4 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

How dare he contradict Jackson, that's r**ist. 😆

13 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Of course it was. To force americans to pay attention and understand the premiums going up is on Trump. I would have let them twist in the wind another week.

No it wasn't.

Before the shut down democrats polling was on par with the aids virus. The shutdown was their play.

Conveniently got juuuuust enough votes to pass right? The safe ones.

You know they aren't really fighting in the WWE right?

Dick Durbin
"I cannot accept a strategy which wages political battle at the expense of my neighbor's paycheck or the food for his children.”

Eagles offensive play calling still sucks

^posted during the 4th quarter of a 1-score NFC conference game. What dill-dos

awful political memes > Monday Night Football

A win is a win.

Reading a memo this morning concerning the company's health benefits. Aetna won't renew us, and they are looking at age-based plans which for me means I'm about to get royally screwed.

Employees over 50 y/o, but less than 65 y/o:

Unfortunately, in these Age-Based Plans versus Level-Funded, the premiums rise considerably.

I maybe going without if the premiums are beyond my reach. Not eligible for Medicare until Sept. 2026. I'm fairly healthy on a few meds. Due for a Prolia shot in Jan and they say you shouldn't just stop this med but looks like I am. Been hitting my deductible every year due to the cost of that shot.

I'm a bit surprised age-based plans are legal.

The entire point of insurance is to socialize risk and losses.

If your pool of insurees are higher risk then you're not socializing anything.

The dems that caved should be ashamed of themselves. I'll gladly campaign for Fetterman's primary opponent. Schumer should be replaced. What feckless ineffective leadership.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shutdown-defections-spark-fury-as-democrats-struggle-to-unify-against-trump/ar-AA1QdfE7

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'm a bit surprised age-based plans are legal.

The entire point of insurance is to socialize risk and losses.

If your pool of insurees are higher risk then you're not socializing anything.

Older people have a higher probability of healthcare claims, so why should it be illegal for an older person's premiums to be higher than a younger person's premiums?

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

The dems that caved should be ashamed of themselves. I'll gladly campaign for Fetterman's primary opponent. Schumer should be replaced. What feckless ineffective leadership.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shutdown-defections-spark-fury-as-democrats-struggle-to-unify-against-trump/ar-AA1QdfE7

meh, I mean what would you have them do, continue this for how long? Air travel has been completed effed. Millions of federal employees without pay. How long can those people go on without collecting a paycheck?

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

meh, I mean what would you have them do, continue this for how long? Air travel has been completed effed. Millions of federal employees without pay. How long can those people go on without collecting a paycheck?

Ask Trump...

25 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Older people have a higher probability of healthcare claims, so why should it be illegal for an older person's premiums to be higher than a younger person's premiums?

on a company health plan though?

Just now, Gannan said:

Ask Trump...

That doesn't answer my question though. Are you saying you'd ask millions of federal employees to go without pay for an even longer extended period of time so that you can prove a political point? Not to mention all the ancillary negative impacts from the shutdown.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

on a company health plan though?

There's two ways to set premiums. Age based plans, where employees have varying premiums based on their age. Composite plans, where the insurer creates a single rate based on the composite age of the employees. I would imagine most companies use composite plans, every company I've ever been at had composite. But it certainly wouldn't be illegal to use the age based method.

So what happened?

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There's two ways to set premiums. Age based plans, where employees have varying premiums based on their age. Composite plans, where the insurer creates a single rate based on the composite age of the employees. I would imagine most companies use composite plans, every company I've ever been at had composite. But it certainly wouldn't be illegal to use the age based method.

Same, I've never seen different plan offerings for different age groups in any company I've worked for.

I guess I just assumed such a thing was verboten.

Honestly it would probably cause an uproar at most places I've been, so the company probably opts for composite to avoid that kind of static.

21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Same, I've never seen different plan offerings for different age groups in any company I've worked for.

I guess I just assumed such a thing was verboten.

Honestly it would probably cause an uproar at most places I've been, so the company probably opts for composite to avoid that kind of static.

yeah I could see that. I would imagine it's simpler from the company's perspective as well.

i wonder how much healthcare will go up for congress.

oh, that's right .... 😆

Smokers and fatties should always pay more

and the Dutch

4 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

Smokers and fatties should always pay more

and the Dutch

For reference I looked it up. Currently paying $278.92 per mo. $3500 deductible. Will find out tomorrow what the new offer is. Daughter says get the facts before freaking, but I have bad feeling an age based plan is going to be considerably more.

My 2 cents (since that's why you all subscribe to this newsletter), both parties lost this shut down but the Democrats accomplished what they wanted by setting up healthcare funding as a major issue in the midterm elections. The Republicans could mitigate this issue by introducing a plan of their own, but they don't seem to have one, do they? Best they can hope for now is to extend the ACA subsidies, at least those for lower-income folks, for 2 years rather than 1. The Democrats created this issue and should be hung with it but the Republicans have ceded the issue by doing absolutely nothing to come up with a plan to reform/replace the ACA.