| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2014 03:10:05 PM · #101 |
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
Judith, you tend to talk in these idealogic extremes, and that's why nobody really takes you seriously unless they already agree with you (and then you are only preaching to the choir).
According to Gallup's recent poll the "significant minority" that "doesn't give a shit" stands at 51%.
I'm not even against the ACA, but it has been run and rolled out about as poorly as one could fear. That may be representative of how our government operates. It's possible that the idea of the ACA is noble but we completely lack the ability to bring it to fruition.
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 15:17:24. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 04:06:32 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
Judith, you tend to talk in these idealogic extremes, and that's why nobody really takes you seriously unless they already agree with you (and then you are only preaching to the choir).
According to Gallup's recent poll the "significant minority" that "doesn't give a shit" stands at 51%.
I'm not even against the ACA, but it has been run and rolled out about as poorly as one could fear. That may be representative of how our government operates. It's possible that the idea of the ACA is noble but we completely lack the ability to bring it to fruition. |
It may not be the greatest thing to come down the pike, but it's better than the Right's "Let them Die" plan for healthcare. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 04:19:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not even against the ACA, but it has been run and rolled out about as poorly as one could fear. That may be representative of how our government operates. |
Let's remember that the implementation of the ACA was also being actively sabotaged by a significant proportion of "the governemnt" ... like governors and legisatures in over half the states. It's not like once the law was passed we as a nation all buckled down and made sure it worked as well as possible ... that for sure is not how our government operates. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 05:54:30 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
|
Try accessing health care without insurance…unless you're independently wealthy you're not getting access. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 06:11:02 PM · #105 |
1st of all no hospital can refuse an emergency case. (they have to make the patient stable) then there are charity hospitals that will take patients that cant pay.. However charity hospitals do go on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2014 06:19:18 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A. |
Thanks for proving my point, but stop presuming you know what I care about. It's people like you and hyperbole like yours that prevents any civil discourse and progress. If you would shut your piehole and (note to self: that should probably be removed) assume as I do, that most people want the same things (everyone to have access to healthcare), they just have a very different view of how to get there and/or different lines they are willing to cross to get there. It's as absurd and insulting to say that people who are ideologically opposed to your point of view "don't care" or "want people to die" (Spork) as it is for me to say that people on welfare are lazy freeloaders that are a drain on our society.
Feel free to thrash about and gather your choir and preach away. I am disengaging from this nonsense - I have more enjoyable nonsense to attend to. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 06:32:00 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
1st of all no hospital can refuse an emergency case. (they have to make the patient stable) then there are charity hospitals that will take patients that cant pay.. However charity hospitals do go on a case by case basis. |
Yep, they'll stabilize you so they can bill you out of house and home. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 06:43:20 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A. |
Thanks for proving my point, but stop presuming you know what I care about. It's people like you and hyperbole like yours that prevents any civil discourse and progress. If you would shut your piehole and (note to self: that should probably be removed) assume as I do, that most people want the same things (everyone to have access to healthcare), they just have a very different view of how to get there and/or different lines they are willing to cross to get there. It's as absurd and insulting to say that people who are ideologically opposed to your point of view "don't care" or "want people to die" (Spork) as it is for me to say that people on welfare are lazy freeloaders that are a drain on our society.
Feel free to thrash about and gather your choir and preach away. I am disengaging from this nonsense - I have more enjoyable nonsense to attend to. |
I never suggested that people who oppose the ACA want people to die. However, I do clearly remember the debate among Republican presidential candidates where the moderator asked a question about a candidate's plan to address health care and the candidate suggested that people simply pay for their care and the moderator asked about those who can't afford that and asked, "What should we do about them, let them die?", which set off a round of applause among the Republican audience. (Much to the horror of the candidate and the moderator, I might add). Thus the birth of the Republican's "Let them Die" healthcare plan. So far, that's the only alternative to simply doing nothing about health care that I've heard from the Right. Maybe I'm wrong and they have presented a brilliant plan, I'd love to learn more about it, but all I've heard from the Right is "Obamacare is BAD!" and no proposals for otherwise fixing the problems. The well to do Republicans sitting in that audience applauding the idea of simply letting their fellow Americans die from sickness or disease was one of the most appalling and telling displays of callous disregard for human suffering that I've seen in a long time. That's the image I have of today's Republicans.
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 18:48:58. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 06:50:51 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A. |
Thanks for proving my point, but stop presuming you know what I care about. It's people like you and hyperbole like yours that prevents any civil discourse and progress. If you would shut your piehole and (note to self: that should probably be removed) assume as I do, that most people want the same things (everyone to have access to healthcare), they just have a very different view of how to get there and/or different lines they are willing to cross to get there. It's as absurd and insulting to say that people who are ideologically opposed to your point of view "don't care" or "want people to die" (Spork) as it is for me to say that people on welfare are lazy freeloaders that are a drain on our society.
Feel free to thrash about and gather your choir and preach away. I am disengaging from this nonsense - I have more enjoyable nonsense to attend to. |
I never suggested that people who oppose the ACA want people to die. However, I do clearly remember the debate among Republican presidential candidates where the moderator asked a question about a candidate's plan to address health care and the candidate suggested that people simply pay for their care and the moderator asked about those who can't afford that and asked, "What should we do about them, let them die?", which set off a round of applause among the Republican audience. (Much to the horror of the candidate and the moderator, I might add). Thus the birth of the Republican's "Let them Die" healthcare plan. So far, that's the only alternative to simply doing nothing about health care that I've heard from the Right. Maybe I'm wrong and they have presented a brilliant plan, I'd love to learn more about it, but all I've heard from the Right is "Obamacare is BAD!" and no proposals for otherwise fixing the problems. |
"Save everyone, no matter what!"
Somehow that just seems like a bad plan. At some point you've made enough bad decisions in your life, and the consequences of those should be yours to bear, not mine. Or do you honestly not believe in consequences? Do you really think that it's our obligation as humans to give everything we can to ensure that no one fails, and that no one dies? Sorry, cold hearted as it probably sounds to the more liberal and socialist minded, I think the specter of failure and death can do much to motivate people to pull their own weight in life - otherwise, what's the point of working your ass off if you can be comfortable, or at least secure, without needing to actually try?
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 18:52:07. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 07:48:31 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not even against the ACA, but it has been run and rolled out about as poorly as one could fear. That may be representative of how our government operates. |
Let's remember that the implementation of the ACA was also being actively sabotaged by a significant proportion of "the governemnt" ... like governors and legisatures in over half the states. It's not like once the law was passed we as a nation all buckled down and made sure it worked as well as possible ... that for sure is not how our government operates. |
It was designed to fail. Needed no help in that. WE DON'T NEED another government program. We need to reform the ones we have! Second debate don't attack. I see people attacking people not debating the subject. Lets be fair. Thanks |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 08:06:46 PM · #111 |
| True story, Happened about a month ago to ME. I went to the Doctor for some test. Everything went good with the insurance there. Left there with a prescription. When I got to the Pharmacy they told me my insurance would not cover this medication. Ok I paid for it FULL PRICE. I got home checked the insurance to see if it was covered and yes it was. Called the insurance company and asked why did they refuse to pay for it. EXACT WORDS " Your doctor has to approve it" I asked " So what in the hell is a prescription for?" She could not answer me except to say now under the ACA your doctor has to call your insurance company and tell them they are prescribing the medication. Now they are paying for it, but will not reimburse me for what I had to pay out. This is a side effect of ACA. To be clear prior to ACA "some" insurance plans also required this. Mine did not. Now I pay 3 times what I was paying for before with the thought I was getting a better plan. Buyer Beware! |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 09:20:56 PM · #112 |
You think that's bad? Try living in Ireland.
Here we have a social welfare system, paid for by tax payers, that provides full free healthcare to everyone. Unemployed people get a medical card which gives them free GP and A&E visits.
Last month I had the pleasure of attending A&E. I paid €100 ($140) at reception, and was told it wasn't covered by my healthcare plan. I got into the queue like everyone else, including a bunch of drunks, drug addicts, and miscellaneous scumbags who got in there for free on their medical cards.
In my third hour waiting, an ambulance arrived. A teenage girl and her mother flashed their medical card and joined us in the waiting room. We heard her life story. Turns out the daughter (was was by now trying to find a plug for her phone) had left her inhaler in her friends car, and had gotten out of breath, so they phoned an ambulance.
An hour later they were seen, before me, mainly by pestering the triage nurse and the receptionist every five minutes.
I was seen after TEN HOURS - The second last person in the waiting room. The other 30 patients who I'd indirectly paid for had slept the night in hospital beds, leaving me sitting in a waiting room chair with the last remaining drunk for company. As I left after being treated I saw the out-of-breath teenage girl walking down the corridor in her pajamas trying to get a better signal for her phone.
Now THAT's rant material. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 09:34:27 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A. |
Thanks for proving my point, but stop presuming you know what I care about. It's people like you and hyperbole like yours that prevents any civil discourse and progress. If you would shut your piehole and (note to self: that should probably be removed) assume as I do, that most people want the same things (everyone to have access to healthcare), they just have a very different view of how to get there and/or different lines they are willing to cross to get there. It's as absurd and insulting to say that people who are ideologically opposed to your point of view "don't care" or "want people to die" (Spork) as it is for me to say that people on welfare are lazy freeloaders that are a drain on our society.
Feel free to thrash about and gather your choir and preach away. I am disengaging from this nonsense - I have more enjoyable nonsense to attend to. |
I never suggested that people who oppose the ACA want people to die. However, I do clearly remember the debate among Republican presidential candidates where the moderator asked a question about a candidate's plan to address health care and the candidate suggested that people simply pay for their care and the moderator asked about those who can't afford that and asked, "What should we do about them, let them die?", which set off a round of applause among the Republican audience. (Much to the horror of the candidate and the moderator, I might add). Thus the birth of the Republican's "Let them Die" healthcare plan. So far, that's the only alternative to simply doing nothing about health care that I've heard from the Right. Maybe I'm wrong and they have presented a brilliant plan, I'd love to learn more about it, but all I've heard from the Right is "Obamacare is BAD!" and no proposals for otherwise fixing the problems. |
"Save everyone, no matter what!"
Somehow that just seems like a bad plan. At some point you've made enough bad decisions in your life, and the consequences of those should be yours to bear, not mine. Or do you honestly not believe in consequences? Do you really think that it's our obligation as humans to give everything we can to ensure that no one fails, and that no one dies? Sorry, cold hearted as it probably sounds to the more liberal and socialist minded, I think the specter of failure and death can do much to motivate people to pull their own weight in life - otherwise, what's the point of working your ass off if you can be comfortable, or at least secure, without needing to actually try? |
Offering treatment is a far cry from "Let them die"
I know plenty of people who HAVE worked their asses off, made good choices and wind up getting cancer or developing a serious disease through no fault of their own. A person shouldn't have to choose between treating their child's cancer and having a place to live.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2014 09:44:52 PM · #114 |
It's the freeloaders who mess it up for everyone. I'd have no problem with my taxes going to genuine cases, helping out people who are sick or just can't find a job even though they've looked or are on the poverty line. For one, it helps keep the crime rates down.
But it's the freeloading scumbags I detest. The people who do nixers, cash jobs on the side, claim welfare benefits, don't bother going to arranged job interviews, claim disability for non-existent disabilities, have nice cars and holidays with that money, waste the doctors time and my tax money by going to the GP with a cold or getting an ambulance to A&E cause they're 'out of breath'. And then come down to my neighbourhood to rob houses in their free time.
They're the ones who mess up the system. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 09:52:30 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Cory:
... otherwise, what's the point of working your ass off if you can be comfortable, or at least secure, without needing to actually try? |
I guess that would depend on one's definition of comfortable or secure.
I have had people ask me point blank why I donate so much money to charities and hospital and my answer has always been "Cause I remember poor only too well". We were so poor, we couldn't even pay attention. :O)
I am certainly not advocating that we carry people from cradle to grave, but surely there are certain instances where we as a collective can provide much needed assistance to those in need.
If the vast majority of industrialized countries can have a health care program that provides for their citizens, surely a rich country like the USA can do the same.
I for one do not believe that the problem is solely the fault of the ACA but rather believe that the different parties are so far apart that they don't even consider acting together for the betterment of the average American citizen.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 10:22:07 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am certainly not advocating that we carry people from cradle to grave, but surely there are certain instances where we as a collective can provide much needed assistance to those in need.
|
I agree with you, but the way we go about it is about as bad as you can get - it is impossible to get help for short-term problems (leading to people using stuff like title loans, which charge a 300% APR), but it is available once you've been in trouble for a little while (read: too late to do any good for the person who's trying), and then is structured in such a way that it nearly discourages people from trying to get off assistance.
Surely we can do better?
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If the vast majority of industrialized countries can have a health care program that provides for their citizens, surely a rich country like the USA can do the same.
|
Not from what I can tell, but apparently we CAN have one that's half as good, but twice as expensive. :(
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I for one do not believe that the problem is solely the fault of the ACA but rather believe that the different parties are so far apart that they don't even consider acting together for the betterment of the average American citizen.
|
Amen.
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 22:25:06. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 10:47:10 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not even against the ACA, but it has been run and rolled out about as poorly as one could fear. That may be representative of how our government operates. |
Let's remember that the implementation of the ACA was also being actively sabotaged by a significant proportion of "the governemnt" ... like governors and legisatures in over half the states. It's not like once the law was passed we as a nation all buckled down and made sure it worked as well as possible ... that for sure is not how our government operates. |
You should know by now I view the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the other party as immature. Luckily I don't belong to either party so I am free to blame both. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 10:47:10 PM · #118 |
Double post
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 22:47:27. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 10:49:47 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
|
Try accessing health care without insurance…unless you're independently wealthy you're not getting access. |
I'm pretty sure my work experience would say you are wrong. |
|
|
|
03/10/2014 11:09:31 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
|
Try accessing health care without insurance…unless you're independently wealthy you're not getting access. |
I'm pretty sure my work experience would say you are wrong. |
never mind
Message edited by author 2014-03-10 23:12:23. |
|
|
|
03/11/2014 08:53:43 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's not confuse not having insurance with not having access to health care...
|
Try accessing health care without insurance…unless you're independently wealthy you're not getting access. |
I'm pretty sure my work experience would say you are wrong. |
I don't mean simply going for a check up or treatment for a minor injury.
Try getting cancer treatment or treatment for a similar life threatening and/or rare disease...unless you can afford it, have insurance or are cute enough to raise megabucks with a fundraiser...you're out of luck. Of course, if you have enough assets, you can kiss them goodbye along with experiencing the joy of being turned over to collection agencies, getting sued and eventually, bankruptcy when they've taken all of what you do have. Nothing helps treatment like wondering if you'll have a home to return to when the chemo is breaking you down.
//money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/
If you're right, why were some 2 million people forced into bankruptcy over medical bills? Why are there millions of people with chronic illnesses that don't take their medication because they can't afford it?
Message edited by author 2014-03-11 08:59:32. |
|
|
|
03/11/2014 12:27:36 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Thanks for proving my point, but stop presuming you know what I care about. It's people like you and hyperbole like yours that prevents any civil discourse and progress. If you would shut your piehole and (note to self: that should probably be removed) assume as I do, that most people want the same things (everyone to have access to healthcare), they just have a very different view of how to get there and/or different lines they are willing to cross to get there. It's as absurd and insulting to say that people who are ideologically opposed to your point of view "don't care" or "want people to die" (Spork) as it is for me to say that people on welfare are lazy freeloaders that are a drain on our society.
Feel free to thrash about and gather your choir and preach away. I am disengaging from this nonsense - I have more enjoyable nonsense to attend to. |
You should take your own advice and stop presuming that folks don't care if their government is lying to them, as long as they get theirs. That is essentially the absurd and insulting presumption you made. For the record, yes, I'm glad that I am finally able to afford insurance. I'm NOT glad that Cory (or anyone else) can't afford it; I'd like the damn system to work for him, too. But we're not going to get to a system that works for him by sniping from the sidelines and offering no solutions. |
|
|
|
03/11/2014 01:03:01 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You should take your own advice and stop presuming that folks don't care if their government is lying to them, as long as they get theirs. That is essentially the absurd and insulting presumption you made. For the record, yes, I'm glad that I am finally able to afford insurance. I'm NOT glad that Cory (or anyone else) can't afford it; I'd like the damn system to work for him, too. But we're not going to get to a system that works for him by sniping from the sidelines and offering no solutions. |
Just to be clear, I could afford it - I'm just now refusing to, and let me explain my logic.
First, and foremost, I'm just incredibly annoyed and angry.
Secondly, the system is now set up such that I can buy insurance WITH a pre-existing condition, and thanks to the interaction between ACA and HIPAA I can buy the insurance after the diagnosis. (yes, I'll need to start a new company so I can actually enroll outside of the 'open enrollment' dates, but that's a non-issue)
Effectively, I'm fine - hell better than before in some ways, as I'm no longer paying insurance premiums and still enjoy the ability to be covered in case of a catastrophic diagnosis.
I just feel a little bad about doing it this way, but I'm not going to play the game that they've set out, as I fundamentally disagree with the rules (and in fact, I even disagree with the loophole that exists which allows me to do this)
--
My point is that the whole thing is broken - badly, badly broken. And people are still willing to play along - it's a shame really, we DO deserve better. And this system seems like it must fail, as it's completely unsustainable in it's current form.
Message edited by author 2014-03-11 13:03:42. |
|
|
|
03/11/2014 01:12:05 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Effectively, I'm fine - hell better than before in some ways, as I'm no longer paying insurance premiums and still enjoy the ability to be covered in case of a catastrophic diagnosis. |
You may owe the IRS a little extra next year. Also, you seem to be assuming that your "catastophic diagnosis" will leave in in condition to start a new company and apply for insurance -- fine if you get early prostate cancer, but not so good if you fracture your skull off-roading ... |
|
|
|
03/11/2014 01:16:57 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Effectively, I'm fine - hell better than before in some ways, as I'm no longer paying insurance premiums and still enjoy the ability to be covered in case of a catastrophic diagnosis. |
You may owe the IRS a little extra next year. Also, you seem to be assuming that your "catastophic diagnosis" will leave in in condition to start a new company and apply for insurance -- fine if you get early prostate cancer, but not so good if you fracture your skull off-roading ... |
I'm willing to assume some level of risk.
And about that 'owe the IRS' thing.... Turns out that it's more or less voluntary - the only way they can collect it is if you either willingly pay it, or if you are owed a refund. Neither will be true for me. |
|
