btq96r

Healthcare is one of those things where a free market solution isn't practical. You might be talking about things like selling insurance across state lines, coverage mandates Obamacare brought, but those are minuscule issues on the whole. The government is actually one half of the inequitable way the system is being propped up; the other being younger folks paying premiums above what they consume for commercial coverage. Insuring the elderly, who consume much more medical services than the young, at an affordable price point just doesn't work out. So, the government needs to do it by taxing the population at large. It's one thing for some items like standard primary care physician visits, and small routine procedures that don't take a lot of time or resources to be put onto an open market where competition can be healthy. But larger surgeries, more complicated patient management, and a lot of imaging costs money in time for those performing it, and the equipment used. Medicare sets a lower rate than physicians want, but not one that would necessarily close their doors unless they had profit to chase elsewhere. Hospitals might not be able to be as concierge as they're becoming if we expanded Medicare, but they could still function. Medicare for All isn't going to be pleasant to the system, but take the cries of woe from the medical industry, their lobbyists, and all associated with a jar of salt, because they can still make it work, I think. At that point, we'd probably have to regulate any healthcare provider off of publicly traded markets so that they don't have to worry about shareholder value in the form of rising stock price from market expansion or dividends. They should be investing that money in staff, equipment, or lowering costs instead of pleasing T. Rowe Price, Vanguard, & BlackRock account managers.

Freedom means assumed risks, like those who probably shouldn't be carrying firearms if they choose. I don't see the situation getting better, but I have to be willing to assume that risk if I believe everybody in compliance with our rules as a society has the right to keep and bear arms.

There's a huge difference in what the medical industry charges, and what they collect via contract with commercial payors. It's honestly as messed a practice as anything I've seen when a physician will accept one rate from Medicare, that rate plus say 50% from a commercial payor, and charge an individual the Medicare rate plus say 100% if they are uninsured. The job losses might not be as many as you think. It's more intensive for doctors and hospitals to do billing and collection for private insurance than it is for Medicare; and honestly, plenty of that is outsourced overseas. As to what jobs would be lost at insurance companies if they were removed from the system...Medicare uses private companies in different regions to administrate the claims & payment process, so as Medicare claims rose, they would need to add staffing to meet demand on processing them. Very transferable skills for someone working in a cubical (or remote these days probably) at Blue Cross or Humana to do essentially the same job for a government contracted company.

This has been a good thread. Retirement is something on my mind as well, even though I'm a few years shy of 40, now's the time I should be thinking and planning for it, right? I'd love to retire at 60 if I can be financially independent. Seeing my Dad in his early 70s is letting me know a mental decline could be sooner than I would hope, so getting some good retirement years in for travel and experiences before I have to go low key would be nice. But like others here, medical coverage is where I keep coming back to. It's sad that my seemingly best option would be foreign residency where healthcare is provided or very low cost. If Medicare lowered their age to 60 or even a few years less, I think more people would retire, or reduce their hours to part time where benefits don't kick in. More people retiring or talking less hours would open up positions or time for younger workers, letting them earn more, which should be a good thing to the unemployment rate. More flexibility in lifestyle would be a positive society benefit for sure to those who would want to take more gentle slope to retirement instead of just working full bore until they hit Medicare eligibility. I'd say any savings a company made in insurance costs would find their way to employees or investment in the business...but I know how the world works when profit is found on a balance sheet. We can argue over the ways government would have to pay for it (some indivudial contribution between 60 and 65 isn't a non-starter), but lowering the Medicare age has the potential to be an overall benefit to companies that would be able to reduce their costs of insurance. Say what you want about government run healthcare (ie: the Veterans Health System), but government insurance like Medicare and Medicaid works well enough. It's a fixed rate that has less surprises for patients than commercial insurance, and doesn't put a company with profit motive on the decision line for approving procedures.

A case could be made that the transmission rate within restaurants and bars is a result of the reduced capacity. I agree Metro needs their whatever slapped for trying to close-hold information relevant to the public; they should have just released it after the verification processes and explained the restrictions will stay in place until we feel people in proximity to each other like happens in restaurants and especially bars won't serve as a transmission vector.

I know a few...mostly suburban moms who don't want the risk of having a firearm in the home, and aren't comfortable handling guns. They aren't against guns, just not something they don't see as a need or want. 51.6% sounds about right.

I'm not worried about mass political unrest. We'll see some events, but I'm not thinking it'll be widespread or anything too bad on the whole. Locally, sure, there's chance, but I really don't see a likely threat in my area. I say this as someone who living right next to the Germantown area of Nashville is in place that looks mighty tempting for the kind of things you see on the news. I've got my weapons, ammo, bugout bag, & blowout kit ready come what may. While it's I guess somewhat attached to the political situation, I'm actually more worried about what economic conditions bring about. There are still a lot of people out of work, and desperate people do desperate things.

A PPK has always been on the wish list if I'm ever cash flow flush enough to justify the purchase. Hopefully you leave some for the rest of us, @Grayfox54 That's a beautiful collection, though.

Glad to see it was simple upkeep and not all the posting in General Politics running the hamster off it's wheel.

Good looking kid...surely takes after the mother in that regard. Congrats to you and the growing family!

Yup. By my unofficial sense, almost 3/4ths of people with a mask are wearing them correctly.

Armor is like a gun, some is better than none, but it's not the be all end all tool. I've always been indifferent to it for civilian use (though I surely want it commercially available for anyone who wants it). Bullets just don't bounce off of those things like they would Superman...it's just to protect vital organs from a shot that would kill. If you're going into a situation where you're wearing body armor, you should hopefully have good medical support and expedient transport to a facility that can handle trauma. If you feel the need to protect vital organs, your extremities and lower body (especially if you've got a plate carrier that doesn't go below the naval) are still at risk, and without someone to deal with that trauma right away, along with a care team at an ER equivalent, you can take a turn for the worst fast. Now, for those taking the streets...they're probably thinking about protection from less than lethal rounds, which means some cheap stuff would serve the purpose.

I grieve with thee, Doug. You gave her a good, safe home, and love. Be as proud of that as grateful for the love she gave you in return, for it was earned.

The week before sales start teasers from the book are starting to hit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-act-of-heresy-nras-former-no-2-calls-for-gun-control/ar-BB18FoXo?li=BBnbfcL The National Rifle Association’s former second-in-command is breaking with the group’s orthodoxy and calling for universal background checks and so-called red flag laws in a new book assailing the organization as more focused on money and internal intrigue than the Second Amendment, while thwarting constructive dialogue on gun violence. Look like he's trying to get on the NY AG's good side, maybe hoping to get out of the line of fire as it were. While this book promises to be a lot of insider baseball and stuff we probably already suspected in broad strokes, it will fill in some of the details. This quote from the article stuck out... Much of the book centers on Mr. LaPierre, who Mr. Powell says “couldn’t run an organization on a fiscally sound basis to save his life,” Those are exactly the types who do all they can to work for orgs where other people's money is in abundant supply, and their fiscal prudence isn't part of the annual evalulation.

Fair points, and even in my hypocrisy I agree personal responsibility has fallen by the wayside. But the examples you gave have direct relationships to each other. COVID-19 is an independent variable transmitting. Obesity and hypertension can absolutely lead to heart attacks in a natural progression if left unchecked or after so long- but they can't lead to COVID-19. While I'm sure there are some who died while having COVID-19 with it not exacerbating the underlining condition enough to make a difference, I'm thinking there are a lot more people who would be alive today- even if not for long and/or in bad shape- had COVID-19 never gotten out of the lab or wet market.