Interesting Articles...

[JTZ]

It is not as simple as that. Homeowners in flood prone zones pay more for their homeowner insurance. The concept of risk pools is that everyone pays the premium to bear the risks together and even it out over all subscribers. That doesn't mean that risks should be carried by those not at risk for it.

So a man is never at risk to cover prenatal expenses?

[ExGingi]

It is not as simple as that. Homeowners in flood prone zones pay more for their homeowner insurance. The concept of risk pools is that everyone pays the premium to bear the risks together and even it out over all subscribers. That doesn't mean that risks should be carried by those not at risk for it.

If even one man can be pregnant, then the risk exists, but maybe should be a separate pool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

[aygart]

So a man is never at risk to cover prenatal expenses?

To cover? Do you mean like paying for a partner's prenatal expenses? If so, then he w/should cover that risk when covering his partner's insurance premiums. Once a male had a procedure done to allow him to be pregnant that would definitely change his risk profile and it should be accounted for.

[JTZ]

To cover? Do you mean like paying for a partner's prenatal expenses?

How about for one of your children?

[aygart]

How about for one of your children?

Same idea.

If so, then he w/should cover that risk when covering his partner's <child's-FTFY> insurance premiums. Once a male had a procedure done to allow him to be pregnant that would definitely change his risk profile and it should be accounted for.

[henche]

It's not just men.  Why should women who know they aren't going to have a baby have to buy insurance that covers having a baby? 

It's exactly the point that at issue with the Obamacare mandate--they're making you buy "coverage" and then defining coverage broadly so that you need to pay for all sorts of stuff that you aren't at risk for, to subsidize the people with higher risk. It's not that your paying for something that doesn't happen; that's what insurance is. It's that you're paying for something that isn't even a risk; that's not what insurance is.

[JTZ]

It's exactly the point that at issue with the Obamacare mandate--they're making you buy "coverage" and then defining coverage broadly so that you need to pay for all sorts of stuff that you aren't at risk for, to subsidize the people with higher risk. It's not that your paying for something that doesn't happen; that's what insurance is. It's that you're paying for something that isn't even a risk; that's not what insurance is.

...but it is the way our system works.

[aygart]

...but it is the way our system works.

At least now.

[JTZ]

At least now.

If you think it is going to get better I have a couple of bridges for you.

[aygart]

If you think it is going to get better I have a couple of bridges for you.

there is a decent chance of the mandated coverages going away. Overall getting better? unlikely.

[JTZ]

there is a decent chance of the mandated coverages going away. Overall getting better? unlikely.

I will agree there will be a lot of things going away. 

[skyguy918]

It's not just men.  Why should women who know they aren't going to have a baby have to buy insurance that covers having a baby? 

It's exactly the point that at issue with the Obamacare mandate--they're making you buy "coverage" and then defining coverage broadly so that you need to pay for all sorts of stuff that you aren't at risk for, to subsidize the people with higher risk. It's not that your paying for something that doesn't happen; that's what insurance is. It's that you're paying for something that isn't even a risk; that's not what insurance is.

It's very simple. Obama really wanted single payer, in which case every TAC payer is paying for all types of care for all types of people. He couldn't get that, but the mandate, and the requirements for what's covered, etc. were all half measures trying to accomplish some of the same things.

The problem the Republicans are having now is that even though they were able to turn their base rabidly against 'Obamacare', a significant portion of that base is realizing that they gained 'bigly' under Obamacare, and they aren't ready to let go of those gains so easily.

[aygart]

The problem the Republicans are having now is that even though they were able to turn their base rabidly against 'Obamacare', a significant portion of that base is realizing that they gained 'bigly' under Obamacare, and they aren't ready to let go of those gains so easily.

Tactically they are digging the hole deeper and deeper now by slicing and dicing. The only way they would really be able to repeal and replace is by repealing the whole thing to automatically disappear at a future date giving enough time to make a replacement before the repeal takes effect.

[ExGingi]

Tactically they are digging the hole deeper and deeper now by slicing and dicing. The only way they would really be able to repeal and replace is by repealing the whole thing to automatically disappear at a future date giving enough time to make a replacement before the repeal takes effect.

+1000000

[skyguy918]

Tactically they are digging the hole deeper and deeper now by slicing and dicing. The only way they would really be able to repeal and replace is by repealing the whole thing to automatically disappear at a future date giving enough time to make a replacement before the repeal takes effect.

But that's what I'm saying. They're not slicing and dicing because they want to. They're doing it because they see that a significant portion of their base (and certainly the country as a whole) didn't actually want to do away with parts of it.

[ExGingi]

But that's what I'm saying. They're not slicing and dicing because they want to. They're doing it because they see that a significant portion of their base (and certainly the country as a whole) didn't actually want to do away with parts of it.

It's very hard to wean people off handouts, especially when there's a financial cliff involved.

I spoke to someone yesterday, who gets section 8, foodstamps and Medicaid. He told me that every extra $ he earns would cost him approximately 60 cents (between FICA, increase in his rent, and decrease in his foodstamps!).

ETA:  the other problem is, that those benefits he gets now are not taxed, so if his income were to be increased 2.5 times, he wouldn't break even (40% of 2.5 being 1), because at that point he will be subject to income tax and lose EIC!

[Ergel]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/us/snopes-day-in-the-life-trnd/index.html

[Boruch999]

...but it is the way our system works.

You started this discussion by calling out a congressman for not understanding insurance pools.  Are you taking that back now?

[ExGingi]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-07/why-you-should-love-america-s-worst-airport

Can't agree more with the last paragraph. And with on-street parking within walking distance (or short free shuttle ride), it is my airport of choice for domestic or Canada flights.

[David Smith]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-07/why-you-should-love-america-s-worst-airport

Can't agree more with the last paragraph. And with on-street parking within walking distance (or short free shuttle ride), it is my airport of choice for domestic or Canada flights.

The perpetual delays don't exactly help getting into the airport to your destination in the most time efficient manner...