Except that somebody's going to test a dose for mercury, and if a drug company is caught putting something into vaccines and swearing that it isn't there, there will be unpleasant consequences. Do a little risk analysis, guy.
I've never seen one that couldn't break 525mph when it really got going.
While MacOS9 was positively embarrassing technically, relative to its competition, it still ran Mac software and had the Mac interface. Macs at that time were still generally easier to use than Windows machines. An inferior product you can use to the fullest can be better than a harder-to-use superior product, depending on your needs.
Really? It seems to me that if ordinary people thought that way, there'd be fewer conspiracy theories going around. People would have laughed at the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the anti-vaxxers, the whole Watergate incident, etc.
So, I have to ask: how do you benefit by trying to make people believe that the US general population laughs at conspiracy theories? And who's in it with you?
And the airline's rates doubtless go up.
The ACA sucks. It appears to me that it sucks less than the system we had. Moreover, the ACA is a step in the right direction, in that it aims at universal care.
As far as government-run programs go, there's a whole lot of them out there that give much better public health numbers than our, um, "system".
As far as affording universal health care, literally every country with universal health care pays a lot less on health care per capita. Last I looked, Germany was the next most expensive, with per capita costs two-thirds of what we've got here.
Um, so the ACA made it possible for you to get insurance in event of a divorce, and didn't fix anything?
Lower taxes? How would that help a startup? In particular, corporate income taxes come out of profit, so they can't possibly make a business unprofitable. They can't take away money spent on expansion because that's a business expenses. Nobody's going to get rich from salary as a startup employee, but rather with stock in whatever form that incurs capital gains on the profit. Lower interest rates will help startups much more.
Less regulation? How about something to take care of health coverage for the partners and employees, so nobody in the startup has to worry about that?
If you want to save money, you will subsidize condoms for 14-year-olds. The alternative is increased STDs and teen pregnancies, and those are more expensive. They are likely to affect your health insurance, and if there's more people on welfare there go your taxes.
The government has the Constitutional power to tax and spend for the General Welfare. I realize this is a broader role than many
Okay, you were paying about $490/month ($5880/year) for health care overall, and it turns out you can get a really good one for $100/month more because of the ACA, or one for $3K/year ($250/month) that wouldn't kick in until you'd exhausted a typical year's HSA contribution. I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Pay $100/month more for comprehensive coverage, or $10/month more for what is fairly similar coverage.
As far as prenatal coverage goes, you, as an old man, have a different set of expected medical expenses than a young woman. For example, your chance of heart disease is considerably greater, but you're not charged for that. Your premiums are greater because they cover prenatal coverage, and less because you're not paying your fair share of heart disease coverage. I don't know if it balances out or not, but insurance is basically spreading risk, and you'll always be paying for stuff you don't use.
The ACA happened because some of us really want health care reform, and this was all Obama could push through. (I thought an Illinois politician would be better at ramming legislation through.) By at least establishing a nationwide insurance pool, it's an improvement.
BTW, a family plan for $210/month with a $1200 deductible must have a good many common things not covered, and is likely to be useless in a real emergency. If nothing else, the insurance company will cancel the plan if anybody gets seriously ill, and then refuse to sell you a new one that will cover the now-pre-existing condition. There's simply no other way the insurance company can make the numbers work on that. There apparently are lots of those plans out there.
Apparently your home business isn't just "moderately successful", or you'd want a plan that would kick in before the hospital bills hit $200K. Not that there's anything whatsoever wrong with running a very successful business, but it means your experience is not typical. (I've also known people who suddenly needed really expensive drugs, so you really should have at least high-end drug coverage.)
I'd also like to know what your insurance situation is. In paragraph 2, you're paying $200/month for a plan that covers very little; in paragraph 3 you have a plan through an employer. It's presumably a nice plan, so it would be interesting to know what it costs, including both your contribution and your employer's contribution. It would also be interesting to know whether you chose a plan that included every detail your work plan did (similar to how Apple hardware is reasonably priced when you consider all the additional details most
So, really, I'm not all that impressed by somebody who can't figure out what sort of insurance he has, or make a meaningful comparison, and I am not all that moved by the experience of somebody who can just swallow a $180K emergency.
And, since there are numerous single-payer systems, you can doubtless show some in which this has happened.
Okay, so you used to have health insurance while paying $X. That got canceled (you don't say why, could be plenty of reasons), and your insurance company offered one for $2X. You found one costing $1.2X but it was a worse plan than what your insurance company offered for $2X.
This is not an argument against the ACA.