RowdyRebel

We all know the reason you don't like it is because the government gets out of the way. You think the more government involvement the better off you are, but I stopped needing a nanny watching over me decades ago. The fact that you can save and pay for your own health care needs means that you can buy a MUCH cheaper policy that would only cover a major catastrophic event...high deductible without all of the bells & whistles...a type of plan that USED to be available until Obamacare came along. Insurance is supposed to protect your assets by limiting your liability in the event of an unplanned, unexpected loss. If that's why you're buying a policy, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. The reason it costs as much as it does is because it isn't really insurance, but rather a cost-sharing plan for a group of people with no interest in controlling those costs. We have to get away from that idea and move back to individuals looking after their own interests and paying their own way or else costs will continue on their uncontrolled ascent. We won't get there with more government.

They need to simply repeal Obamacare. Eliminate all federal mandates for specific coverages, and allow folks to buy across state lines...giving people the choice in whether to buy coverages their home state mandates or buy elsewhere without having to pay for useless coverages. It is called "freedom". If they want to "protect" people, stipulate that insurance policies cannot be cancelled by the insurance company for any reason other than non-payment. My old policy actually had that clause in it, so it isn't anything that couldn't be done. Now, as long as you have coverage, you get to keep your coverage. I'd even suggest a cap on the percentage the premiums could be increased each year...except we all know what that means: premiums WOULD go up by that much each year. Perhaps an increase cap for the years immediately following a major claim, so that a person's insurance won't quadruple the year after a heart attack (to the point they can't pay the premium) despite the fact that they'd been healthy and claim-free for 20 years prior... HSA's are another thing that needs to be pushed...with OR WITHOUT a "compatible" health insurance policy. If someone wishes to "self insure" and put the money they'd otherwise spend on premiums into an HSA, why shouldn't they be able to do so? If you've got insurance, they're handy for paying deductibles, co-pays, and other costs...and spending your own money leads to more people giving a damn what things actually cost...which will bring down prices as doctors and hospitals now have to compete for your business. Perhaps even require a list of prices for common procedures to be available...much like a menu at the restaurant...or at the very least, a rate such as your local mechanic indicating how much per hour/day/whatever you'll be charged for the non-typical stuff. Done. Now, everybody knows what everything costs so they can control how much they spend, which also keeps the cost of insurance down. They can save to pay for their own care. They can choose whether or not to buy insurance, and if they do, they know they won't be cancelled if they get sick...just pay the premiums. Problem solved. It doesn't HAVE to be complicated. Common sense and individual liberty are really all that is needed. Maybe even get back to the time when doctors charged their customers based on what the individual customer could afford to pay rather than what they could convince a 3rd party was necessary to pay. It is absolutely ridiculous that you go to the hospital for a routine procedure that literally takes the doctor 5 minutes to perform...and NOBODY can tell you what it will cost BEFORE you have it done...until a month later you get a bill for $12,000. Routine stuff should be more like a car mechanic...get a quote, and they can't exceed that by more than 10%. Shop around, weighing cost vs reputation of the ones doing the work, and make your decision.

I don't have health insurance. I HAD great insurance that fit my needs...$65/month premium, $1750 deductible, 80% covered to $4750 max out-of-pocket then 100% covered, and $5M lifetime cap. It was grandfathered in under Obamacare...but new fees to subsidize those who "couldn't afford" their own insurance pushed the cost of my policy to the point where it was no longer a good value. Plus, I got married and could not add my wife and maintain my grandfathered status. So, I dropped it. We looked into a policy this past "open enrollment", but at $1000/month for a policy that wasn't any good out of state...which is a problem because we live near the state line and most of our time is spent out of state. That also came with a $6K deductible, which more than doubled again to $13K if you weren't "in network"...which again, with where we live was more likely than not. We'd be paying the first $13K in expenses IN ADDITION TO the $12K in annual premiums...and then still have to cover 80% of the cost beyond that because it's out of network. In other words, we're better off WITHOUT the crap policies available under Obamacare, and keeping that $12K in our pockets.

Never said stupidity should be a crime...only the mismanagement of the people's money. That isn't stupid, but rather careless indifference...often intentionally...because there are no penalties for irresponsibility. If voted out of office, they get a pension (which they authorized for themselves) and go to work as a lobbyist. If re-elected, they keep their seat and all of the perks that go with it. There are no consequences for irresponsible behavior because the people who need to be held accountable are the ones making the rules. And social security is NOT "insurance". It is a ponzi scheme plain and simple. https://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. From its inception, social security has paid out benefits to recipients (existing "investors") with money received from workers (new "investors"). The original recipients of Social Security funds never paid into the system. Why do Ponzi schemes collapse? With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out. Social Security is in trouble because the flow of money from "new investors" is dwindling as families have fewer kids one generation to the next to grow up to eventually join the work force. Then, there's the whole youth unemployment problem caused in part by a minimum wage that exceeds the worth of an uneducated, unskilled, inexperienced worked, making it difficult for the few kids people are having to actually join the work force. Old folks are retiring early (cashing out, so to speak) and living longer, further exacerbating the problem. ...and I can't help but laugh at your last statement about Social Security having never promised a return on investment! Try telling that to the millions of seniors who go into panic mode anytime anyone even remotely suggests reforms are needed and the Democrats start in with the "Republicans want to cut Social Security" song and dance. Eventually, it WILL collapse, and there won't be a damn thing anyone can do about it because nobody had the stones to fix the problems with sustainable solutions.

The only reason "no crimes have been committed" is because those in elected office have chosen not to pass laws criminalizing wasteful spending by the government. Instead, they have passed laws prohibiting them from being held liable for any actions they take while in office. Like I said, it ought to be a crime to mismanage the people's money. If a private corporation managed funds the same way the government does, the officers of that company would be in prison. Hell, even programs such as Social Security are nothing more than a ponzi scheme...but that's considered sacred and untouchable despite the fact that it is unsustainable. If somebody in the private sector was caught operating a program identical to social security in every way, they'd be locked up for a long time. Why? Because those IN government aren't going to pass laws criminalizing their own mismanagement of funds forcibly taken through taxation...but they have no problem criminalizing somebody else's mismanagement of funds which were freely provided to them by other individuals. Even "insider trading" is illegal for everyone EXCEPT members of Congress. Buy stock in a corporation the day before you introduce a bill that will make stock prices go through the roof? NO BIG DEAL! Sell your stock in a company the day before legislation hits the floor that'll tank the price? NOTHING TO SEE HERE! If you aren't a member of Congress, though, and you buy or sell based upon inside information others may not be privy to, and you're going to prison. Just because it isn't a "crime" to do something doesn't make it OK...especially if it WOULD be a crime if not for your position in the government.

Your township can be a deadbeat government because your county and state governments are enablers. Until such time as they are allowed to fail, AND those responsible for the failure are held accountable (incarceration, financial reimbursements to the Township, etc...), then the trend will continue. Why? Because there are no repercussions for irresponsible behavior by those in government. Just like a drug addict won't stop abusing drugs until they hit rock bottom, a wasteful government won't stop being wasteful. Enablers only dig the hole deeper so the "rock bottom" is farther away and less likely to be reached. Mismanagement of the people's money ought to be a serious criminal infraction. Instead, those elected to office pass laws immunizing themselves from all but the most egregious violations.

The Republican party is NOT "my" party. They only get my vote because the Democrats are polar opposite of where I stand on nearly every issue, while the GOP has a few things upon which I can agree with them. Lesser of 2 evils. If there were a viable candidate who was a Constitutionalist (as written, NOT as "interpreted" by activist judges), he'd get my vote. I'd even take a Libertarian so long as they defended LIFE along with Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...unfortunately, though, many Libertarians do not. So we have what we have, where one party that is wrong 99% of the time is running against a party that gets it right 65% of the time.

The fact that options are somewhat limited shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The reason WHY options are limited is where the disagreement is. Teamster seems to think the anti-trust division of government is the only reason there are more than one health insurance company and more than one health care provider. In reality, though, without the few large corporate conglomerates lobbying the government for rules and regulations which benefit them by making it difficult to make it as a smaller, independent operator in the industry (high start-up cost, high compliance costs, countless hoops to jump through that the large corporations have lawyers on staff to navigate but the little guy doesn't, etc...). When it is prohibitively expensive to attempt to "build a better mouse trap", nobody will attempt it...which means the big players who are already there won't have to compete with the upstarts who simply don't have the capital to compete despite having a MUCH lower overhead. Cut the ridiculous regulatory maze and turn loose the free market. Make it POSSIBLE for somebody to build a better mouse trap without pricing that better mousetrap out of the arena before it ever gets built due to the compliance costs of burdensome regulations. More government interference DEMANDING competition won't solve anything, because people with ideas have to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not it is economically feasible to do so. If it isn't economically feasible for an individual to enter the market place and compete, the only players will be large corporations and their spin-off corporations when the feds determine the original corporation has gobbled up too much of the market share. More government involvement is NEVER the right choice.

Due to the regulatory climate in the health care industry, the market forces which would otherwise encourage competition haven't been allowed to work in decades. This encourages monopolies and large corporate "winners" while making it nearly impossible for anyone else to stay in business. What you're experiencing is BECAUSE government got involved picking winners and losers. So now you want to turn back to the same government that screwed things up and let them control even more? Sounds like a BRILLIANT idea!

Kinda makes me glad I don't have an android, apple, or windows phone, and my windows desktop doesn't have a microphone OR camera. I have a smart phone...it just isn't an android, apple, or windows OS. Ditto on the no connection between my truck's ECM and the outside world. Want to tinker? Have to be inside the truck physically connected. Not looking forward to installing an ELD...still weighing my options, as that device will provide a doorway into my truck's computer. Wife wants to move, so if I can find a buyer for the house we're gone. Then, I'll either find a job I can run local under the 100 air-mile exemption, or get a regular job. Hell, my NEWEST POV is old enough to drink...just wish this old Mack was 13or so months older to be a late-'99 instead of an early-'01.

The reason health care COSTS so damn much is because NOBODY knows (or cares) what it costs. The person receiving the care isn't typically the one paying the bill. Try calling a few hospitals to get a price quote for a procedure. Pulling teeth is child's play by comparison. They don't know what it'll cost until AFTER the fact, when they bill you whatever they decide you ought to pay. Insurance companies only care that the paperwork is filed correctly, they they pay what they've decided the procedure ought to cost. The person who received the treatment doesn't care about anything more than their co-pay and deductible. Think about it this way. If somebody else is paying for your fuel, and it doesn't affect you one way or the other what sort of mileage your car gets, are you going to care if it's getting 10 mpg vs 20? Probably not, because you aren't the one footing the bill. Even less so if the gas stations, knowing you as the driver aren't the one paying for the fuel, simply didn't post the price per gallon and wouldn't (or couldn't) tell you the actual price if you asked. They could charge $1/gallon or $10/gallon and you wouldn't know the difference because you aren't the one getting billed for it. That's why drug companies can charge outrageous amounts for their drugs. The consumer isn't likely the one paying the bill, and the insurance company will either pay it or negotiate a different rate...using the threat of denial of coverage as leverage. Until hospitals can tell you the price of a procedure, allowing you the consumer to shop around for the best value (encouraging FREE MARKET COMPETITION), then nothing the congress passes will do anything to curb the cost. The consumer MUST have a vested interest in controlling costs before hospitals and drug companies will ever consider pricing their products and services competitively. ...and the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. Who cares if a health care corporation pays it's administrators millions of dollars per year? If they actually had to actually compete in the free market, how competitive could they hope to be with that sort of overhead? If they can't compete, they lose market share. Lose market share, and the administrators have a tough row to hoe in justifying that multi-million dollar salary. Free market wins again.

...and just HOW do those "great" countries pay for national health care? Confiscatory tax rates, and cutting out "unnecessary" budget items such as defense (because the good ol' USA will be there to pick up the slack). Tell you what. If you think those other countries are so "great", pick one and go there. The fact that more people come here to realize their dreams (leaving those countries you call "great") and not the other way around tells me your idea of what makes a country "great" is a little warped. I don't need a nanny state looking after me. I prefer the freedom to make my own choices to better my situation. When the state makes your decisions for you, you're stuck where you're at. Born poor? You'll die poor. Born wealthy? You'll get to keep that wealth (unless you completely screw it up). I prefer the opportunity to rise above where I'm at, even if that means risking failure. I choose freedom.

No, under the current law you do NOT have the choice. You either pay through the nose for an outrageously unaffordable policy that doesn't even come close to what a person might want or need...or pay a confiscatory fine to the government. If we were really free, we would not be penalized for choosing NOT to buy insurance, we could buy as much or as little as we decide we need, and it wouldn't be any concern of anybody in government as to whether or not and to what extent anybody is insured.

No, what is embarrassing is the fact that grown-a** adults think somebody else ought to have to pay for their health care so that they don't have to make the difficult choices that might otherwise be necessary to find room in their budget. What is embarrassing is the fact that NOBODY in the health care industry can tell you what anything ACTUALLY costs! Makes it difficult for a consumer to comparison shop when nobody can tell you what you'll be billed until AFTER the fact. We got here because the consumer has been so far removed from the payment process that they simply don't care. They pay their $20 co-pay and "insurance" covers the rest. I put "insurance" in quotes, because insurance it is NOT! Preventive care? Maintenance type stuff like regular checkups? Why is insurance expected to pay for that? Does your car insurance cover tire rotations and tune-ups? Car washes? Oil changes? Fuel-ups? No! If it DID cover those things, you'd be crying about how unaffordable car insurance was. Try wrapping your car around a tree...and then finding a policy that covers that "pre-existing condition". Or perhaps wait until your home is fully engulfed in flames to buy a homeowners insurance policy that covers the "pre-existing condition". Again, NOT insurance...but that's what you expect from your health insurance. What is embarrassing is all of the extra, useless coverages I have to buy because somebody in government thinks I ought to have it...which unnecessarily increases the cost of the insurance. Why should I pay for drug rehab coverage when I have never taken drugs, and other than antibiotics prescribed by a doctor, I don't take drugs of any kind (not even tylenol for a headache). As a responsible adult, I ought to have the option to pay for the coverages I want, and opt out of coverages for which I have no need. What is embarrassing is the number of people who allow the federal government to tell them they MUST buy a specific product, whether they need it or not, or pay a financial penalty. Nowhere in the Constitution did "We the People" grant that power to the federal government. How sovereign is the individual when the government claims this sort of power over them? Not very! Our government was founded upon the principal that the individual IS the sovereign entity with certain unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator. The individual yields certain specific powers to the different levels of government. These powers are spelled out clearly in charters (village, city, county) and constitutions (state, federal)...generally gathering power to do collectively that which is unreasonable or impossible for individuals to accomplish independently (i.e. national security). Where the private life of the individual are concerned, the government has no power to intervene. What is embarrassing is the fact that all of these other nations, who cut their military budgets to almost nothing in order to pay for this socialist crap, know WE'LL be there to defend them if they need protection. Who's left to protect US if we do the same? I don't trust the government to protect my home, and I sure as hell don't trust the UN or any other "world body" to protect my country. Like they say, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away". I have NEVER found freedom to be embarrassing, though. Arguing in favor of government-mandated/government-run/one-size-fits-all healthcare is arguing AGAINST freedom. The individual needs to have the choice in whether or not to buy, what coverages to buy or reject, and whatever limits and deductibles the individual decides to be best for their own situation. Anything else, and the government is treating the individual as incompetent in making those decisions...and THAT is also embarrassing.

I'm not a doctor. If I was, though, should I be FORCED to offer my time and services free of charge just because that service is deemed to be "vital"? What's next? Everybody needs food, so should farmers be forced to give away their crops, beef, pork, and poultry? Should truckers haul those commodities pro-bono as well because it is "required for life"? What about grocery stores and restaurants? Should they be required to let anybody who is hungry walk out of their doors with full bellies without paying? Doctors spend years going to college, medical school, completing their residency...requiring tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to be paid (or borrowed) in order to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to perform their craft. Who are you to say they shouldn't be justly compensated? Just because you WANT something, or even because you think you NEED it, does NOT mean you have the RIGHT to it...especially when it comes at the expense of another. It isn't a right when somebody else is required to provide it to you.

"Rights" do not require the actions of others in order for you to exercise them. Speech (nobody HAS to listen to you). Press (nobody HAS to read your publications). Keep & Bear Arms (nobody HAS to buy them for you). Etc., etc., etc... Involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Constitution by the 13th Amendment, which is what doctors MUST do IF their service is somehow considered a "Right" held by everybody else. You don't have the RIGHT to MY services any more than I have the RIGHT to YOUR services. It doesn't matter if I am a truck driver, banker, mason, blacksmith, proprietor of a store...or even a doctor. If I provide a service you need, you STILL do not have the RIGHT to force me to perform that service for you. You may ASK, and offering proper and fair compensation will likely convince me to help, but MY service is NOT a RIGHT you are entitled to have.

Midwest Truck? Unless there's another one of them running around, they're right in my back yard (almost)...hear them advertising on the radio about having the only rotator in the area.

"Can deliver!" Yeah, go right ahead. You going to get all the proper oversize permits to move that thing? 53' is the maximum legal trailer length out here, and with that much tail swing, you'd better never take it to Michigan, either. That would suck having to get permits AND have to stick to your designated routes and abide by local curfews every time you wanted to go anywhere on vacation. I'd guess that's part of why something that new (5 years old) is being sold at that much of a discount...limited to where you can go with it.

Nope...KY.

...but I got'er in there!

This place REALLY wasn't designed for 102" trailers...

...or pull the dash and remove the damn thing. Makes me happy that all my vehicles predate the air bag mandate.

Wouldn't surprise me if it did jolt the ol' ticker...sure hurt like a sumbitch inside. Only touched an electric fence one other time out where we previously kept the horses...wasn't thinking & rested my hand on the wire while standing. Got my attention, but other than my hand where I touched it & maybe a little up my arm, no big deal. This one rocked me through my core...don't know if the voltage is higher on this system or if it's just stronger because it's a shorted fence line. I think I'll try that crow bar trick if'n I'm ever dumb enough to fix a fence rail again without figuring out how to shut off the power to the damn thing. I fully understand the reaction them horses give when they get popped for the first time...and why they never again try to push through the fence that got 'em...

Haven't noticed that, but I haven't paid that close attention to it either. I know it doesn't go out...but dimming? I'll have to see. Looked like there was a fusible link on one of the wires bolted to the stud on the back...that wire was sparking when it'd touch anything else...even the other wire that was bolted on with it. (yeah, I know they say "disconnect the battery" before you get to work, but they say that for just about everything in those silly manuals). Anyway, I don't know how long the issue has existed...perhaps the battery light bulb was burned out before. Been on ever since I installed the new gauges, and yes, I double checked the dash wiring to make sure the proper wire was run to the light.

Bad news: I discovered that fact kneeling on the damp ground trying to fix the bottom rail of the fence. Didn't realize my shoulder got into the wire...until the pulse hit. Felt like a damn linebacker smacked me dead center in the chest. Sounded like a kick drum..."THUD". Knocked the wind out of me as that jolt locked up every muscle in my body. Not fun. That was yesterday, and my chest is still a little sore. Watch out for them damn 'lectric fences...them things is MEAN sumbitches.