Clinton Allies Suppress the Vote in Nevada

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Real Hillary supporters/voters won't be swayed by some union flier. Thought that wasn't her fanbase anyhow?

Maybe...still, a tactical error in supporting the lawsuit.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why an error? It's a politics not some church bazaar committe election. Next week, no one will remember and it's the final tally that they care about. Sometimes I wonder if anyone understands what a politician is...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why an error? It's a politics not some church bazaar committe election. Next week, no one will remember and it's the final tally that they care about. Sometimes I wonder if anyone understands what a politician is...

It was the timing of Hillary's support for it. She didn't come out and support the lawsuit until after the union endorsed Obama. That was a tactical error, IMO.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why? If she gets the nod, why would she care? Clearly, some people are a little bit too sensitive for the political arena.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Health savings accounts, as they stand are a ripoff. We have one of those programmes offered at work, the wife does too. Essentially you have to know in advance if you are going to be sick, and if you don't use the money paid into the account during the calendar year you lose it. Dunno about you - but that model is a pretty poor to me.

Well, you can always spend whatever's left in your account before it expires - buy contact lenses for example, or something else you always need.

No, my point is to replace the insurance system that we have now with on that your employer contributes to the open ended health savings accounts or maybe they are called medical savings accounts, I forget the terminology that was used in the bill that was signed in 2002 or 2003. Instead of Kaiser or Blue Cross or whatever. So the 600 (my employer pays about 600) or so dollars a month that was going to the insurance companies is now building up in your account to manage and spend on your health care as you determine. This will cause the doctors to become competitive with there pricing since you will see and pay for it out of your own pocket. This covers the doctors visits and day to day medical expenses. Then you couple that with catastrophic coverage insurance policy that only covers you if you are catastrophically ill or injured (cancer or the such).

So let's do the math, I am 41 now in the last 20 years I have had kidney stones, a broken hand, Wisdom teeth pulled and some pairs of glasses before my LASIK surgery that I paid for so it does not count, and thyroid pills which are actually cheaper if I pay for them myself at Wal-Mart then if I use my insurance but I will include them.

Kidney stones: for 4 hours in a bed and some morphine. $2500

Broken hand: cast and pills about the same $2500

Wisdom teeth: pulled out $1500

Glasses: 4 pairs they pay $75 per pair $ 300

Thyroid pills: 7.33 a month X 8 years $ 704

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

Total expenses for 20 years $7504

I will round this to up to $10,000 for anything extra that i didn't want to list.

Employer contributions I will round down to $500 a month - $200 for catastrophic insurance cost = $300 a month X 20 years= $72,000 dollars

72,000-10,000= $62,000 dollars that I would have for as a nest egg going forward in my account. Instead this money went to insurance companies and to doctors that are over charging because the cost is hidden from the customer ( the patient).

$62,000 is a lot of cash. It may have been a little more or maybe a little less, I used round numbers and didn't even add the interest that such an account would earn. But it is non-existent with the current system or the national health care system that is being proposed.

If these accounts are instituted when you are young and healthy, and do not need medical care they would accumulate a nest egg that would be able to cover your growing expenses as you grow older. While making the health care system more efficient. If you get cancer then your catastrophic policy will kick in to cover large expenses. Catastrophic policies are a fraction of the price that full policies are.

With increasing health care cost the answer is more free market solutions to lower the cost, not more government regulation and control. that will only increase the cost, deteriorate the quality and cause more needless suffering of the people. Tell me one time the government actually did something better? Free markets will punish bad companies. But bad government is almost impossible to change without bloodshed and death.

This national health care system is going to be an absolute disaster. And you people that want to think differently are just deluding yourselves thinking that you are going to get a free ride. There is no such thing as a free ride! Once we cross that line there will be no coming back.

I guess that some people think that compassion will win over pragmatism and that since we "care" the system will work. But they fail to realize that a government bureaucracy is incapable of compassion and the exact opposite is usually closer to the truth, no matter what were the intentions.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Why an error? It's a politics not some church bazaar committe election. Next week, no one will remember and it's the final tally that they care about. Sometimes I wonder if anyone understands what a politician is...

It was the timing of Hillary's support for it. She didn't come out and support the lawsuit until after the union endorsed Obama. That was a tactical error, IMO.

In the first place Hillary thought that the union would be endorsing her so they set it up with the caucus in the hotels. Then when they endorsed Obama. So they wanted them out of the hotels because the union was telling their members to vote for Obama, hence the lawsuit. Then when people started criticizing her campaign for the underhanded tactics that they are famous for and they distanced themselves for the lawsuit, While Bill Clinton was still out decrying how unfair that the hotel union caucus votes would count as 5 votes each, instead of one. Which I still can't figure out the math on that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Health savings accounts, as they stand are a ripoff. We have one of those programmes offered at work, the wife does too. Essentially you have to know in advance if you are going to be sick, and if you don't use the money paid into the account during the calendar year you lose it. Dunno about you - but that model is a pretty poor to me.

Well, you can always spend whatever's left in your account before it expires - buy contact lenses for example, or something else you always need.

That would be good... if I needed anything like that, but using the money for something trivial just because I'll lose it otherwise would seem to negate the whole point of the plan, and seems to me a waste of money that could otherwise be better spent on other things. I simply don't understand the value of a system that requires me to know in advance if I'm going to be sick in order to put money aside to pay for the care; but I then lose that money if I don't use it within a given time...

Beyond that - given the insurance companies stock policy of "deny it any way you can" that sort of premeditation seems to me a a surefire way to be hit with some sort of pre-existing condition clauses.

As I say, my FIL nearly died after his insurer blocked his cardiologist appointments. Then there was the time when my sister in law was between jobs (hence no insurance coverage) got the kidney infection, and was on the verge of fever-death because her parents were essentially so afraid (for her) of the debt she would incur by a uninsured hospital admission. That, to me, makes for a brutal and bureaucratically callous system. That's not to say the UK NHS is perfect - clearly it isn't, and the claim can't be made really about any healthcare system, but I wouldn't trade it for the uncertainty, stress and hassle that comes with... well... doing anything under a major insurance plan over here. If I got sick here - I'd fly back to the UK and take my chances rather than ** about on that insurance carnival ride.

As I said - when I told people at my old job in CA about my surgery for a lymphoma biopsy, not one person, not one, told me that doing this was a good idea - but rather than in my place they would simply leave it to chance. As I say, the fact that I saw people demonstrably afraid of participating in the system, even with coverage, was extremely shocking to me. When you're sick - the last thing you should be worrying about is whether seeking treatment (or even diagnosis) because of the financial burden that you will incur. A callous cynic might wheel out that whole "personal responsibility" tosh as a criticism of those people - but really, the more you're worried about things.. like money.. the less free you really are to take responsible decisions about things like your own wellbeing.

I'm even finding I do this now - I haven't visited a dentist for nearly 5 years now; and its for essentially the same reason describe above - apprehensiveness about getting embroiled in the system. My surgery experience was enough for me - and I had to run the whole gamut of pre-existing condition bollox. Luckily for me I didn't have a medical history here, or any health problems listed on my application to give their "cost-savers" something to deny my application.

I honestly don't know what to say about that. Simply, I never thought about it in the UK. I worked, paid my taxes and still enjoyed a decent standard of living. Here I make less money, pay less taxes (but in deductions for healthcare, dental etc my take home pay is proportionally the same as in the UK) and my general standard of living here isn't much higher than it was in the UK. If the wife and I get a serious illness however, that standard of living will take a sharp nosedive.