Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3855
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Chad » Wed May 17, 2017 6:45 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 8:16 pm
I am 7.5 years older than my wife. Actuarial tables make it very clear that odds of me out living her are very slim. When those late life decisions need to be made, those years left in her life will be a much higher priority than any additional months in mine. I have done this math, and most folks I know have at least thought about it.

So the idea that
A new cancer diagnosis that needs urgent, rather than emergent care has an extreme psychological impact on the seeker of services. Much more so than needing car repairs or a lawyer. Unlike car repair or a lawyer (or anything else I can think of), people are willing to pay ANY amount to regain health and avoid death. If there is any reasonable chance for recovery, it's logical to do so.

seems... soft. Sorry, I just can't think of a better term. I don't mean to be insulting. This just seems an unreasonable and selfish position to start from. And I'm pretty comfortable with being called selfish and unreasonable, but I can't wrap my head around this expectation.

Maybe this is where medicine is now, and I'm the one out of touch, but I can tell you I'm not the only one.
The psychological impact is very real. My mother was one of the most rational and common sense people I have ever known. She was not rational and common sense about her brain cancer treatment towards the end. She wanted a third brain surgery to have the cancer cut out, which is basically unprecedented with this type of disease. These are 7-9 hour operations that require a massive amount of resources. The first two had already cost her 60% or so of her ability to speak, read, think, and move. She was never someone that enjoyed sitting and watching TV, but it was basically all she could do after two surgeries. A third would have made her life worse and only barely slowed down the disease, and was not something she would have thought was a good idea if she were seeing this as a story on the nightly news. However, it wasn't a story anymore, it was happening to her. We talked her out of it, which was about the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. Having your mother tell you, "You want me to die" is extremely psychologically challenging. I only included that note to demonstrate how psychologically straining this ordeal can be and I don't see how it can be mitigated by the family, friends, etc. making the decisions.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Wed May 17, 2017 8:18 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 6:33 am
I wrote:
This is why I think it might not be a very good idea for a middle-aged female with low diabetes/heart disease risk to adopt an anti-estrogenic diet.

IlliniDave said: Since the leading cause of death in US women is heart disease, and I'd guess a good share of those deaths occur before age 80, maybe it's not so bad focusing attention in such a way as to potentially have more women live into their 80s to begin with? I lost an aunt this weekend, perhaps ironically just 5 days after she fell and broke her femur a few inches from her hip. She probably fell from a combination of heavy duty pain medication and oxygen deficit due to lung cancer. She was too weak to seek any sort of treatment for the cancer after a ~10 year battle with heart disease. I don't think a focus on heart disease and it's precursors is a conspiracy against women.


Actually, the portion of what you wrote that I was responding to was:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 5:35 am
IMO, our society focuses too much on what is likely to kill men in their 60s, and not enough on what is likely to disable women in their 80s.
Not sure what you were getting at with your response. My aunt's body type was pretty much the type you seem to idealize, voluptuous and somewhat increasingly pear shaped with age. Whether more protein, rigorous and strength-related exercise, and maintaining a lower relative body weight would have mattered is conjecture at this point. Dying in your 70s does reduce your chances of breaking a hip and becoming disabled in you 80s (true irrespective of gender too).

I dunno how different heart disease is between male and female, but I would guess attention and research funding for female-specific and gender-neutral is much more than male-specific. As a culture, we pay relatively little attention to men dying when it comes to what we elevate as "causes" to support in the medical realm.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed May 17, 2017 11:42 am

@IlliniDave: It's very difficult to ascertain the statistics of death due to hip fracture because the complication, such as pneumonia due to loss of ability to leave bed, might be the immediate cause of death. The primary cause of hip fracture, which happens to females much more frequently than men, is osteoporosis, the primary cause of osteoporosis is estrogen deficiency in women and testosterone deficiency in men.
Younger women who stop menstruating -- such as thin athletes or girls with anorexia -- also have compromised bone density, says the U.S. Surgeon General's latest report, "Bone Health and Osteoporosis."
The author of the "Warrior Diet" also wrote "The Anti-Estrogen Diet." The aesthetic ideal for fitness is somebody who can pull themselves up on to a roof. That is hard to do if you are bottom-heavy, yet butt-fat is the primary store of estrogen after menopause. I do not even vaguely approach the ideal myself, but I would argue that the model for feminine health/fitness should be somebody like Iskra Lawrence, who carries a lot of fat, but also a high proportion of muscle on her lower body, with a relatively very low ratio of central body obesity. OTOH, women who naturally tend towards apple shape or large breasts/no ass (hallmark of low estrogen) will have to maintain much lower BMI in order to avoid diabetic syndrome, just like men. IOW, I think there should be a whole new category of sports/fitness which will recognize lower, rather than upper body, strength and endurance. And, I am not going to pay insurance rates based on BMI rather than WHR without registering significant protest. I feel sorry for all you skinny-shanks out there, but not sorry enough to lob some pity money your way ;)

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Wed May 17, 2017 12:42 pm

@7Wannabe5. Ah, okay, I get it, per usual we are essentially talking past each other, almost certainly because I am completely not up to the task of following your trains of thought (because I tend to stay anchored on a topic--in this case, is heart disease worthy of continued attention as a heath issue in humans or should it be replaced by concern over skeletal fragility of elderly women). I think topics are rather more fluid for you (or I'm very dense and unable to see the relevant connections). :)

Crossfit weighs lower/upper body strength equally (but lower bodies are much stronger so there's imbalance in that sense). Olympic weightlifting is much more about lower body strength than upper body strength. I'm sure there are others.

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3855
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by Chad » Wed May 17, 2017 2:05 pm

IlliniDave wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 12:42 pm
Crossfit weighs lower/upper body strength equally (but lower bodies are much stronger so there's imbalance in that sense). Olympic weightlifting is much more about lower body strength than upper body strength. I'm sure there are others.
Crossfit uses Olympic lifts extensively. They are major components of the events during the Crossfit games too.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed May 17, 2017 2:59 pm

@IlliniDave: Of course heart disease is worthy of continued attention vs. skeletal fragility for the population in general. However, if you are an individual with known low risk factors for heart disease then you might want to throw greater consideration to your risk factors for skeletal fragility. Most of the heart disease risk associated with BMI is due to the mechanism by which central body obesity is linked to hypertension, blood lipids, and glucose processing. There is some remaining risk after correcting for presence/absence of these factors, but it is less than, for instance, the risk of eating a diet low in fruits and vegetables. A 22 year old man's baseline blood pressure is a better predictor of likelihood of death from CVD than the BMI of a 50 year old female. All of the remaining risk for heart disease due to BMI, after correction for known related factors, can be better predicted with waistline measure. The most conservative practice, even for somebody with no other known risk factors, would be to maintain a waist-measure of less than 31.5 if female, and less than 37 if male. There is no known health benefit to reducing your BMI beyond the level necessary to achieve this waist-measure, if you have no other confounding factors.

I am not as curvy as Iskra, so my waist-measure hits this level (magically!) right around the point where my BMI is at the top of healthy range (167 lbs. approximately.) If I was not old and lazy, and exerted myself to train as much as Iskra, I could probably achieve perfectly (not just reasonably) healthy statistics at a BMI that was classified as overweight. Ergo, I am irked by suggestions for unscientific K.I.S.S. basis for insurance rate assessment which is really nothing but a cookie-eater "vice" tax. I have never heard anybody suggest that insurance risk pools should be segregated by baseline blood pressure readings taken at age 22.

I am rather curious. Are the Crossfit upper/lower body differentials gender differentiated? I am apparently too lazy to actually attempt, but I was rather fascinated by Brett Contreras' take on great capacity for increasing female lower body strength.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Wed May 17, 2017 4:06 pm

Okay, so I got confused when you said "society" focuses too much... rather than "people with certain risk factors"

I don't know if the ratio of lower body loads to upper body loads vary between men and women in the programming philosophy (when they can be isolated). Much of the lifting (e.g., the Olympic lifts and variants) requires you to recruit power from your lower body even when the goal is to get a weight overhead, so the weight is just the weight. I would guess if you had something where a workout rotated between squats and bench press (both being mainly about generating force in one half of the body) the ratios might be different, truth is I never paid attention. One thing to note is many, maybe most, people doing Crossfit scale workouts individually, so even if the "prescribed" workout had too much upper body load for a given athlete, they could adjust it to fit their present physiology (there relative conditioning as well as their size -- A woman who is 5'2", 110# probably won't use the same weight as a woman who is 5'9" and 160# in most workouts).

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed May 17, 2017 5:23 pm

Right, the clean and jerk does not have enough differential between upper and lower body strength to be ideal for hip fracture prevention. Also, I don't like the appearance of the females who excel at Olympic lifting compared to the females in Taschen's "Big Butt Book." Of course, I would like to have my cake, eat it too, and not even have to pay for it in the first place, if possible.

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by black_son_of_gray » Wed May 17, 2017 8:19 pm

The clean and jerk uses a fair amount of "upper body" - if by that you mean 'above the waist'. Deep core muscles and the whole back are definitely involved. Once the weight moves past the thighs on the way up, the lifter actually pulls themselves with their upper body under the bar. Similarly, after liftoff from the dip of the jerk, the lifter is essentially pressing themselves under the bar, followed by lots of upper back and shoulders during the recovery to standing position. This upper body work is less apparent in novice lifters who lift less than their body weight, but makes a lot of sense the heavier the bar gets - if the bar weighs more than you, it is easier to push/pull yourself relative to the bar than vice versa. </rant>

Olympic lifts are great for developing a sense of balance, posture/body positioning, and core stability - all things that should help prevent falls in the first place.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Wed May 17, 2017 8:51 pm

If you do them right (cleans, jerks, or snatches) you're never pushing weight up with your arms, just holding it with arms locked. Find a video and watch how they do it--they use their legs and hips mostly (shoulders shrug a little on a clean or snatch) to get the bar moving up then while it's ascending they lower their body under the bar (rather than shoving the weight overhead with their arms). So from a physics perspective, virtually all the work is done by the legs and hips, very little by the arms and shoulders. Seems like a decent proxy for independently working out lower body with more weight and upper body w/less.

That seems odd that a weak upper body with a powerful lower body is better than a strong upper body and a powerful lower body. for bone density. If a certain "not athletic" appearance is desired, maybe Oly lifts are bad. They're only good if you want to maintain strength, flexibility, and bone density in your hips, legs, and core, and you'll wind up lloking like what you need to look like to achieve those things. I also wouldn't judge Olympic lifting by the appearance the girls who compete in the Olympics, unless you'd be apt make it a full time occupation. Learning the motions with light or moderate loads won't reshape ones body very much. But I understand it's not an endeavor for everyone. And I'm veering off topic which is not polite to everyone that wants to talk about legislated healthcare!

ETA: BSOG is right, when you progress up to serious weights, body weight or higher, any imperfection in form is magnified, and at the edge of your abilities it is difficult to stabalize and get up out of the squat (or split). I was speaking more to the "Crossfit-style" approach to Oly lifts where typically much lighter loads are used on the bar and more reps take the place of single lifts slinging max weights (Crossfit does do that occasionally, but not too often). Although it is amazing how easy a really big weight can fly overhead on those rare occasions everything is perfect in your form.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed May 17, 2017 9:07 pm

@black-son-of-gray: Yeah, but you never know when you are going to hit a puddle of water your sister's dogs spilled in the middle of the night or a slick of ice on the sidewalk when you have a cup of coffee in your hand. Then you find yourself very happy to have something like unto springy mattress attached to your tailbone. At the weight I can lift above my head safely, the clean and jerk seems like almost zero exercise for my lower body. I can not imagine why I would want to be able to lift my body weight over my head, although I have been rather awestruck on the occasions when others have lifted my body weight over their heads.

@IlliniDave: Maybe I haven't done them right when attempted, but the arm part is much more difficult for me. I have never broken a bone, so I'm not super worried about bone density yet either. However, I do intend to continue to eat as much full fat yogurt and sweet potatoes as I desire. I spent almost nothing on either health insurance or health care in the last year, so I really shouldn't complain. However, everybody I know is appalled that I didn't seek treatment for my facial paralysis, so I am obviously an outlier of some sort.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by classical_Liberal » Wed May 17, 2017 9:33 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 7:53 pm
As an example, let me tell you about my grandma's death. Sensitive readers should skip to the next post...
I will tread lightly because end of life decisions and personal loses are very emotional, per the story @Chad told regarding his mother. If any personal slight regarding such a personal situation is felt, it is not intentional. I would note it is precisely this sensitivity which makes decisions regarding health care inherently different than other economic decisions.

I was not privy to your grandmothers personal health condition nor the conversation you had with that particular doctor. Given the information I have, in general, I would say that the decision to not perform hemo-dialysis for an end stage renal disease patient who is 91 and has other co-morbidities was likely the best, most humane, and most loving decision which could be made in such circumstances. IOW, when people say " I want die in my sleep" vs a drawn out painful death, this is exactly what they mean.

In a purely hypothetical situation, in which the decision was made to continue what is essentially futile interventions, against physician advice, the family or patient would have the right to do so. Even on Medicaid the patient would receive the care they decided upon. This does happen. Generally, in time, family (or the patient if they are still competent to make decisions) will often reverse course once reality sets in. Simply because modern medicine can keep someone alive, it does not mean they are "living".

In extreme and very rare cases, when medical professionals like doctors or nurses believe the patients best interests are no longer being served, an ethics committee report is filed. Enter in the "death panel" of doctors and ethicists who will review the medical situation in detail, along with the wishes of the patient (if known), the family and the practitioners involved in care. A determination is made if additional legal intervention is required. I do not know the details of what happens after the review process has begun as I have, very luckily, never been involved in such a situation. I have known other nurses who have been involved in this process and they have described it as the most difficult professional and personal situations of their entire lives.

I take the stories of @riggerjack and @chad very seriously and applaud them. These are the types of things that need to be discussed in our society.

On a pure side note, ESRD dialysis patients today are always fast tracked to medicaid, the cost is so prohibitive, essentially only the government can afford to pay for those interventions. For all intents and purposes all dialysis patients are on Medicaid.
Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 8:16 pm
seems... soft. Sorry, I just can't think of a better term. I don't mean to be insulting. This just seems an unreasonable and selfish position to start from.
I became a nurse in an attempt to "soften up" a bit, so I take it as a compliment

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE » Wed May 17, 2017 9:54 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 9:07 pm
At the weight I can lift above my head safely, the clean and jerk seems like almost zero exercise for my lower body. I can not imagine why I would want to be able to lift my body weight over my head, although I have been rather awestruck on the occasions when others have lifted my body weight over their heads.
brute cleans & jerks much more weight than he can "lift overhead", if lifting overhead is defined as a slow, upper-body-only pressing movement (press, strict press, military press). that's the nature of the lift - using the lower body and technique, it allows much higher loads to be lifted overhead.

as an example, brute can jerk about 200lbs overhead. brute can not press 200lbs overhead. not even close.

but if the goal is simply improving lower body strength in elderly human females from non-existent to good enough, the clean & jerk is probably not necessary. bodyweight squats and lunges are easier, safer, don't require equipment, and probably provide enough stimulus. even after that, regular back squats are a more foundational movement.

the main benefit of the olympic lifts (c&j, snatch) over the slower powerlifting moves (squatz, deadz) isn't in strength per se, but in power and explosiveness. brute also finds the c&j the most functional of all the moves he's ever performed in a gym - it allows him to lift regular day to day items to hip and overhead level easily, with safe technique.

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by black_son_of_gray » Wed May 17, 2017 10:40 pm

@7w5: I see your point - no exercise can prepare you for everything. I must say, though, about the springy mattress - when I was doing lots of squats, my backside got to the point where buying pants that fit was a nontrivial problem. About as good fall protection as I think I'll ever have.

It's not always the exercise itself that directly matters- often the myriad fringe benefits end up being more useful in unexpected situations. E.g. having a generous "cushioning", being limber, developing quicker or more accurate reflexes, balance. Basically, if you expand your operating range through training, the more likely any given curve-ball life throws at you will stay within that range. For most people, that will mean focusing on the things you are worse at rather than developing any given physical trait to excellence.

halfmoon
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by halfmoon » Wed May 17, 2017 11:00 pm

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue May 16, 2017 8:16 pm
I am 7.5 years older than my wife. Actuarial tables make it very clear that odds of me out living her are very slim. When those late life decisions need to be made, those years left in her life will be a much higher priority than any additional months in mine.
Ah, Riggerjack...you remind me of my DH (21 years older than I). I know your motives are extremely unselfish, though it's not so clear-cut. I'm projecting here, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're the center of your wife's life. Switch places for a moment, because it's clear that you love her deeply. If her long-term existence is threatened in the (overwhelmingly common) absence of certain imminent death, I'm pretty sure you'll do and pay what it takes to keep her alive. She would undoubtedly do the same for you. That's how it will go regardless of avowed intention, unless of course one of you is terminal and in pain.

It's not easy to let go, and it's often not a dramatic one-time choice. More of a slow attrition.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Thu May 18, 2017 3:13 am

BRUTE wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 9:54 pm


the main benefit of the olympic lifts (c&j, snatch) over the slower powerlifting moves (squatz, deadz) isn't in strength per se, but in power and explosiveness. brute also finds the c&j the most functional of all the moves he's ever performed in a gym - it allows him to lift regular day to day items to hip and overhead level easily, with safe technique.
I would add flexibility, coordination, and balance. Not sure those movements are great for the elderly per se, but probably good for midlifers who want to preserve physical ability longer and prevent injury from falls and the like in out years.

Clean/jerk is also the perfect movement to practice for lifting a double-wide garage door after one of the counterbalance springs breaks. I amazed my neighbor!

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu May 18, 2017 6:18 am

Well, my limiting factor on performing clean&jerk at the moment, is 3rd world, not 1st world health problem. I keep picking up healthy kid bugs from my grubby little recently immigrated students. I am currently suffering from acute bronchitis and viral pink eye. I may have to choose to bring the "join the Peace Corps" phase of my-do-my-20s-in-my-40s/50s lifestyle plan to an end sooner than anticipated.
black_son_of_gray wrote:For most people, that will mean focusing on the things you are worse at rather than developing any given physical trait to excellence.
True. What I am worst at in the moment is dealing with chagrin after recent viewing of video of myself riding away upon a bicycle and the tiresomeness of endlessly coughing up green sputum. However, I cheered myself up by teaching myself how to butt-clap, so now if I so choose, I can make myself totally ridiculous and offensive at wedding receptions when I am 80. I hate getting old.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Thu May 18, 2017 7:00 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 9:07 pm
@IlliniDave: Maybe I haven't done them right when attempted, but the arm part is much more difficult for me. I have never broken a bone, so I'm not super worried about bone density yet either. However, I do intend to continue to eat as much full fat yogurt and sweet potatoes as I desire. I spent almost nothing on either health insurance or health care in the last year, so I really shouldn't complain. However, everybody I know is appalled that I didn't seek treatment for my facial paralysis, so I am obviously an outlier of some sort.
Yes, likely your form was an issue. For me leaning the movements was a process that took months before I attempted weights that would be a challenge because of their heaviness.

You can do all the movements with dumb bells too--smaller weights but stabilizing is more of a challenge as weight creeps up.

The arms/shoulders do exert some effort in Oly lifts, after all you holding something up off the ground. It's hard to dynamically load your lower power chain above what the top half of your body weighs without effort from your arms/shoulders/upper back, unless you want to buy machines or join a fitness place. Best bet is maybe back squats, but I don't know how helpful they would be as a preventative for octogenarian falling issues. Certainly better than doing nothing, but they are not total body movements the way the Oly stuff is.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE » Thu May 18, 2017 11:41 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu May 18, 2017 6:18 am
Well, my limiting factor on performing clean&jerk at the moment, is [...] acute bronchitis and viral pink eye.
that seems very non-specific to c&j and would prevent a human from probably most exercise or other physical activity.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri May 19, 2017 4:28 pm

IlliniDave said:You can do all the movements with dumb bells too--smaller weights but stabilizing is more of a challenge as weight creeps up.
Yeah, I think that is where it went wrong for me. I was using dumb bells that could adjust to 30 lbs each, and 60 lbs. over my head was really unstable, but 60 lbs. added to body weight on squat is pretty easy for me. Something like that.

@BRUTE: I rode my bike and planted 11 bare root trees and shrubs while I was continuously coughing, but it wasn't fun.

To wrap back around to the original topic of this thread, I think I was trying to make a point about the difference between acute illness, chronic disease, and fitness. We often use the word "health" rather haphazardly to refer to any of these, and other states of being. Most of us don't think that running every day is likely to prevent us from catching pink eye if we neglect to wash our hands, but ...

Anyways, I have a bronze Obamacare plan for which I pay $0/month. When half my face suddenly became paralyzed, I looked on the internet and determined it was likely Bell's Palsy, so I didn't seek medical care. My friend whose stock market accounts topped 65 million for the first time a couple weeks ago, tried to make me go to the doctor and he would pay for it, but I wouldn't go. So, I am (once again!) agreeing with Riggerjack. The only reason why people make medical professionals the exception to the rule of self-sufficiency or free choice is that they are not willing to face their own mortality.

CS
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by CS » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:09 am

I haven't keep up in this thread, but just logged in to say that my State just funded money for the participants of the exchange to make up for the Republicans pulling money from behind the scenes (hence the rate jacking). My premiums went from 330 something to 560 this past year. Then the state stepped in and now my premium is 424. I am not on any sort of subsidy, since my income is so erratic.

It pays to live in a blue state. The taxes do pay for something, and I'm glad of it. Also, fyi, this support for the residents was a blue and red effort - must give credit where credit is due.

CS
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by CS » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:18 am

OTCW wrote:
Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:48 pm
CS wrote:
2. Premium increases are actually much less than the five years prior to it's implementation.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower ... der-obama/
That article is over 2 years old. My premium for a bronze plan was $150 a month then. Now it is $350 a month.

Next year there aren't any exchange plans being offered in my area. I live in a medium to large city with lots of young people.

The ACA is dying and needs fixing. That mess the Republicans developed wasn't going to fix anything and it rightfully died. There is so much political theater going on on both sides over healthcare that I doubt it ever gets fixed.
The ACA is dying because it is being actively sabotaged. See what Rubio did behind the scenes to pull funding. This was an intentional move that screwed over millions of people just to win an election in 2016.

Universal healthcare works in many countries. We don't have it here because of the parasites of the insurance companies, the lack of bargaining power with the drug companies (keep us going to Canada, eh?), and greed in the medical field in general. I work in the medical field, and I'll tell you, I'm overpaid and I'm not even a doctor. I've worked for doctors that bill 4.5 Million a year. I'm actively planning on my job going away due to wages dropping significantly. And I think that's a good thing for the population.

Writing healthcare off as not being fixable lets people off the hook for not doing better. We deserve better.

Personally, I think if the insurance companies can't offer something on the exchange in a state, they shouldn't be allowed to operate in that state. They are in business off the infrastructure of that state. They can put back in and be good corporate citizens. Or they can go out of business and make room for others. Either one works for me.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:23 am

CS wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:09 am

It pays to live in a blue state. The taxes do pay for something, and I'm glad of it. Also, fyi, this support for the residents was a blue and red effort - must give credit where credit is due.
I live in the reddest of red states now. The state's flagship university's sports teams are even named after the color. But once I ER I'll be hanging my hat in one of three states in order of likelihood: Illinois, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (blue, purple/temporarily red, and about as blue as it gets, respectively). So I'm sort of cheating by earning and accumulating in a red state then heading to a blue state as a not-in-the-labor-force sub-median "fixed-income" person. It's not a financially-driven choice, so I don't feel guilty.

Of course all that's still a couple years in the future, and the future is murky.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by BRUTE » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:03 am

looking at the county map, Illinois is only blue around Chicago. the rest is entirely red. this is likely true for all "blue" states.

i.e. there are almost no blue or red states, there are states dominated by their metro areas (blue) or not (red).

IlliniDave
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Who'd a thunk it? Obamacare not repealed

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:56 am

BRUTE wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:03 am
looking at the county map, Illinois is only blue around Chicago. the rest is entirely red. this is likely true for all "blue" states.

i.e. there are almost no blue or red states, there are states dominated by their metro areas (blue) or not (red).
That's correct. But if you zoom in more maybe, nearly every significant city in Illinois is Blue. The same is true in Alabama. I imagine it is true nearly everywhere. We're at the tipping point where soon the urban populations will call all the shots. DT may be the last president elected without widespread support from the major urban centers, or at least a good share of them.
Last edited by IlliniDave on Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply