New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tomm

That would have been entertaining.

Civil discourse is for those who can separate their emotions from their argument. If you can’t do that, don’t bother responding.

FWIW, I read the same thing you quoted in the earlier post and your response is the confusing one. I did not read the quoted post with the same emotional connotation that you seem to have projected on to it.

Civil discourse works best when you don't start trying to insult and exclude the other party.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Spuds

FWIW, I read the same thing you quoted in the earlier post and your response is the confusing one. I did not read the quoted post with the same emotional connotation that you seem to have projected on to it.

Civil discourse works best when you don't start trying to insult and exclude the other party.

I attempted to clarify. I had no ill intentions with what I said. I thought the “lol” would have been a pretty clear indication that I was kidding. I’m interested to know what you think the “two words” would have been?

Civil discourse requires civility - it’s in the name. I have no qualms with excluding people incapable having civil conversation - speaking generally. It ceases to be a conversation when one party is angry.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I attempted to clarify. I had no ill intentions with what I said. I’m interested to know what you think the “two words” would have been?

Civil discourse requires civility - it’s in the name. I have no qualms with excluding people incapable having civil conversation - speaking generally. I ceases to be a conversation when one party is angry.

Are you under the assumption that one party was angry? I mean, mav can certainly speak for themself, but my interpretation of the statement was that hostility simply does not require a longer explanation of his position like what he provided. It was explained by mav that your assumption of his tone in the prior post was incorrect and then he described how you can determine whether he was being hostile in the future.

Your next post seemed to be a rather aggressive personal challenge for civil conversation as you put it.

That would have been entertaining.

Civil discourse is for those who can separate their emotions from their argument. If you can’t do that, don’t bother responding.

To rewrite what I understood the intent to be:
"I would be entertained to see you be hostile towards me. I don't believe you can separate your emotions from your argument so you have no place here." Or in layman's terms, "Come at me bro or gtfo".

If that is not the case, please clarify your intentions. As I said before, I am confused by your recent posts, so perhaps I am mistaken?

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Are you under the assumption that one party was angry? I mean, mav can certainly speak for themself, but my interpretation of the statement was that hostility simply does not require a longer explanation of his position like what he provided. It was explained by mav that your assumption of his tone in the prior post was incorrect and then he described how you can determine whether he was being hostile in the future.

Your next post seemed to be a rather aggressive personal challenge for civil conversation as you put it.

To rewrite what I understood the intent to be:
"I would be entertained to see you be hostile towards me. I don't believe you can separate your emotions from your argument so you have no place here." Or in layman's terms, "Come at me bro or gtfo".

If that is not the case, please clarify your intentions. As I said before, I am confused by your recent posts, so perhaps I am mistaken?

It was definitely defensive over something I did not feel he needed to defend. I even clearly said that I wasn’t challenging his post.

The follow up he posted I felt was passive aggressive towards me. I said that would be entertaining because I assumed the 2 words would have been “f*** you/off” and that would have been humorous to me because I probably would have laughed.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Tomm

That would have been entertaining.

Civil discourse is for those who can separate their emotions from their argument. If you can’t do that, don’t bother responding.

go back and read what I wrote.

Had I been insulted or wanting to insult you, I would not have bothered to type out an explanation for my viewpoint of healthcare (in general).

My first response was written that way because many people that "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" use their own healthiness as a justification for that. But by that reasoning, a safe driver doesn't have to pay for car insurance.

Unfortunately a la carte insurance does not work, because you'd then have to (and be able to) insure almost any type of thing/action under the sun, and the whole idea of using insurance (as a blanket) to reduce/spread out risk/payout is out the window.

Go back and read what I wrote, perhaps you can ignore my retort about me not using health insurance and you can see the rest of what I wrote lines up with my argument that health insurance (and healthcare in general) is something that everyone uses at some point in their lives, and for a lot of healthy people this usage is when they are born.

... or am I being combative again? I don't know.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by mav1178

go back and read what I wrote.

Had I been insulted or wanting to insult you, I would not have bothered to type out an explanation for my viewpoint of healthcare (in general).

I did, a few times to be sure. Do you understand that I wasn’t trying to say you shouldn’t have insurance? I was not challenging your point of view but get your personal experience with ACA.

Originally Posted by mav1178

My first response was written that way because many people that "don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" use their own healthiness as a justification for that. But by that reasoning, a safe driver doesn't have to pay for car insurance.

I get why you say that but your health is none of my business. I merely wanted your experience with coverage regarding ACA.

Originally Posted by mav1178

Unfortunately a la carte insurance does not work, because you'd then have to (and be able to) insure almost any type of thing/action under the sun, and the whole idea of using insurance (as a blanket) to reduce/spread out risk/payout is out the window.

I agree, I have changed policies many times to get one that actually feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.

Originally Posted by mav1178

Go back and read what I wrote, perhaps you can ignore my retort about me not using health insurance and you can see the rest of what I wrote lines up with my argument that health insurance (and healthcare in general) is something that everyone uses at some point in their lives, and for a lot of healthy people this usage is when they are born.

I read that, I just think that what I said was probably confusing (as it appears). Again, I wasn’t looking for the reasons why you chose ACA but rather how your experience has been with regard to coverage and accessibility.

Originally Posted by mav1178

... or am I being combative again? I don't know.

lol “If I was trying to be hostile I would. . .” is passive aggressive in my eyes but that’s up for interpretation.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I did, a few times to be sure. Do you understand that I wasn’t trying to say you shouldn’t have insurance? I was not challenging your point of view but get your personal experience with ACA.

... and I already posted that, but apparently what I posted wasn't what you are asking about.

I have my insurance via Covered California (which essentially is ACA in California).

Comparing it to my previous Kaiser plan from my previous employer, it is identical premium-wise.

The only thing different is any type of subsidies you might get from Covered CA, which is based on your income.

So I'm not sure what else to add, because you keep asking about my personal experience when I already told you what my experience is (identical before/after ACA) and what is different (subsidies based on income). I never changed healthcare providers, I only changed who I bought insurance from.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by mav1178

I never changed healthcare providers, I only changed who I bought insurance from.

Ahh, I was confused as why you were saying Kaiser Bronze and Covered CA. It’s interesting that the price didn’t change. I did some research to find the difference between my current plan and going thru healthcare.gov and it’s a major difference in price. Interestingly healthcare.gov redirects you to Covered CA (for CA residents - my state doesn’t have an exchange like that). And also CAs subsidies have significantly higher income brackets than my state.

My state offers $1300 in subsidies but after that the plan is still $1453/mo. Thats ab $1060 more a month than I pay now.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Ahh, I was confused as why you were saying Kaiser Bronze and Covered CA. It’s interesting that the price didn’t change. I did some research to find the difference between my current plan and going thru healthcare.gov and it’s a major difference in price. Interestingly healthcare.gov redirects you to Covered CA (for CA residents - my state doesn’t have an exchange like that). And also CAs subsidies have significantly higher income brackets than my state.

Which is why I hate the whole discussion of comparing healthcare across state lines, because it's just like car insurance, it varies wildly based on whatever your state does (or did not do).

Most of the US that signed on to ACA is using what the federal government put together. In many states that was reduced to a single healthcare option...

For me in California, what I was offered before and after using Covered CA didn't change anything.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Which is why I hate the whole discussion of comparing healthcare across state lines, because it's just like car insurance, it varies wildly based on whatever your state does (or did not do).

Most of the US that signed on to ACA is using what the federal government put together. In many states that was reduced to a single healthcare option...

For me in California, what I was offered before and after using Covered CA didn't change anything.

That's fair. There are a lot of variables that have to be considered. I checked on Covered CA's website for the cheapest insurance I could find for my brackets (because I had done this with my states previously) and the cheapest I found was $681 which was only $100 less (still better than my state) than the cheapest I could find in my state. I didn't bother to look for one that closely resembled my current plan because I didn't have time but I imagine the difference would be somewhat consistent.

My biggest argument is that I want the ability to change if I want to. I recently left USAA (which a lot of people think is one of the best insurance companies out there) because they screwed me over on some home owners insurance stuff twice. I want the flexibility to do just that without feeling price pressure. I believe a federal mandate for universal insurance would eliminate that flexibility. On top of that, in order for universal health insurance to be truly successful (financially), everyone must be on it or at least the bulk of the population. And based on my experience with public insurance and the overall cost burden on myself, I'm a hard no to the universal/ACA option.

To me, it seems like Covered CA is onto something good (but less ideal for higher incomes), however, I have not looked at the how the subsidies have impacted state spending so I can't say how effective it is.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Tomm

To me, it seems like Covered CA is onto something good (but less ideal for higher incomes), however, I have not looked at the how the subsidies have impacted state spending so I can't say how effective it is.

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3927

Middle of this has a summary of the different proposals for subsidies based on income % above FPL and the fiscal impact.

Here's a summary of last year's Covered CA subsidies and what types of families pay what:

https://health-access.org/wp-content...et_6.24.19.pdf

Again, all this is if you get your insurance via Covered CA. If you have something via your employer you won't be offered the Covered CA option, I had to fight them for coverage at the beginning of 2019 when they tried to deny me due to me terminating my previous employment in late 2018.

As for universal healthcare, the first few years will be universal hatred towards it. A good example is Taiwan... they put it together during the a lame duck period in the presidency of the first elected president in 1995, then endured several years where the population hated it. Now it's a system that is not perfect but has given a lot of benefit to the public, and also one of the most effective at combating COVID-19 so far. My mom (70+) can easily walk around any part of Taiwan with zero fear of catching COVID-19, and two weeks ago they had the first local transmission of COVID-19 in 8+ months. Can't say that about the rest of the world, let alone the US...

But as is the case with most public policy implementations, the benefits are not seen for years (or even decades). It's just a matter of whether the public has the patience to see it out, and unfortunately that will never happen in the US.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by mav1178

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3927

Middle of this has a summary of the different proposals for subsidies based on income % above FPL and the fiscal impact.

Here's a summary of last year's Covered CA subsidies and what types of families pay what:

https://health-access.org/wp-content...et_6.24.19.pdf

Interesting report, was the proposal passed? If so, then state subsidies are funded by the penalty revenue?? I feel like that’s a rather shortsighted solution if the goal is to encourage the 3.5m uninsured to buy from the state exchange. I believe that was a big question by the legislature.

Originally Posted by mav1178

Again, all this is if you get your insurance via Covered CA. If you have something via your employer you won't be offered the Covered CA option, I had to fight them for coverage at the beginning of 2019 when they tried to deny me due to me terminating my previous employment in late 2018.

I was just using it at a comparison to see how it compares state to state.

Originally Posted by mav1178

As for universal healthcare, the first few years will be universal hatred towards it. A good example is Taiwan... they put it together during the a lame duck period in the presidency of the first elected president in 1995, then endured several years where the population hated it. Now it's a system that is not perfect but has given a lot of benefit to the public, and also one of the most effective at combating COVID-19 so far. My mom (70+) can easily walk around any part of Taiwan with zero fear of catching COVID-19, and two weeks ago they had the first local transmission of COVID-19 in 8+ months. Can't say that about the rest of the world, let alone the US...

But as is the case with most public policy implementations, the benefits are not seen for years (or even decades). It's just a matter of whether the public has the patience to see it out, and unfortunately that will never happen in the US.

That may be but the amount of variables that factor in to the implementation of significant universal policies like that make the outcome ultimately unpredictable.

[Rampage]

I see that Massachusetts will also ban sale of gasoline powered cars by 2035 and the article mentions that New Jersey has the same plan. Fortunately it only applies to new vehicles.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...4x2?li=BBnb4R5

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's simple: Everybody making money pays in, everybody in the country is covered. Even right-wing sponsored studies have shown this to be cost-effective. I wouldn't even mind paying *more* to ensure that those less fortunate than myself have healthcare. And also that if anything happens to me such that I lose my job that *I* still have healthcare. M4A is the way to go.

Can we try fixing our borders and getting rid of the millions of illegal aliens before we attempt M4A?