode, any means, any end, as long as they stayed in power.

Specifically, I blame them for taking the civility out of US politics, character assassination became their normal SOP, along with exaggerating spin into bold faced lyng, fooling the stupid, and now look at them, completely hypocritical, morally and intellectually bankrupt, empowering the absolute worst, mental, immoral, lying conman of a President, in the history of the country after first hating him.

As a counter, I’m expecting: But look at the stock market!

That is not the only metric to judge a President by far. The Stock Market only cares about profit, and it is easily argued it is as morally bankrupt as Corporations whose only metric for success is max profits.

This country was founded on the concept of liberty, opportunity, and level playing fields, the good life for all as a goal. The GOP/ Conservatives appear to be working specifically against that goal when directed at the population as a whole, and reserves liberty for the wealthy, while telling lies to their minions about how we can all be affluent by applying ourselves, just get a job, ha ha.

What about education, affordable education? Medical, affordable health care? A healthy environment? Workplace safety? Decent pay? From the conservative perspective, ALL OF THOSE THINGS stand in the way of max profits for the minority. And oh yes, believe this: Trickle Down is the best, because you get to eat the crumbs that fall off our plates. :rolleyes::oops:

From Bladerunner 2049, this quote seems to apply, if not an exact fit because when push comes to shove, the common corporate management views its work force as expendable, disposable:
Niander Wallace: Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves unless engineered.

Look at the tens (hundreds?) of millions of jobs sent to the third world from Western countries, and then make an argument that a disposable workforce does not exist, and is not required. And compare this to the hate directed at Communism and Socialism.

I admit that we are not as bad a communists when it comes to violating human rights, but that is corruption of that system as it seems to typically exist. But, how would you judge this practise of shipping jobs out for profits in terms of corruption? Not corruption as defined by breaking the rules, but corruption of moral principles, the principles we claim to possess, that make us better?
 
Last edited:

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
896
4,871
Red Springs, NC
I was a Republican, and have been an Independent for decades.

I admit, I have changed over the decades, I started in the military, but then I emerged to work on the labor side of the business structure, and witnessed first hand management perspective, which may not be universal with all corporations, but is a prevalent attitude, the expendability of the work force, along with an attitude directed at the work force oh sorry, we just can’t afford that for you, because it means less for us.

I continue to choose the better party and the better candidates. I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr, although I saw their faults and then the degradation of the GOP as a party of honest conservative principles started in earnest the 1980s. I remember when Lorenzo was screwing over Eastern Airlines because he did not have submissive employees, and Bush Sr excused it as just business.

Not helping my view of conservatism, is recognizing a primary motivator, Me>We. At least in the 1960s, Republicans had some heart. Universal health care was a Republican Idea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

But then the GOP went rogue and flushed all their moderates, stopped pretending they were a big tent party, and went into hard core The End Justifies The Means mode, any means, any end, as long as they stayed in power.

Specifically, I blame them for taking the civility out of US politics, character assassination became their normal SOP, along with exaggerating spin into bold faced lyng, fooling the stupid, and now look at them, completely hypocritical, morally and intellectually bankrupt, empowering the absolute worst, mental, immoral, lying conman of a President, in the history of the country after first hating him.

As a counter, I’m expecting: But look at the stock market!

That is not the only metric to judge a President by far. The Stock Market only cares about profit, and it is easily argued it is as morally bankrupt as Corporations whose only metric for success is max profits.

This country was founded on the concept of liberty, opportunity, and level playing fields, the good life for all as a goal. The GOP/ Conservatives appear to be working specifically against that goal when directed at the population as a whole, and reserve liberty for the wealthy, while telling lies to their minions about how we can all be affluent by applying ourselves, just get a job, ha ha.

What about education, affordable education? Medical, affordable health care? A healthy environment? Workplace safety? Decent pay? From the conservative perspective, ALL OF THOSE THINGS stand in the way of max profits for the minority. And oh yes, believe this: Trickle Down is the best, because you get to eat the crumbs that fall off our plates. :rolleyes::oops:

From Bladerunner 2049, this quote seems to apply, if not an exact fit because when push comes to shove, the common corporate management views its work force as expendable, disposable:
Niander Wallace: Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves unless engineered.

Look at the tens (hundreds?) of millions of jobs sent to the third world from Western countries, and then make an argument that a disposable workforce does not exist, and is not required. And compare this to the hate directed at Communism and Socialism.

I admit that we are not as bad a communists when it comes to violating human rights, but that is corruption of that system as it seems to typically exist. But, how would you judge this practise of shipping jobs out for profits in terms of corruption? Not corruption as defined by breaking the rules, but corruption of moral principles, the principles we claim to possess, that make us better?
I think we all get forced into our camp by wedge issues, I'm registered independent, but I'm forced to hold my nose and vote (R) based on two issues.

Gun control that violates the 2nd, and (D)'s embracing of the failed model of Socialism.

However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for someone that preposes reasonable gun laws that still respect the meaning and point of the 2nd as written. Nor does in mean I'm in love with our version of Capitalism, I support State Capitalism, not socialism.

Let me explain what the difference is to me, Socialism puts the government in control of private enterprise, whereas State Capitalism the government just loans money to individuals and enterprises, without any real means of control, and expects these loans to be paid back with interest that helps offset or eliminate government taxes and deficits.

Capitalims has to evolve with the times, and right now, it's not really working to build the middle class in the US, and seemingly large parts of Europe, but I don't want to go down the false road of failed Socialism.

I also support and prefer Medicare for all, tho I don't view it as socialism, I just view it as necessary.

I could vote (D) if I see an candidate layout reasonable measures on gun control and embrace the fact that both Capitalism and Socialism are from the past, and we need a new spin on them going forward.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,067
16,584
The Misty Mountains
I think we all get forced into our camp by wedge issues, I'm registered independent, but I'm forced to hold my nose and vote (R) based on two issues.

Gun control that violates the 2nd, and (D)'s embracing of the failed model of Socialism.

However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for someone that preposes reasonable gun laws that still respect the meaning and point of the 2nd as written. Nor does in mean I'm in love with our version of Capitalism, I support State Capitalism, not socialism.

Let me explain what the difference is to me, Socialism puts the government in control of private enterprise, whereas State Capitalism the government just loans money to individuals and enterprises, without any real means of control, and expects these loans to be paid back with interest that helps offset or eliminate government taxes and deficits.

Capitalims has to evolve with the times, and right now, it's not really working to build the middle class in the US, and seemingly large parts of Europe, but I don't want to go down the false road of failed Socialism.

I also support and prefer Medicare for all, tho I don't view it as socialism, I just view it as necessary.

I could vote (D) if I see an candidate layout reasonable measures on gun control and embrace the fact that both Capitalism and Socialism are from the past, and we need a new spin on them going forward.
I appreciate this kind of an exchange. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,011
Criminal Mexi Midget
I was a Republican, and have been an Independent for decades.

I admit, I have changed over the decades, I started in the military, but then I emerged to work on the labor side of the business structure, and witnessed first hand management perspective, which may not be universal with all corporations, but is a prevalent attitude, the expendability of the work force, along with an attitude directed at the work force oh sorry, we just can’t afford that for you, because it means less for us.

I continue to choose the better party and the better candidates. I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr, although I saw their faults and then the degradation of the GOP as a party of honest conservative principles started in earnest the 1980s. I remember when Lorenzo was screwing over Eastern Airlines because he did not have submissive employees, and Bush Sr excused it as just business.

Not helping my view of conservatism, is recognizing a primary motivator, Me>We. At least in the 1960s, Republicans had some heart. Universal health care was a Republican Idea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

But then the GOP went rogue and flushed all their moderates, stopped pretending they were a big tent party, and went into hard core The End Justifies The Means mode, any means, any end, as long as they stayed in power.

Specifically, I blame them for taking the civility out of US politics, character assassination became their normal SOP, along with exaggerating spin into bold faced lyng, fooling the stupid, and now look at them, completely hypocritical, morally and intellectually bankrupt, empowering the absolute worst, mental, immoral, lying conman of a President, in the history of the country after first hating him.

As a counter, I’m expecting: But look at the stock market!

That is not the only metric to judge a President by far. The Stock Market only cares about profit, and it is easily argued it is as morally bankrupt as Corporations whose only metric for success is max profits.

This country was founded on the concept of liberty, opportunity, and level playing fields, the good life for all as a goal. The GOP/ Conservatives appear to be working specifically against that goal when directed at the population as a whole, and reserve liberty for the wealthy, while telling lies to their minions about how we can all be affluent by applying ourselves, just get a job, ha ha.

What about education, affordable education? Medical, affordable health care? A healthy environment? Workplace safety? Decent pay? From the conservative perspective, ALL OF THOSE THINGS stand in the way of max profits for the minority. And oh yes, believe this: Trickle Down is the best, because you get to eat the crumbs that fall off our plates. :rolleyes::oops:

From Bladerunner 2049, this quote seems to apply, if not an exact fit because when push comes to shove, the common corporate management views its work force as expendable, disposable:
Niander Wallace: Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves unless engineered.

Look at the tens (hundreds?) of millions of jobs sent to the third world from Western countries, and then make an argument that a disposable workforce does not exist, and is not required. And compare this to the hate directed at Communism and Socialism.

I admit that we are not as bad a communists when it comes to violating human rights, but that is corruption of that system as it seems to typically exist. But, how would you judge this practise of shipping jobs out for profits in terms of corruption? Not corruption as defined by breaking the rules, but corruption of moral principles, the principles we claim to possess, that make us better?
it's ok, still love you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn

CE3

macrumors 65816
Nov 26, 2014
1,399
2,225
Are we supposed to trust the mainstream media’s polls this time around? It’s so obvious they’re going to rig the game for Biden.. who I will never vote for.
 
Last edited:

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
What about education, affordable education? Medical, affordable health care? A healthy environment? Workplace safety? Decent pay? From the conservative perspective, ALL OF THOSE THINGS stand in the way of max profits for the minority. And oh yes, believe this: Trickle Down is the best, because you get to eat the crumbs that fall off our plates.
I think there’s a lot this country needs to work on that neither side looks at seriously. The right just says “no” but then offers nothing in return to resolve the problems. Case and point ACA/Obamacare repeal. The ACA has some issues, but given the opportunity to make any improvements the right for all their complaining over 8 years apparently neglected to come up with a plan of their own other than repeal, which they then realized wasn’t going to be a good idea for them.

On the other hand some the left’s ideas in my mind have often have one or more of the following problems: crippling the economy, aren’t realistic/are idealistic, don’t actually solve the problem at hand, have major unforeseen/ignored consequences, etc. That said they’re well intentioned. The right does this too but as they tend to not endorse major changes.

It’s not even that some of the ideas are outright bad, its that they attempt to simplify a very complex problem in a way that won’t end up solving the problem at hand, such as healthcare. There’s also these one size fits all solution is entirely inappropriate, like some proposals on the environment. Maybe it’s just to water things down for the masses and have a feel good solutions for political gain. Sometimes I legitimately don’t think they are fully wrapping their head around the intricacies.

Bernie Sanders and others wants to “abolish” private insurance, moving to an entirely socialized model, which will undoubtably upend our entire healthcare system and not in a way that will be beneficial for Americans. Long term I think it could very possibly affect the world’s advancement of healthcare.

As for the environment, I support using renewables like solar and wind wherever it makes sense. In the northeast, these can help augment some level of demand energy, but that’s about it... turning NYC into 80%+ renewable by 2030 is likely fantasy... unless they can plaster the city with solar panels and batteries and work through all the associated problems... or buy a tons of carbon credits, which is a often nonsensical. A lot of green energy projects seem to be more about public perception than actual practicality, utility, and environmental impact. Just because a project is “green” doesn’t mean it’s financially or environmentally sound plan or appropriate for the given location, purpose, or time.

Again, I'm not "anti-green energy" or whatever, I just think it needs to be implemented in an intelligent, well considered, cost effective manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfgrad93 and Huntn

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,112
I think there’s a lot this country needs to work on that neither side looks at seriously. The right just says “no” but then offers nothing in return to resolve the problems. Case and point ACA/Obamacare repeal. The ACA has some issues, but given the opportunity to make any improvements the right for all their complaining over 8 years apparently neglected to come up with a plan of their own other than repeal, which they then realized wasn’t going to be a good idea for them.

On the other hand some the left’s ideas in my mind have often have one or more of the following problems: crippling the economy, aren’t realistic/are idealistic, don’t actually solve the problem at hand, have major unforeseen/ignored consequences, etc. That said they’re well intentioned. The right does this too but as they tend to not endorse major changes.

It’s not even that some of the ideas are outright bad, its that they attempt to simplify a very complex problem in a way that won’t end up solving the problem at hand, such as healthcare. There’s also these one size fits all solution is entirely inappropriate, like some proposals on the environment. Maybe it’s just to water things down for the masses and have a feel good solutions for political gain. Sometimes I legitimately don’t think they are fully wrapping their head around the intricacies.

Bernie Sanders and others wants to “abolish” private insurance, moving to an entirely socialized model, which will undoubtably upend our entire healthcare system and not in a way that will be beneficial for Americans. Long term I think it could very possibly affect the world’s advancement of healthcare.

As for the environment, I support using renewables like solar and wind wherever it makes sense. In the northeast, these can help augment some level of demand energy, but that’s about it... turning NYC into 80%+ renewable by 2030 is likely fantasy... unless they can plaster the city with solar panels and batteries and work through all the associated problems... or buy a tons of carbon credits, which is a often nonsensical. A lot of green energy projects seem to be more about public perception than actual practicality, utility, and environmental impact. Just because a project is “green” doesn’t mean it’s financially or environmentally sound plan or appropriate for the given location, purpose, or time.

Again, I'm not "anti-green energy" or whatever, I just think it needs to be implemented in an intelligent, well considered, cost effective manner.
As a health care practitioner yourself, would you prefer a system like the Dutch? Baseline insurance via taxes and private insurers ability to operate and expand on insurance or offer more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nouveau_redneck

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
As a health care practitioner yourself, would you prefer a system like the Dutch? Baseline insurance via taxes and private insurers ability to operate and expand on insurance or offer more?
Well, there’s a lot of wiggle room in such a description, but generally yes, I think that kind of system makes a lot more sense than abolishing private insurance companies and having the government run the show. But it raises questions about things like reimbursement rates, are you mandated to accept government healthcare patients, if so how many, will they try to make changes to the private industry, etc. How much if it all will it draw people away from private insurance?

The government could basically pass the entire cost onto people with private insurance if they wanted (as it already occurs to some extent), making the level of healthcare you’ve come to expect even more expensive. For the record, as of a year or so ago, the average US hospital admission is reimbursed ~$21,000 from private insurance. The same services billed to Medicare is will only receive about $10-11,000 in reimbursement.

If basic universal coverage has even lower reimbursement rates, more patients using it, it means even more patients to be seen per hour and less time being seen in order to stay profitable. The number of PCP’s is finite. To some extent this also feeds the pharmaceutical demand. The patient had to wait 30+ minutes to be seen and then has 6 minutes of face time. They already think if they don’t get a prescription then they didn’t get their money’s worth, let alone if they are seen only for a moment.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,067
16,584
The Misty Mountains
I think there’s a lot this country needs to work on that neither side looks at seriously. The right just says “no” but then offers nothing in return to resolve the problems. Case and point ACA/Obamacare repeal. The ACA has some issues, but given the opportunity to make any improvements the right for all their complaining over 8 years apparently neglected to come up with a plan of their own other than repeal, which they then realized wasn’t going to be a good idea for them.

On the other hand some the left’s ideas in my mind have often have one or more of the following problems: crippling the economy, aren’t realistic/are idealistic, don’t actually solve the problem at hand, have major unforeseen/ignored consequences, etc. That said they’re well intentioned. The right does this too but as they tend to not endorse major changes.

It’s not even that some of the ideas are outright bad, its that they attempt to simplify a very complex problem in a way that won’t end up solving the problem at hand, such as healthcare. There’s also these one size fits all solution is entirely inappropriate, like some proposals on the environment. Maybe it’s just to water things down for the masses and have a feel good solutions for political gain. Sometimes I legitimately don’t think they are fully wrapping their head around the intricacies.

Bernie Sanders and others wants to “abolish” private insurance, moving to an entirely socialized model, which will undoubtably upend our entire healthcare system and not in a way that will be beneficial for Americans. Long term I think it could very possibly affect the world’s advancement of healthcare.

As for the environment, I support using renewables like solar and wind wherever it makes sense. In the northeast, these can help augment some level of demand energy, but that’s about it... turning NYC into 80%+ renewable by 2030 is likely fantasy... unless they can plaster the city with solar panels and batteries and work through all the associated problems... or buy a tons of carbon credits, which is a often nonsensical. A lot of green energy projects seem to be more about public perception than actual practicality, utility, and environmental impact. Just because a project is “green” doesn’t mean it’s financially or environmentally sound plan or appropriate for the given location, purpose, or time.

Again, I'm not "anti-green energy" or whatever, I just think it needs to be implemented in an intelligent, well considered, cost effective manner.
Here is the basic problem, the GOP is the perfect party to represent the wealthy, large multinational corporations, and the Military Industrial Complex, they want to empower the money generators, the war machine, and give them financial breaks.

They are not the party to represent rank and file citizens, their education, healthcare, and quality of life enhancements- they are outright hostile to these ideas, just too expensive, sorry, we have our sights on trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy, and billion dollar weapon systems. Affordable health care, it’s just not realistic. We’re sad about that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Goldberg

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,112
But it raises questions about things like reimbursement rates, are you mandated to accept government healthcare patients, if so how many, will they try to make changes to the private industry, etc. How much if it all will it draw people away from private insurance?
This is proposal. Who said there had to be a mandate? There are dental providers who accept insurance, some just one form of insurance. Then there's providers who take cash only, in whatever form it is that's offered as long as the end product is legal tender.

Why would they make changes to the private industry? This would be a great boon to the private insurance industry as it would alleviate them from high risk patients. Unless said patients could afford to buy that supplemental insurance and to pay their way through because they pose a greater risk than a healthy patient on the private insurer's side.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
This is proposal. Who said there had to be a mandate? There are dental providers who accept insurance, some just one form of insurance. Then there's providers who take cash only, in whatever form it is that's offered as long as the end product is legal tender.

Why would they make changes to the private industry? This would be a great boon to the private insurance industry as it would alleviate them from high risk patients. Unless said patients could afford to buy that supplemental insurance and to pay their way through because they pose a greater risk than a healthy patient on the private insurer's side.
You asked me what I thought of that a mixed national healthcare plan. I was then explaining how it’s difficult to say on board or not when you don’t know what the details of that plan are.

Mr. Sanders idea and several others have been promoting the idea that private insurance and private pay will be abolished. All doctor must accept all patients.

Dental insurance is a very different model. Like Vision insurance, is usually a glorified forced savings account. Regular doctors have insurance networks they are members in, but they will always take cash as it actually makes them the most money.

As for changing the private sector, the government could do all sorts of things like setting private insurance reimbursement rates in the healthcare infrastructure or low ball reimbursement to shift the cost of healthcare onto private insurance and individuals. Or telling them who or what they can and cannot insure, or must insure above and beyond what they the government wants to. Maybe the government wants less spending

I see a lot of problems with the government being the primary insurer and private’s as supplemental. Insurers get in fights relatively frequently. Hopefully the govt will negotiate out these issues, but they could always just make a law if they’re not getting what the way. It seems like a weird dynamic to handle.

For all the complaints about healthcare influence on government, government has a remarkable amount of control over healthcare. Obviously the government should provide health, safety, and quality oversight. But some of the things they’ve weaseled into is absurd, while in other areas you have to wonder why they don’t pay attention to other things.

Anyways, I think the most likely scenario is basically an extension of what we have now. In most cases the government outsourced govt insurance to a 3rd party insurer (or multiple) to deal with a specific area or population. For the Boston area MassHealth usually lets people pick one of the following health plans: Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts Health Plan, Boston Medical Center HealthNet, Partners, Steward, etc- basically an HMO plan affiliated with one of the major hospital networks. The state really does little except pay and but approve/deny membership.

These plans are HMO’s (Health managed organization - they allow little freedom) so you have a very limited network, not only to Mass but within a geographical area (except if you have a medical emergency). If you wanted to see your providers outside of the HMO or wanted maybe lower copays/deductibles (depending on how said insurance works), expanded treatment providers/centers and modalities, etc, then you’d pay for additional service. Or maybe the government insurance would have a donut hole like Medicaid, who knows.

Interest story about insurance. I’ve see a young adult patient a couple times recently who had I believe BC/BS insurance. He said he was trying to get gynecomastia (male breast reduction) surgery covered. I told him I thought that’d be unlikely she to it being purely cosmetic. Yesterday he tells me he got approved. I almost though he was lying or a misheard him until I looked it up and sure enough it’s covered in very specific circumstances (basically has to be present in a young adult post-puberty, a history of associated pain/discomfort, it has to be above a certain size, can’t be caused by drugs or simply being fat).

I’m guessing that’s easily a $5000-6000+ surgery minimum. That’s something the government would never pay for. They go through the work or putting a Prior Authorizion on Finasteride 5mg just to make sure they’re not paying for its cosmetic prophylactic hair loss effects even though either way probably costs them like $3 versus 1hr+ of everyone’s time involved to process the PA. But anyways, if you were a skinny and young* like this guy with fairly large breasts you’d probably would negatively impact your life.

*Not to call you fat and old Zenny ;) <3
 
Last edited:

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,112
You asked me what I thought of that a mixed national healthcare plan. I was then explaining how it’s difficult to say on board or not when you don’t know what the details of that plan are.
Then why bother? I asked you a simple question. You keep going in-depth about what the US currently does and extrapolating it towards a hypothetical.
[doublepost=1556815709][/doublepost]
Dental insurance is a very different model. Like Vision insurance, is usually a glorified forced savings account. Regular doctors have insurance networks they are members in, but they will always take cash as it actually makes them the most money.
You're confusing free market dental insurance with employer offered dental insurance with an FSA.


The majority of Americans won't see a doctor unless an issue has been bothered them for months or years.
 
Last edited:

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
Then why bother? I asked you a simple question. You keep going in-depth about what the US currently does and extrapolating it towards a hypothetical.
Yes, it’s hypothetical as no one knows the future. But you can make inferences as to problems and recognize potential problems. And the point was the problems we have now could easily be made worse.

You're confusing free market dental insurance with employer offered dental insurance with an FSA.
No, I said most people’s dental plans, like many vision plans, are *in effect* a “forced savings account”. What I mean by that is between premiums and copays the possible benefit you receive in return is usually roughly equal to what the plan will pay out. This is unlike health insurance where several days in the hospital can easily exceed your total yearly premiums.

An example of this- a pretty standard offering I see individuals enrolled in is a DHMO dental plan for individuals covers 100% preventative/diagnostic and costs ~$250-325/yr, copays ($10-$1000), possibly a deductible on reconstructive and a max benefit of $1000. The average person’s higher tier offering is usually offered a PPO plan with $2000 max benefit and a price of $350-$450.

If I paid out of pocket to see my dentist for biannual cleaning/exams (he does the cleaning himself, no hygienists) and biennial x-rays, the average cost would be $260/yr. That’s a pretty typical price*.

When you consider the average person’s max benefit of $1000-2000/yr and the fact that only ~3% of people exceed that benefit, you can see that most people are getting out of the plan what they put into it. If you’re paying $300/yr in premiums as receiving $300 worth of benefits, it’s essentially a forced saving account.

(And while that $1000 max benefit/yr sounds low given the cost of dental, it’s even less when you consider copays that are many hundreds of dollars or coinsurance paying as little as 50%.)

Vision insurance is an even better example of this. Basically the cost of the eye exam (usually and allowance for glasses/contacts is essentially equal to what you pay in premiums and copays every year. (And it’s actually usually the health insurance pays for the eye exam)

[I looked on Groupon can literally find dozens of dental exams/cleanings/x-rays for $50 in my area (some <$50). So if you wanted to be really cheap and forgo insurance call that $100/yr]

The majority of Americans won't see a doctor unless an issue has been bothered them for months or years.
I’m not sure what context you’re saying this in, but I’d generally agree- people often wait too long for care (though at the same time there are a lot of hypochondriacs). The ACA increased access to preventative care which in theory should have decreased emergency care, therefore decreasing costs. The actual cost outcome is a very contested issue. In my opinion, with or without preventative care an overwhelming percentage of patients are noncompliant with treatment and that is just as significant if not more so.

A diabetic person might be hospitalized for one or many problems associated with untreated/undiagnosed diabetes because they never saw their doctor. But once they get discharged from the hospital with meds, a treatment plan, and an endocrinologist, education, etc, it’s not surprising to see them back weeks or months later getting their foot amputated because they didn’t maintain treatment.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,112
Yes, it’s hypothetical as no one knows the future. But you can make inferences as to problems and recognize potential problems. And the point was the problems we have now could easily be made worse.



No, I said most people’s dental plans, like many vision plans, are *in effect* a “forced savings account”. What I mean by that is between premiums and copays the possible benefit you receive in return is usually roughly equal to what the plan will pay out. This is unlike health insurance where several days in the hospital can easily exceed your total yearly premiums.

An example of this- a pretty standard offering I see individuals enrolled in is a DHMO dental plan for individuals covers 100% preventative/diagnostic and costs ~$250-325/yr, copays ($10-$1000), possibly a deductible on reconstructive and a max benefit of $1000. The average person’s higher tier offering is usually offered a PPO plan with $2000 max benefit and a price of $350-$450.

If I paid out of pocket to see my dentist for biannual cleaning/exams (he does the cleaning himself, no hygienists) and biennial x-rays, the average cost would be $260/yr. That’s a pretty typical price*.

When you consider the average person’s max benefit of $1000-2000/yr and the fact that only ~3% of people exceed that benefit, you can see that most people are getting out of the plan what they put into it. If you’re paying $300/yr in premiums as receiving $300 worth of benefits, it’s essentially a forced saving account.

(And while that $1000 max benefit/yr sounds low given the cost of dental, it’s even less when you consider copays that are many hundreds of dollars or coinsurance paying as little as 50%.)

Vision insurance is an even better example of this. Basically the cost of the eye exam (usually and allowance for glasses/contacts is essentially equal to what you pay in premiums and copays every year. (And it’s actually usually the health insurance pays for the eye exam)

[I looked on Groupon can literally find dozens of dental exams/cleanings/x-rays for $50 in my area (some <$50). So if you wanted to be really cheap and forgo insurance call that $100/yr]


I’m not sure what context you’re saying this in, but I’d generally agree- people often wait too long for care (though at the same time there are a lot of hypochondriacs). The ACA increased access to preventative care which in theory should have decreased emergency care, therefore decreasing costs. The actual cost outcome is a very contested issue. In my opinion, with or without preventative care an overwhelming percentage of patients are noncompliant with treatment and that is just as significant if not more so.

A diabetic person might be hospitalized for one or many problems associated with untreated/undiagnosed diabetes because they never saw their doctor. But once they get discharged from the hospital with meds, a treatment plan, and an endocrinologist, education, etc, it’s not surprising to see them back weeks or months later getting their foot amputated because they didn’t maintain treatment.

A savings plan is an FSA. That's it.


You're also still confusing plans. An insurance carrier may have on offer up to 100 different plans. When setting up the dental carrier for our employees, we sat down with reps from a few insurance companies. One company we declined to go forth with offered roughly 40 different PPO plans and nearly 100 DHMO plans to pick and choose from.

From there on our we could modify the plan to our liking and extend PPO benefits caps to whatever we wanted as long as there was an attached slush fund account that didn't need insurance approval and capped at say $20,000 a year per employees, not including their co-recipients like a spouse or child(ren).

Your post does make sense, but you're saying that the "forced savings" somehow covers all procedures. It might if it's a crappy plan. The plan we have outlined for our employees is different. An employee of ours could get $15,000 worth of root canals and crowns and still be out $370 a year. And that's all they pay. Your post makes more sense for off-the-shelf plans anyone could get. Or a true FSA.


A good employers gives up some of this. There is a benefit all around. That and I hate janky teeth. You're right about the DHMO/HMO plans. Thankfully this is LA and there's a lot of great physicians and dentists who compete to get patients.

Your concerns are most valid in the middle of nowhere or where competition is relaxed. I personally have two dentists who share my file if need be. One is a regular dentist. The second is my cosmetic dentist who is very skilled and in with famous people. I just go to him because he's the best in a 300 mile radius.

He's a little more expensive, but it's his expertise and raw skill that put himself above the rest.
[doublepost=1556843259][/doublepost]
[I looked on Groupon can literally find dozens of dental exams/cleanings/x-rays for $50 in my area (some <$50). So if you wanted to be really cheap and forgo insurance call that $100/yr]
This is like off the shelf insurance and it's rarely good.
[doublepost=1556843556][/doublepost]
an overwhelming percentage of patients are noncompliant with treatment and that is just as significant if not more so.

A diabetic person might be hospitalized for one or many problems associated with untreated/undiagnosed diabetes because they never saw their doctor. But once they get discharged from the hospital with meds, a treatment plan, and an endocrinologist, education, etc, it’s not surprising to see them back weeks or months later getting their foot amputated because they didn’t maintain treatment.
Yep. Pretty much my point.


"But that Instafaceandfoodphotos post said I could get rid of my herpes and diabetes with this one trick!"
 
Last edited:

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,842
I think there’s a lot this country needs to work on that neither side looks at seriously. The right just says “no” but then offers nothing in return to resolve the problems. Case and point ACA/Obamacare repeal. The ACA has some issues, but given the opportunity to make any improvements the right for all their complaining over 8 years apparently neglected to come up with a plan of their own other than repeal, which they then realized wasn’t going to be a good idea for them.
But in some fairness, there were a couple of bi-partisan proposals to fix small things and Obama either vetoed them or threatened to veto them. Maybe had small bi-partisan fixes been allowed, the sides could have worked together on larger fixes. But Obama was unwilling to allow ANY changes.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,326
7,652
Boston
Editing... oops
[doublepost=1556848261][/doublepost]
A savings plan is an FSA. That's it.


You're also still confusing plans. An insurance carrier may have on offer up to 100 different plans. When setting up the dental carrier for our employees, we sat down with reps from a few insurance companies. One company we declined to go forth with offered roughly 40 different PPO plans and nearly 100 DHMO plans to pick and choose from.

From there on our we could modify the plan to our liking and extend PPO benefits caps to whatever we wanted as long as there was an attached slush fund account that didn't need insurance approval and capped at say $20,000 a year per employees, not including their co-recipients like a spouse or child(ren).

Your post does make sense, but you're saying that the "forced savings" somehow covers all procedures. It might if it's a crappy plan. The plan we have outlined for our employees is different. An employee of ours could get $15,000 worth of root canals and crowns and still be out $370 a year. And that's all they pay. Your post makes more sense for off-the-shelf plans anyone could get. Or a true FSA.

A good employers gives up some of this. There is a benefit all around. That and I hate janky teeth. You're right about the DHMO/HMO plans. Thankfully this is LA and there's a lot of great physicians and dentists who compete to get patients.

Your concerns are most valid in the middle of nowhere or where competition is relaxed. I personally have two dentists who share my file if need be. One is a regular dentist. The second is my cosmetic dentist who is very skilled and in with famous people. I just go to him because he's the best in a 300 mile radius.

He's a little more expensive, but it's his expertise and raw skill that put himself above the rest.
[doublepost=1556843259][/doublepost]
This is like off the shelf insurance and it's rarely good.
[doublepost=1556843556][/doublepost]
Yep. Pretty much my point.


"But that Instafaceandfoodphotos post said I could get rid of my herpes and diabetes with this one trick!"
Haha, no silly. An FSA is a “flexible spending account” and I’m sure I don’t have to define what that is further as you know what it is.

The dental insurance I have described is not a savings account and certainly not flexible. I call it *in effect* a “forced savings account” because the majority of people never get more value out of the insurance (or much more) than the premiums they pay into it and it “forces” people to put the money aside. For example, the average person might pay $300 in premiums in and get an average of $300 of services out. Health insurance on the other hand you’re either well below or well above the yearly premiums you pay in.

I suspect the people who do utilize more then the premium they contribute are for the most part offset by the people who fail to have their teeth cleaned 2x a year despite paying in.

My point regarding was the out of benefit max “covering all procedures” (your words) was exactly the opposite. I think you’re interpreting my “forced savings account” comment too literally and in the context as a flexible spending account.

Some insurances may have 140 different dental plans, I’ve never seen that personally. Most of the major insurers have probably 4-6 different packages. Regardless, they’re all very similar along those lines for the majority of people. It’s largely DHMO vs DPPO, Copay vs Coinsurance, a negligible deductible (ie $50-100) or not, and max benefits generally 1000-2000. Some higher end plans might have will have more benefits at more expense, orthodontics coverage being a less common feature. Having reviewed more health plans (incl dental and vision) than I’d ever want to think about I would almost guarantee you the majority of working adult Americans are offered a deal that looks like that the aforementioned, either through their employer or obtained privately.

Considering how insurance works, you presumably could pay for $1m in coverage with $0 OOP if you paid the right amount of money. I can tell you having an employer pay $15,000 for restorative work is I not the norm in the slightest. I’ve been talking about the overwhelming number of people, no outliers. My sister an Oral Surgeon in one of the most affluent areas in CO. Some of her surgeries cost upwards of $40,000. The majority of patients end up footing all but a fraction unless their health insurance happens to cover the problem (ie jaw tumor removal).

All of this naturally leads to my conversation that for most people dental insurance is a waste of money, but that’s another conversation.

I don’t follow your statements about “the middle of nowhere” and a lack of competition.

Re #Instafaceandfoodphotos: The Internet is one of the best, and one of the worst inventions to impact healthcare. I’m all for patients taking an active role in their healthcare, but the number of patients saying “But I saw on Facebook that...” or who imply “my Google medical degree taught me everything there’s to know” gets worse and worse all the time.

Here, I even looked it up for you:
From the mouth of the National Assoc of Dental Plans (sounds like a thrilling organization)
https://www.nadp.org/Dental_Benefits_Basics/Dental_BB_2.aspx
- Basically 50/50 split on HMO and PPO, not surprising consider employers usually offer one of each
- Avg Max Benefit: $1500, not surprising since most plans offer $1000-2000
- Avg Deductible $50-100
- 2-6% exceed max benefit
 
Last edited: