I wouldn't mind it if I've got the option to buy extra insurance to help ensure I get good coverage and also get some priority for appointments. Don't get me started on defense spending. While I recognize that defense spending is a necessity and a societal need, it's full of over-spending and waste.
The comparison to auto insurance is accurate though, because you shouldn't be able to avoid paying into the system and then expect similar rates when you finally have an emergency. That's punishing those of us that paid insurance premiums while we're healthy all those years.
If the goal is to ensure that people pay into the pot, keeping premiums down, then you can't just give people the option to wait for an emergency and only pay when they have expenses coming up. I don't believe in a system that rewards people who refuse to pay into the pot and punishes those of us that do. I've been paying for health insurance for over a decade now without a major medical emergency. I've been subsidizing the elderly and the sickly for all of that time. I should be rewarded when I do become older and sickly with not having to pay as much as the person who hasn't been paying for the past decade.
If I get to be 60 years old and have cancer, and I have to pay the same out of pocket as a guy who is 60 years old, has cancer, and just for the first time is trying to enter the insurance market, that's BS and completely unfair.
Forgive me if I compare your cancer to getting your car totaled, but I don't see any logical reason why you SHOULDN'T have to pay more if you get cancer and just then decide to pay into the pot. It's a thing called personal responsibility, and if you refuse to plan for your unhealthy years, then yes, you should have ridiculously high medical bills to have to deal with, because you failed to plan. We absolutely should NOT reward failure to plan with government dollars. It makes no sense.
If reason is going to prevail, it will have to do it district by district.
And there's the rub....
@BP45 - Memphis has always welcomed density. (blinks) (blinks again)
and Waters survives?
Grove - why do you assume there would be long wait times on an American Single Payer health care system? People on Medicare don't experience longer wait times.
And, insurance only works if there are tons of people paying into the pool. I mean, the CEO's have to make HUGE salaries, right? Those poor insurance companies can't afford to pay out thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars per claim unless there are a lot of people paying in. I can pay in to insurance all my life, but if I get in a some kind of horrible accident, I won't have enough of my own money in the pot to cover the outrageous costs.
I'm really getting tired of the auto insurance comparison. Yes, they are both insurance, but do you really think a car is as important as a human life? Driving is not a right, and it should not be a right. Health care is not a right, but it should be.
I welcome the building of new apartments in Midtown. I also agree that we must demand quality but I am weary of those who demand conservative architecture. See that's the problem with "flat growth" we end up lacking outside impute and become inwardly focused. We dare not say the wrong thing because no one ever comes or goes. Get appointed to run the C&V Bureau or the Airport and it's a lifetime appointment. No new ideas come or go in flat city. Effectively flat city has a wall. It's not a healthy place to be.
It's always been easier to marshall Memphians to preserve the past than to build the future. As Midtown Memphis undergoes a renaissance lets welcome density, quality and not be afraid of modernity. It's the only way to avoid becoming a relic of the past.
Hey Gannett, Fuck off!
"For those who were unable to make it to the meeting yesterday, a survey for each project will be available online for the next 21 days."
A link would help.
I've paid health insurance for years, but because I "look poor" I still have difficulty getting appointments with doctors on my plan, to the extent where I just don't go to the doctor at all.
I was once thrown out of a an optometrists office for "looking poor" that was recommended by my plan, because I presented my secondary vision benefits card first because I didn't know my general health insurance also covered vision and they would need both. I was told if I "left quietly" they would shred my records and not charge me for a no-show. Seeing this was the quality of care being provided, I got out while the getting was good, and quietly too.
When I finally did get to see a different optometrist, I was immediately railroaded into having unnecessary yet extremely expensive testing for a condition that I had no symptoms of because my insurance would pay for some of it. I was vaguely threatened with the prospect of blindness in case I was considering exercising my personal autonomy to not bother documenting a non-existent condition.
I got the test. My vision didn't get one bit better, but I got poorer.
Just because I needed new glasses, which my plan is supposed to cover.
Needless to say, I have never honestly expected to receive any benefits from the money that I pay so that the elderly and chronically ill can be cared for. I don't think anyone who came of age Post-Reagan expects to receive a single penny of the social security or medicaid benefits that have been forcibly extracted from us our entire lives. I honestly only pay my insurance because I as a professional medical biller know un-insured status can and will be used against me in an emergency situation to deny me care in case of a major medical emergency like a car wreck.
Until we fully fund the education system to stop the false shortage of doctors, they're going to pump us for cash like the drug-dependent prostitutes we are. At the end of the day, you either pay them, or they let you die. The boondoggle is that you die whether you pay them or not, because there is no cure for old age, even as the elderly grow more and more demanding for medical that care can only work temporarily.
I've been paying more for massive national defense systems for decades only to live in a country thrown into a tizzy by a few guys with box cutters. But do you see me complaining? National Health like National defense are systems that win or fail due to management and leadership. Profiteering in either system can render them and other ancillary systems inefficient. My old health plan went from exemplary to trash over the course of decades paying into it.
Now if you want to buy insurance in addition to socialized medicine, or install home security systems in addition to trillion dollar jet fighters, more power to ya.
Personal opinion here, I feel that the Clintons of '92 and Obama of late effectively blocked National Health and enriched their contributors for may years to come
Maybe it's just me, but I think Single Payer was and has always been the end game here. It just wasn't feasible without throwing something else out there first.
I'm confident I'll be under Single Payer before I die. It'll be fun having to wait months to get an appointment, and I'll really enjoy having even fewer benefits than I have today, while paying more in tax expenses to cover it. Less for more is great!
On the idea of pre-existing conditions, I'm fine saying that you shouldn't be able to deny someone who has a pre-existing condition, but if they haven't been insured or paying insurance premiums for years, and they want to get insurance once they get sick, then yes absolutely, they should have to pay an exorbitant amount of money in order to make up for all the years of never paying into the pot.
I get that ACA is trying to cover that by essentially forcing everyone into the insurance pool, but you've got to allow insurance companies to penalize a 60 year old that just now wants insurance after not paying into the pot for 30 years, and they want it now because they just found out they had cancer.
It's not right for that person to get a similar rate as someone who spent 30 years paying into the pot. You wouldn't suggest a car insurance system that allowed you to buy insurance at normal rates only AFTER you've totaled your car. Why should health insurance be different?
"with an eye toward permanence and architectural cohesiveness. We need to be vigilant against overbuilding neighborhoods around entertainment districts or city parks "pop-up" projects that appear destined to become obsolete in the coming years"
The City still desperately needs a more effective plan and associated zoning. It still appears in a number of areas including popular ones that setbacks, facing, parking placement etc are all over the place.
Pages 4/5 of the attached an excellent illustration of how parking, landscape and sidewalk work together to provide protection for pedestrians and thus more walkability
There are a couple popular projects that have and are being built that would have benefited from something like this. I fear for the poor pedestrians lives in those places.
Brichy Brichy, hold on, 2 more days before med re-fill.
I don't think it's reasonable to force young people to buy health insurance, especially considering the drop in real wages over the last 40 years. All that is, is a windfall for the insurance companies that participate in the ACA.
The failure to control insurer behavior and pharma in the original ACA plan are the primary reason why it will fail. But you really won't ever be able to herd healthy people who want to take a chance on staying healthy into forced insurance models. They will figure out how to avoid it. So that was a very, very stupid plan to begin with.
Single payor of some variety will eventually be necessary. The ideologues don't want to hear it. But that is true.
I haven't bought The Commercial Appeal in years and these changes aren't enough to change my mind. It's unfortunate that so many people are losing their jobs but the quality of the paper just isn't worth paying for. I have the same opinion of most broadcast news also. Most journalists (and most people, for that matter) have forgotten that there is a difference between reporting facts and writing opinion pieces.
Owned by Wall Street?
Is there anyone that isnt? Do you, or anyone have independence from value? Transaction fees? Anyone?
Remember, it's a "Viewpoint". Remember, it's not "news".
"Viewpoint" = "There is a beautiful woman."
"News" = "It is woman."
In this case, Jackson doesn't make ANY distinction on the behavior of the people in question, only stating that he was there when it occurred. Or, maybe the other way 'round.
I must apologize, but would you mind clarifying?
I tend to differentiate between two things, thrice, when it comes to such things.
Info collected by non-state vs state entities.
Info disiminated by non-state vs state entities.
Info that has national security vs political import.
All are tough characters, but #3 is the toughest one.
I know it's bad policy to respond to "moverhill," who I suspect is a needy character we've seen before in our comment spaces bearing numerous other aliases, but there's an ultimate and obvious idiocy in his silly accusations that needs to be pointed out.
Yes, "moverhill," I've "inserted myself" into this piece. Duh. It would be odd if I didn't, since this is not news coverage at all. It's openly and avowedly a personal Viewpoint about a specific autobiographical experience. To avoid "inserting myself" into a reminiscence of this kind would be damned near impossible.
That's really all I have to say. If autobiography offends you, don't read it. Meanwhile, neither I nor any of the other respondents here are in need of a lecture from you about ethics, a subject which I suspect you know very little about, "moverhill." And indisputably you know even less about the principles of journalism, which clearly you've never practiced.
Please, for your sake and ours, get a life. .
I went to MSU, opps, the University of Memphis, with Phil, great guy and a great writer. With Gannett having both the CA, and the Tennessean, we are basically down to just one state wide paper. I miss the CA, even though they are pissed me off numerous times as a reader, subscriber, and advertiser.
Newspapers survived radio, and then TV, but it looks like the Internet has finally killed the newspaper.
By Chris McCoy
download this issue
click here to see more »