MNsure how much will it cost? (Minneapolis: association, racist, rated)

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Those in poverty often have structures of society working against them. A kid who grows up in a broken family in a poor neighborhood probably has a parent working at least one job (likely more according to many stats) just to keep the roof over their heads and bellies fed. They don't get the sort of guidance that more stable, middle-class children get from one or both parents who often have more time for them.

Couldn't we argue that those in any circumstances "often have structures of society working against them," not just the people we identify as disadvantaged?

And yes, I'd argue that children in financially struggling households are more likely to be subject to any number of challenging situations. However, couldn't we argue that, because my house didn't offer superior guidance either, somehow society needs to make up for it? I never went to summer camp. I never played summer sports. Nobody paid for my SAT test prep, and I didn't get any prep.

There are countless examples of individuals in our society who grow up in broken homes, or homeless, and rise to achieve. President Obama came from a single-parent family.

Originally Posted by xandrex

Everyone should work hard and be responsible for themselves. But how is the kid above (not exactly some straw man I'm creating here) not ten steps behind the relatively well-off middle class kid?

I generally agree with your first statement; everyone deserves a fair shake. I'd argue that some people start out with structural disadvantages: addicted babies, or babies with congenital or genetic conditions. But where does it end? Should we pass a law that says when people walk into a casino in Vegas, the house odds change to favor them if they've had an awful enough childhood? Why or why not, and at what point should the odds start to kick in? Does being forced to do chores count as a hardship? How about if my Mom didn't tell me to be good at math? Oh, that's right; I suck at math, so someone's gonna pay.

The point isn't whether people are ten steps ahead or ten steps behind, or it shouldn't be. Would anyone argue in favor of removing grades from High School, because students who graduate with a "C" average are 10 steps behind those who earned "A" grades? Or how about if we take half of the kids with "A" grades and make them swap with "C" students. We're all 10 steps ahead of someone, 10 steps behind someone else, and 10 steps short of a staircase.

I'm hugely in favor of removing obstacles. Equal rights? Absolutely, 1,000 percent. Equal pay for equal work? I'll have a double. I just think that if our society is redesigned to "ensure" fairness, by definition that means redistributing relative advantage that has to come from somewhere or someone. Some people call that theft. Some call it justice. The middle class calls it typical. The truly rich have their assistant call it something while they yawn and light cigars with $100 bills.

If someone breaks into someone's house and steals their TV to buy drugs, should the cops ask about root causes before an arrest? When flash mobs beat up strangers, are they valiantly redressing grievances, or are they just thugs?

Or let's look at what happens if we start thinking about what makes things 'fair.' If school district A affords its students an astonishing education, and school district B doesn't, does that mean we should all pay to send everyone to A? Harvard is a better school than Central Kansas State Beauty College; in the interests of fairness, what, should we arrange for everyone at CKSBC (Go Curlers!) to attend Harvard? Monterey, CA has beautiful weather; should government build an exchange program so people from humid regions get to spend summers there? Why or why not?

There are tons of people out there whose notion of social justice is "I got mine, go away" - Pink Floyd lyricized it as "I'm all right jack/keep your hands off my stack." It used to be that we called those people ungenerous, stingy, even rude. Nowadays, the government just takes from society and gives to targeted interest groups, and lots of people out there smile grimly and mutter about how they stuck it to the rich. Here's hoping the government never decides that they're rich.

So instead of noblesse oblige, and generosity, and a society where people watch out for one another, we've instituted governmental retribution against people who are relatively more wealthy. That's because of an old-old-old idea that all wealth is extracted from a zero-sum bucket, so if someone has more, they're hogs who took more than they deserve. It should be unsurprising that some people who are taxed because society says they deserve to be taxed will use the fact of those taxes as granting them the right to be churlish. Personally, I'm okay with my taxes, even though I don't like paying them, but I get both sides of this argument.

In other news, today someone was cut off on a freeway somewhere, and cut off someone else because they had been slighted. And that person then cut off someone else.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I knew our beautiful moment of agreement had to disappear at some point.

I think you missed most of my post. It's harder for someone in poverty to even get that decent ACT score and grades because they're in struggling schools (you know, those ones you always tell people to avoid) and don't have family support. I stand behind Chad getting into a top school (assuming he earns it like everyone else), but it's a lot easier to get good grades when you're well fed, not being moved all the time, and have resources.

And honesty, you'll never find someone at an Ivy who isn't doing well on grades or ACTs. Just because someone is nonwhite and getting financial aid doesn't mean they didn't work as hard. I honestly know just as many entitled people in Eden Prairie as I do in Minneapolis. Sorry if that offends people who think suburban children are all above average.

I would say that in some parts of the country this is true....but not in Minneapolis or in the Twin Cities metro. There are so many programs in place for low income kids to rise above that there is no excuse at all for a student NOT to achieve. Not that they have to get into Harvard but even the various state schools, etc. With the ECFE, Head Start, the various programs the Minneapolis schools have for free tutoring, free busing to other schools, etc, etc, etc, etc. the only person to blame for NOT getting a good education is the student. Sure, family life can suck at times but eventually the student has to take responsibility for him or herself. What DOES need to change is the attitude that they are "too white" if they do well in school....

I stand behind my assertion that a student graduating from Minneapolis South or North or whatever with scores close to Chad will get that slot before Chad at any school....not even the same scores...if Chad has a 32 on his ACT, D'Shqueilo from Minneapolis has a 28, D'Shqueilo will get the slot....it just is what it is. D'Shqueilo doesn't even have to be poor to get that advantage either....it's all about demographics but since we are talking about poverty, that is a boost as well. Jennifer from EP has even less of a chance than Chad to get that slot even if Jennifer has a 35 ACT...it's all hard, raw numbers.

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Wow this sounds like it comes STRAIGHT off talk radio! Whites are the victims!!! Oh well, I do know how hard it is to change some minds.

Do some research and come back and say that again.....you will find out just how uninformed you really are...

[QuietBlue]

So, uh, what does all of this have to do with MNSure again?

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by QuietBlue

So, uh, what does all of this have to do with MNSure again?

MNSure will cost something. For some, it will be a bargain at any price. For others, it will be too costly at any price.

I just worry that it will cost us something that is already in short supply, such as civility or compassion.

[bob0001]

I have a question MNSure that I can't seem to find the answer to. I have a catastrophic plan for my family that covers everything over $10K in the year for roughly what the "Bronze" plan costs. The Bronze plan says it covers 60% of medical expenses, what if I have a $1 million incident? Am I expected to cover $400,000 ?!?!?

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by bob0001

I have a question MNSure that I can't seem to find the answer to. I have a catastrophic plan for my family that covers everything over $10K in the year for roughly what the "Bronze" plan costs. The Bronze plan says it covers 60% of medical expenses, what if I have a $1 million incident? Am I expected to cover $400,000 ?!?!?

No, there will be an out of pocket max on the plan, something less than $12,700 since that is the max on the OOP under the ACA. They have not released specific details of the plans yet though. You will have some kind of a deductible, $4000 or less, then once you meet your deductible, you pay 40% up to the OOP Max--so up to no more than $12,700. Does that help?

[bob0001]

Ok, that's a relief....thanks for the response.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by bob0001

Ok, that's a relief....thanks for the response.

I'm sure that looked scary

[2blessed2stress]

"D'Shqueilo"??



There it goes...

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by 2blessed2stress

"D'Shqueilo"??



There it goes...

I'm sitting here chuckling, because I'm always amused by the graphic.

But I have no earthly idea what this means. Is there a Rosetta Stone to help translate inside jokes?