... dearest Luigi, marking his milestone in Obamacare history ~

I've seen that suggested before, and have to admit I don't know much about the plan(s) the congresscritters enjoy.

When I worked in the third branch, what we had was a cafeteria plan: a modest selection of plans offered by various private insurers, with part of the premium covered, and different details of coverage and copays and such.

Not hugely unlike what you find in the ACA marketplace now, only the marketplace makes it a lot easier to compare different plans, make sure they cover your docs and so on, which back then took hours of reading and studying plan document gobbledygook.

 

I understood that their plans were similar to what you described.

@bisco - I share a similar frustration about what can be done: I think we have a great country and great government system but so often get split into regional differences, the horse sh_t of politics etc.

My suggestion - do away with Political Parties forever and then demand Candidates do what is best for the Country not a party or region.

You are from the Northeast, and I am from the South - you seem like a reasonable guy - just like most people in our country- I see no reason a good leader or consensus builder couldn't quickly work with likeminded Americans to do something that would serve the needs of our country and get a solution to Healthcare.

Actually, our state has some acceptable options in healthcare for most of our state's population right now. In the last three years we have had reasonable options for healthcare for our family's options.

Maybe get some middle of the road Legislators along with some reasonable moderate people and work out a solution together.
Ban all the radical people - right and left, ban people who insist politics is the answer, ban Partisan Politicians from having any input whatsoever and see what the group comes up with.

Maybe have the Focus Group come up with 3 options and have a National Referendum on +'s and -'s - make recommended changes to each plan based on citizen input and then have a vote to decide in what direction we need to go as a Nation. Maybe even include a 'Buy Up Option' where people could supplement their plan with private options if they wished.

I grew up in what would probably be considered a lower middleclass very large family. I honestly don't remember healthcare being a big deal even for a large family back then. If it had been expensive we certainly couldn't have afforded it.

 

I am pretty sure Congress gets the ACA, without looking it up again. What you describe as what is best for country describes Obama, Biden, Bush, Carter, Clinton. Only one outlier is a living former president who was for himself only. Still is. So much so the Capitol was attacked Jan 6 for him.
It seems you can’t accept for some reason the ACA is a good health plan service, landmark legislation done to help Americans. Which it has done tremendously. Just what is the block against it, think about it. If there is something better, everyone is all ready to see next year. Obama would sign it if it is better, if he was president. It isn’t about him and he shows it.

 

Yep, Congress uses the ACA.
Do Members of Congress Enjoy Free Health Care? | Snopes.com
72% of a gold plan premium is covered by the government. They have to pay it all for lesser plans. Without digging into actual costs, it sounds worse than the plan for federal employees. The government covers part of all plans offered there. The 72% to 75% covered is what many large companies cover.

Now a little something on the public reaction to the murder.
Luigi Mangione shooting suspect: Why he was the perfect candidate to become a new American folk hero.

 

I think the problem about politics is that everyone just cares about themselves. I guess I'll just go shrivel up and die, nobody cares if I or my family get health care or not.

This is also why I don't vote. If I vote for this side I affect these people. If I vote for the other I affect those people. Sometimes there seems to be nothing in government that is beneficial to all.

The healthcare system is a problem, has always been a problem, and will always be a problem. And I'm not saying that because I don't appreciate all the hard work and thought some people, including politicians, put into getting us as good of healthcare system as we currently have. It's not perfect, it never will be. But there's a chance it might help me. At least until someone figures out how to pull strings in politics and get cheaper, better healthcare for themselves at my expense. But then again, who cares, that's the way the world works. My mother always told me that life isn't fair, so deal with it.

 

Note in the preamble “promote the general Welfare”, you should vote. You are right it is not fair. All elected officials work for this document and are subservient to it. We have no king.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

 

It pains me to hear Americans complaining about their medical system, when they imagine our Canadian system is so much worse.
It's not great, but I'll take it over what's south of the border any day.

All you need to do is stop listening to anyone who says government healthcare is "socialism" which is "the bogeyman." It's "socialism" like roads and schools are socialism. Learn to live with a little bit of it. It won't kill you, but your lack of it, might.

 

the problem is, no one can know the quality of another countries healthcare system.
we can't even agree on the quality of our own. everyones experiences are different.

 

Also....Americans are lard-butts, who don't even walk to their mailboxes - and our diet is MUCH worse than some of our near-peer nations.
Also we're #1 in the world for gross GDP (#8 in per-capita.)
That means that no matter how much (of other people's) money you dump into our health care system our mileage, in terms of life expectancy, WILL vary.

Drive-by statisticians and other '$cientists' never seem to fully explain what that means....

 

Medicare is socialism. The Constitution is socialist where rich or poor one vote is what you get. Supposed to be everyone has equal say. The richest some of them have never liked this idea, and have the money to influence change. They want more say than one vote. Even get average or poor to go along with them to get more votes, even lying to them. .

The only fraud found was a few t supporters and t himself. When he called the Georgia secretary of state to find 11,780 votes. He said you can say you recalculated. It’s recorded. That’s voter fraud “never seen before in history.” You voted for that. If ballot boxes can be stuffed with fake ballots, maybe that’s how t won this time.

 

It bothers me not in the least when people from other lands rag on our medical system.
MOST of the time, it's uninformed.

I have a cousin who lives North of the (other) border and she seems happy enough with her coverage.

 

That’s true. I changed doctors this year. He knew everything no problem with that. He just spent no time and one time had someone else’s records, so much in a hurry to get on to the next patient. Health care quality begins with the primary care physician.

 

Well they have to do that now, but in the past - it was the 3/5 compromise of 1787. Southern slave owners wanted more say in government.

Social Security is also socialism, you can argue that you've paid into the system - but the truth of the matter; those who survive to collect, usually collect more than they put into the system. The system is a Ponzi scheme that relies on more people working and paying into the system than actually collecting. That dynamic is changing and is going to be flipped on it's head, within our lifetime. What is Congress going do about that? They don't need to be talking about BS drones - Do their job!!!

 

You can often get people to complete that thought by posing this question: Here is a time machine. You can go back to the constitutional convention and change "three fifths of all other Persons". But your only choices are "zero fifths" (don't count the "all other Persons" at all) or "five fifths" (count them just like "free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years"). Which do you choose, and why? How does subsequent US history change as a result?

 

LoL; The other half of the question is - Does women count, since the Constitution stated that 'all men are created equal'? Same question applies to the 3/5 Compromise; female slaves????

I don't believe in time machines. That's my problem. We got what we got and less than 40% of eligible voters participated in the last cycle - condemning the other 60% to follow their lead - But hey, It's a free country - so everyone is allowed whine about it; for now.....

 

Remember that the three-fifths bit appeared in the apportionment of congressional districts and taxes. I never heard that women (free or not) ever went uncounted in the census, or not figured into apportionment.

 

It isn’t a ponzi scheme. They rely on treasury bonds for interest on our money. All above board, no fraud. It’s sort of like insurance. Ponzi denotes fraud.

 

The thing about the English language, as with any language, is you can't take everything literal. The terms "man" "men" "mankind" etc. can refer to both sexes. It's just language, it's not sexism or prejudice.

It's like when someone says "look at the baby cow!" Sure, the technical term is calf. And sure, cow is female, but someone could be using it to refer to a male or female calf. But did you understand what the person was saying? If we understand each other, why make it harder than it really is.

"All men" in modern, politically correct English would be "all people." But the constitution wasn't written in modern, politically correct English, so don't pretend it was.

This is what drives me nuts about people trying to make up and force politically correct everything. Most everything we say is not to be taken literal, and there is no need for this. Niños in Spanish is fine, you don't need to say niñas y niños like Hispanic politicians that twist their language into a form that is so politically correct it's uncomfortable to listen to.