Tyranny of statistics. Indeed. When looking at the rate of criminal, especially violent crimal activity, especially violent criminal activity resulting in death and dismemberment, the statistics point unfavorably in a particular group's favor.

I'm guessing everyone missed it when the Obama administration took over the census statistics -- the ones used by everyone for a variety of purposes including detecting voter fraud and all of that.

IQ might appear to be meaningless until you see the continuous results of all of this. When you search the term "model minority" you will find all sorts of hateful things. Largely among these are indication that while one ethnic group might seems to struggle due to environmental conditions, others seem to come through it all rather successfully by properly taking advantage of government programs intended to alleviate the problems of adverse environmental conditions.

And let's never talk about Liberia and the failure of every African nation not under western influence. First Zimbabwe and then S. Africa? The word hostile comes to mind and they certainly had their way to their own peril and suffering.

How much of a much bigger picture does anyone need to know before they come to realize what had been consitently stated for literally hundreds if not thousands of years?

And back to tyranny of statistics -- really. Is it tyrannical? Attempting to capture objective reality to better understand what is wrong is tyranny? Let's not forget the purpose of statistics. The opposite of stats is anecdotes and it thrills me to no end that the response to statistics here is anecdotes. (And it should trouble everyone who cites black successes to note that hearly none are 100% black. Tyson is part puerto-rican which is a mix of all sorts. So if anyone wants to pick anecdotal evidence, at least make it valid.)

I used to be on a completely different page than I am on today. I wasn't born or raised this way. I was well into my 20s and 30s before I began to see what's what in life. This, of course, also goes back to statitical tyranny -- trying to deny reality by denial of knowledge is and has always been the classic play by tyrants.

Disparate impact... it's going to be with us for a while. Might as well get used to it. Black people are generally less intelligent than others and it's our fault.

Yes, that sounds right along the lines of the other stories we've heard from real people. I'm very glad to hear you're covered now, and that you've got a real shot at a meaningful recovery.

Regarding costs: Yes, very painful. Some are litigation related, including preventive insurance (used to be married to a surgeon, know all about that) and some is the hospital trying to make your saline bag and ambulance trip pay for all the bills they produce that don't get paid. And some of it, probably a lot of it, is just plain old greed.

Thing that really serves to irritate me is that our healthcare is among the most expensive, but our outcomes are not among the best. If nothing else told us we are doing it wrong, that certainly ought to.

Just as an off-topic aside, this topic (not just my threads) is the most amusing peak event of "moderation as agree/disagree" that I've seen in my years here. Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.

Slashdot moderation. lol. Just lol.

Note to the powers that be: If you EVER thought anonymous moderation was a good idea, this topic alone should serve as the poster child come to completely disabuse you of that notion. Unless, of course, you're one of the ones abusing the moderation system, in which case, well, there you go. :)

So says a post that brings ZERO facts to the table, in criticism of one that brought many.

Anything wrong with this picture? Hello? Hello?

I wasn't dismissing you from slashdot, silly, I was dismissing your argument because of your non-informational response, not to mention the name-calling.

However, since you elected to actually provide data elsewhere, I've picked the discussion right up again.

If it's actually fucked you, I seriously want to know about it. You may have trouble believing that, but it's true. I'm going to give you every opportunity to make your case, if you so choose.

Madness? A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand. If you have NO other medical expenses in that year, your income has to exceed $70000 to make that cost "only" ten percent of your income. If something SERIOUS happens to you -- you need surgery, you get cancer, serious car accident, diabetes, etc., in order to hit or stay under that ten percent of income mark, your income will have to be much, much higher. And since you can't just magically make that happen, instead, you'll lose all your stuff and make everyone else pay more. Or, you can pay a few thousand for insurance and pretty much no matter what happens to you, you're going to be ok.

Now, what do you think the smartest course is?

I've done this for you in the past. I'm not going to do it again

No, I'm pretty sure you haven't. You've most likely confused me with someone else. Not a problem.

I am required to subsidize your health care now

Well. I am required to pay for highways that I never drive upon. I am required to pay for fire extinguishing services and I have never had a house fire. I am required to pay for public schools, even though I never sent a child there. I am required to pay for corporate subsidies, even though I am not in favor of these. I am required to pay for various war efforts, even though I am not only not in favor, but vehemently opposed to same. The idea that I might have to pay to improve someone else's health strikes me a a breath of fresh air. In fact, in a purely selfish way, I don't want to have people, far sicker than they need to be, running around and sharing the bounty of their personal microbial crops with me and mine. Nor am I in favor of them being out of work for any more time than required.

Time for a little anecdote. Fairly recently, the lady and I went to McDonald's for a salad and some coffee. They took our order via the miked menu outside, then our money at window #1, and so we pulled up to window #2, where the food was to arrive. When they opened the window, those poor bastards (uninsured in any sense worth really talking about) collectively managed to do a marvelous impression of a final stage tuberculosis ward. I rolled up the winddow and we drove off without our food.

When you talk about "now" having to subsidize the medical costs of others, let me just point out to you that when these uninsured types zip right down to the emergency room and consume medical services at a premium, while not getting actual decent care but instead, just getting stabilized, you pay for that just as directly via increased costs to the hospital that were "covered" by government grants, increases in the cost of our own medical needs, and higher insurance premiums to pay those higher medical costs, which in turn, you (and I, and everyone else) pay for. There's no free lunch. When people are sick or injured, it's going to cost. It's expensive and it is unevenly distributed, and it is best done in a manner that works to control the costs (prophilactic care, etc.) by pooling our resources and then expending them on a per issue basis, and preventative ones, and in the context of completely addressing problems with an appropriate course of therapy instead of just doing the minimum, or nothing.

When you want to bitch about paying for everyone else's healthcare, to whatever extent that may be so, just remember, the better health the population is in, the better health you -- and yours, and the economy -- are are likely to be able to maintain. It's a fact, and there's no way around it.

I am trying to build capital and wealth.

Do you not understand that if you fall and break your leg, or catch something horrible, or develop chronic asthma, or cancer, or manage to detach a retina, or get burned really badly, that without insurance, your capital and wealth will evaporate like smoke on the windiest day you can imagine? I think you do, since you tell me you had insurance previously. Now I ask you: Would you want to have that happen to someone else? Seriously? When just by putting your shoulder to the same wheel the rest of us are trying to roll around, you can prevent it to some useful extent?

My insurance went from $180 to $455 a month

Ok. Delighted you're being forthcoming. Let's work it. If your new insurance is being delivered under the aegis of the ACA, then at $455/mo for your premium, you're paying $5460/year, and your income (after business deductions, if you're taking those) should be (at least) $54600, because under the ACA, no one has to pay more than 10% of their income unless they choose to. A prophylactic colonoscopy, I am sad to be able to report, was just billed to me at about $7000. $5400 for insurance seems like a fabulous deal on that basis alone.

If, however, you have either wife and/or family, then they (perfectly reasonably) consider your income to be less, as you have to spread it thinner. In this case, you will either pay less (there may be subsidies), or get more. Your choice, made by selecting the appropriate insurance plan and tier.

My deductible went from $500 to $1000, prescription coverage got worse, and max yearly out of pocket went from $2000 to $3000.

If your previous insurance was as good as you describe, it was better than required by the ACA, and would not have been cancelled consequent to any portion of the ACA legislation. So the first question is, why did your previous policy cease? Did your employer terminate it and/or you? Or did you choose to change policies? Or did the insurance company cease issuing the policy? Because based on your description, your original policy would have been just fine, as far as the ACA goes. So, that leads us to:

If your employer cancelled your insurance, that's between you and your employer -- nothing to do with the ACA at all.

If you cancelled your insurance, then it's on you. Again, nothing to do with the ACA at all (and I'd have to ask, why would you do such a thing?)

If the insurance company cancelled your insurance, then there are two possibilities: One, that the insurance did not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA, in which case there is something you're not telling us, or two, that the insurance company wanted to steer you into a more expensive policy, which again, has nothing to do with the ACA. In fact, that type of practice by insurance companies is precisely what the ACA is designed to address. Many times, insurance companies drop clients even in the midst of receiving treatment. Those days are over.

Something worth noting is that there have been cases of insurance companies cancelling individual and group policies, blaming it on the ACA, when in actuality, it was just the usual dicking around on their part.

Another extremely relevant question regarding your new policy: Did you get it under the aegis of the ACA? Or from a broker, independent of heathcare.gov and the ACA?

It doesn't justify all the damage caused to everyone else though.

No such damage has been demonstrated. Every such claim -- EVERY ONE -- so far has been debunked. Research it, you'll see immediately that these claims are consistently unfounded nonsense. We've got a guy right here, with an actual ID, making those claims, and you'll note he refuses to prove his case and simply indulges in name-calling, even though it would get him on national media if he did prove his case, likely ending his financial problems right there.

See, the FACT is, under the ACA, no one, that's NO ONE, pays more than 10% of their income. Which is not even to say they'll pay that much. Plans vary; choose to pay less, and you get less. Duh. You have to use your head just a little bit.

The ONLY ones who got hammered without it being their own darned fault here were those who were supposed to be covered under the medicaid expansion, where instead the state legislatures threw them directly under the bus by refusing it. That's a not a fault with the ACA. That's a fault with the state legislature.

The ACA is doing very well. The screaming is now known to be almost entirely political butthurt, and that's one disease I am not sorry to see people suffer.

So, you can't prove your claims.

You are therefore dismissed.

The most *anyone* pays under the ACA is less than 10% of their income.

If you can't afford that, it's time to reconsider your budget (and perhaps some behaviors... like smoking), because you're doing it wrong.

I'll tell you what you can't afford: injury or serious illness. If you think *insurance* is expensive, you have NO idea what's waiting for you just around the corner.

My lab tests are covered, as are my prescriptions. My copay is less, too -- $5 if they're in our group, and $10 if not -- Sounds to me like you simply picked the wrong policy. Make sure you look into equivalent meds, too. For instance, my insurance won't pay for Ventolin HFA, but they will pay for PROAIR HFA. Either one addresses the asthma just fine. I pay less than 10% of my income. I consider that a great bargain.

Again, your choice of policy is not the fault of the ACA. This is very much a situation where consumer choice is part of the process.

My daughter in law chose a different policy than the one my son chose. This was because she takes (expensive) Victoza shots, so she needed to choose a policy that met her needs, which were quite different from my son's. Thanks to the ACA, you can research and choose something that best meets your needs. But you still have to *do* it.

Again, I call bullshit. PROVE you had a policy with more benefits, that cost less, than an ACA sponsored policy: insurance company, the policy you were covered under, your age and state and what you were paying. Let's see the data.

I'm self-employed and the ACA was *hands-down* a better deal for myself, it was better for my self-employed lady, and better for my one son who is self-employed. All with radically different health states and histories. I would be *astounded* if your claims were true, and if so, you should go right to the right wing news media, because brother, have they ever been looking for someone who makes the claims you do and can back them up. Everyone so far has turned out to be completely full of shit.

Someone might be naturally healthy, but the dumbass who ran the guy over with their humvee sadly wasn't informed of that. The scaffolding that fell on them wasn't informed either. The guy who prepared your hamburger with the same unwashed fingers he just wiped his ass with wasn't either, Mr. Healthy Guy.

Your problem is that you have no sense of your own mortality. The "I'm bulletproof" argument is one only put forth by idiots. You have no idea what will happen next. None whatsoever. It's all a matter of odds and happenstance. Your idea that the young and healthy people are going to pay for everyone else... our kids are paying a lot less money for a lot more insurance than we're getting... it just isn't so. In some states, young people can get by with just catastrophic. So please, drop the pretense.

And despite your presumption that you are "naturally healthy", eventually, the odds are very high that something will happen, and at that time you'll be expecting the rest of us to pay for it. We will. But you will too. Live with it. It's not really a bad thing, once you take reality into account.

Good recitation of the democrat party line talking points.
You get a cookie.

More importantly, I got affordable insurance with excellent benefits, despite preexisting conditions. :)

You and yours, who don't bother to research what's actually going on, instead writing off the facts as "talking points", are now living in a world of butthurt. So sorry for your loss.