Here Comes The Left

[southernhybrid]

I made an appointment today for a dental exam. I have to be clear of any infections at least two weeks before my TAVR.
The receptionist said I had great insurance. The evil United Health care. A $3000 voucher I think should cover it. She seemed almost gleeful.
Maybe they will charge the max.

Paying out of pocket runs about 50% over what a dental insurer pays out, for needed care. I've never bothered with dental insurance. For what I would pay monthly for the insurance, at best it's a break even scenario. But in my mind, it's one less pain in the ass corporate entity to deal with.

I guess this is a bit off topic as the left have no teeth.

I don't disagree with that. Although a limited amount of dental coverage comes for free with my Advantage Plan. The dental plans we had in the past only covered about 1500 per year, but they were included in our employer's health insurance. I keep getting mail from the state of NC's plan, as I worked there for over 5 years and get a tiny pension as a result. The monthly price is about 45 dollars a month and it only covers about 2000 a year in treatments. Why bother? Ok. Let's get back on topic.

 

[Toni]

People think Advantage Plans are terrible but mine has never given me any problems and luckily I have enough money to pay for any surgical copays.

I'm now on a Medicare Advantage Plan, as of July 1. Woo hoo! I've only heard good things about it. Seems like a lot of good, extra benefits for very minimal extra cost. What are the terrible aspects of it that you are hearing?

You're putting yourself in the hands of commercial insurance company that can deny paying for your care for any reason it sees fit.

Really? Not according to this:

Medicare Advantage

An MA plan must provide enrollees in that plan with coverage of all services that are covered by Medicare Parts A and B, plus additional benefits beyond those covered by Medicare.​

Part C is an alternative to traditional Medicare that allows private health insurance companies to provide Medicare benefits. The private health plans are known as Medicare Advantage plans and are regulated and reimbursed by the federal government.

Per Google AI

Hospitals and medical groups nationwide are increasingly dropping Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, citing excessive claim denials, burdensome prior authorization requirements, and low reimbursement rates. Notable systems, such as Scripps Health in California and others across the country, have opted out of these plans.

Also

https://health.usnews.com/medicare/articles/medicare-advantage-denies-coverage

Your link does not support your statement that they "can deny paying for your care for any reason it sees fit". In fact, it supports what I said about them being required to follow the rules established by Medicare. It does indicate a small percentage (13%) were not valid denials, though:

The Office of the Inspector General reached a similar conclusion, finding that 13% of Medicare Advantage coverage denials met original Medicare criteria. In response to these findings, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule clarifying that Medicare Advantage coverage may not be more restrictive than original Medicare. In response to these findings, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule clarifying that Medicare Advantage coverage may not be more restrictive than original Medicare.

That Medicare had to step in and make the insurers follow the rules should tell you something.

You have to do your due diligence when shopping for a MA plan, though. They have a federal 5 star rating system, so you can check whether yours is highly rated. I selected the best rated one I could for my area. As SoHy said, they also come with vision, hearing, dental and Part D. Plus, preventative care benefits, like free gym membership, etc at minimal extra cost. I'm only paying an additional $35/month for all that extra stuff...well worth it to me.

Have you actually tried using those "extra benefits" yet?

Another not so much of a benefit but a grift.

I had a MA plan. To use the vision benefit there was only one provider of vision services I was allowed to use. An exam and a pair of glasses still cost me $600 out of pocket. There's a lot of places I could have gone and gotten the same services and product for much less without insurance. So much for the MA vision coverage. So just saying they have vision coverage doesn't really mean what most people would think of when hearing that.

So just saying they have X benefits doesn't really tell the whole story of actually using the "extra benefits". Tell me how is someone going to evaluate something like this happening when choosing a plan.

I've used the extra benefits without any problems and I've never had anything denied. I've had copays for my surgeries, but they were affordable for me. Advantage Plans do vary, just like supplements and Part D drug plans. The AP I have now is the only one that covers my only expensive drug. I'm not telling anyone else what to do. I'm just saying that the Advantage Plans are inexpensive, cover most things that Medicare does and work for most people. I had two former patients who switched to Advantage Plans because they could no longer afford the traditional Medicare supplements and drug plans You don't want one, then don't get one. If you can easily afford the supplements and drug plans, that's great, but most older adults can't. I already mentioned the woman in her 80s who had to work to afford her supplement. Plus you can change your Advantage Plan during many or most parts of the year. My agent frequently asks if we are happy with our plan. Can we stop arguing now and move on to the original purpose of this thread?

For example, I think during to the most recent charge that Platner needs to step down due to the most recent charge of sexual assault. I read about the details this morning. The woman said that Platner was so drunk that he didn't remember what had happened the night before. The thing I don't understand is why, since he immediately feel asleep after sex, why didn't she call the police and report the rape. That's what I would have done. He needs to step down by July 14th or it will be impossible to replace him. The victim said that she agrees with all of his politics and she's not telling people who do vote for.

One more crazy thing. Despite him not stepping down as of yet, the Democrats are arguing about who should replace him, a progressive or a moderate. Considering that we have a president who is a felon and considering that over 20 women have said he sexually assaulted them, and one won a civil suit for his sexual assault, and he is likely involved in the Epstein mess, maybe Platnar isn't that bad of a candidate. I'm not saying he shouldn't be replaced. I'm just saying that he's certainly not as awful as the president.
Still, I do hope he steps down and is replaced by a better candidate, who doesn't have a lot of baggage.

Relatnar. That’s unacceptably low bar. Plantar should withdraw and if he doesn’t he should be removed and replaced. Frankly I never voted for Clinton because of the allegations of sexual assault against him. I still believe them, just like I believed Anita Hill. I understand that people want to excuse him
because of PTSD. In my experience, time does not change people who are sexually coercive.

 

[Derec]

Re: Platnar. That’s unacceptably low bar. Plantar should withdraw and if he doesn’t he should be removed and replaced. Frankly I never voted for Clinton because of the allegations of sexual assault against him. I still believe them, just like I believed Anita Hill. I understand that people want to excuse him
because of PTSD. In my experience, time does not change people who are sexually coercive.

PTSD should not be an excuse, but you go in the other extreme and believe every female accuser. I am sure you also believed Crystal Mangum and Jackie Coakley.

 

[Derec]

For example, I think during to the most recent charge that Platner needs to step down due to the most recent charge of sexual assault. I read about the details this morning. The woman said that Platner was so drunk that he didn't remember what had happened the night before. The thing I don't understand is why, since he immediately feel asleep after sex, why didn't she call the police and report the rape. That's what I would have done.

That's what I think about all those accusations from years or decades ago. Like that EJC woman. She could have called the police when it supposedly happened, and not waited until she was trying to cash in on her misandrist book to make the accusation.

He needs to step down by July 14th or it will be impossible to replace him. The victim said that she agrees with all of his politics and she's not telling people who do vote for.

That makes it less likely that it is a political hit job, as that was the excuse for the earlier accusation of him pulling an ex-girlfriend's hair. It was dismissed because the ex in question is a Republican.
I must say that even without the accusations of rape and DV, I do not see how anyone could have thought that Platner had the right stuff to be a Senator. Almost everything about him is a red flag.

One more crazy thing. Despite him not stepping down as of yet, the Democrats are arguing about who should replace him, a progressive or a moderate.

I think a moderate would be a better fit for Maine than a socialist.

Considering that we have a president who is a felon and considering that over 20 women have said he sexually assaulted them, and one won a civil suit for his sexual assault, and he is likely involved in the Epstein mess, maybe Platnar isn't that bad of a candidate. I'm not saying he shouldn't be replaced. I'm just saying that he's certainly not as awful as the president.

That's hardly a high bar to clear. Even if winning a civil suit against somebody very unpopular in NY is hardly a difficult feat regardless of evidence (and EJC doesn't really have any, and her story lacks verisimilitude).

Still, I do hope he steps down and is replaced by a better candidate, who doesn't have a lot of baggage.

Yes. It will still be an uphill battle to win that seat no matter who replaces Platner.

One thing that is not well appreciated is that Platner was losing ground in the polls days before this accusation dropped.
Two Maine Polls Just Dropped. Is It Time to Fret About Graham Platner?
Collins leading Platner by 3 points in Fox News poll
Maybe that's what motivated the accuser to come forward now.

 

[Derec]

How exactly were Hillary "the future is female" Clinton and Kamala "I will ban fracking and offshore drilling" Harris "MAGA-lite"? I would say they were far more left-coded than any of the successful Dem presidential candidates in recent history

Tell me you hate the left without saying you hate the left.

I hate both left and right wing extremism.

But you are sidestepping my question: how exactly are Kamala and Hillary "MAGA-lite"? And you also have not addressed my point that it is actually those who ran as moderates (Clinton, Obama, Biden) who had electoral success as Democratic presidential candidates, not radicals.

 

[Toni]

Re: Platnar. That’s unacceptably low bar. Plantar should withdraw and if he doesn’t he should be removed and replaced. Frankly I never voted for Clinton because of the allegations of sexual assault against him. I still believe them, just like I believed Anita Hill. I understand that people want to excuse him
because of PTSD. In my experience, time does not change people who are sexually coercive.

PTSD should not be an excuse, but you go in the other extreme and believe every female accuser. I am sure you also believed Crystal Mangum and Jackie Coakley.

I’m not googling names you bring up.

AFAIK, PTSD does not cause someone to commit sexual assault. It can and does cause anger issues ( and other issues) and cause disproportionate anger responses.

Someone who has been assaulted( sexually or otherwise) might over-react to perceived or real threats. I know this to be true from personal experience. It might cause someone to be anxious or fearful in situations that trigger a ( suppressed or not) memory of a traumatic event, even when there is no actual threat. Example: Service members who served in combat zones might react to a car backfiring or fireworks going off as though it were a rocket exploding or a gunshot.

PTSD can cause trouble with sleep, interfere with relationships, concentration, etc. but afaik it does not cause someone to sexually assault another person. I am willing to be proven wrong.

Actually you are mistaken: I do not automatically believe everyone who alleges inappropriate sexual behavior. I’ve expressed strong doubts about accusations that seemed obviously false on this forum and in real life.

That said: my default is to believe accusers but to verify and to see if the accusation makes sense or is even possible.

 

[Derec]

There's a little up button to this quote if you want the context. But I like how you dismiss White Power as "Irrelevant".

It is certainly irrelevant to this thread, which is about the left wing.

But in the 20+ years I've been a member on this forum I've never, not once hear you condemn white supremacy. In fact, I think you are going to offended by me saying that.

There are no posters here who defend white supremacy. So it's not really needed to virtue signal by condemning it explicitly. Especially not when it's only brought up by bad-faith posters like you as a cheap whataboutism to distract from toxicity on the left wing.

However, for the record: I do condemn white supremacism, like I condemn all forms of racial supremacism or "[insert race] Power". I see no reason why the white type should be treated as qualitatively distinct, or why it should be dragged as a whataboutism into unrelated threads like this one.

 

[Elixir]

my default is to believe accusers but to verify and to see if the accusation makes sense or is even possible

My default is to leave the determination to those who know a hell of a lot more than I do about the people involved. My opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, or of the forthrightness of the accuser, has never actually borne any weight in any case of (alleged) rape or abuse. Why should I muddy the waters by inserting my less informed opinion?
Of course if the alleged perpetrator is Donald Trump, I know enough about him to presume his guilt.
No woman is likely to make up shit about him, and few if any who have been abused by him have ever come forward without considerable risk to themselves and their families.

 

[Toni]

my default is to believe accusers but to verify and to see if the accusation makes sense or is even possible

My default is to leave the determination to those who know a hell of a lot more than I do about the people involved. My opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, or of the forthrightness of the accuser, has never actually borne any weight in any case of (alleged) rape or abuse. Why should I muddy the waters by inserting my less informed opinion?
Of course if the alleged perpetrator is Donald Trump, I know enough about him to presume his guilt.
No woman is likely to make up shit about him, and few if any who have been abused by him have ever come forward without considerable risk to themselves and their families.

For girls and women, it is in our best interests to give at least some credence to girls and women who say that so and so was ‘a bit rough’ or ‘really really insistent.’ It’s pretty rare for women to accuse men or boys using the word rape, at least in our youth.

Unfortunately a lot of us learn to be more forthright. And to believe rumors about boys and men being rough or insistent or not taking no for an answer . Too often through experience.

 

[ZiprHead]

Platner has dropped out.

 

[Patooka]

There are no posters here who defend white supremacy.

repoman

iidb.org

 

[Elixir]

For girls and women, it is in our best interests to give at least some credence to girls and women who say that so and so was ‘a bit rough’ or ‘really really insistent.’ It’s pretty rare for women to accuse men or boys using the word rape, at least in our youth.

Oh I give my credence to that, for sure. (Won’t even ask for my 2 cents back if you reject my credence as lacking value ).
But that’s different from sitting here saying “he’s a rapist scumbag” or “she’s lying”. I think women, being women and all, are automatically better qualified to make that surmise (or determination, depending on what facts they are privy to) in cases where a woman is the victim.
I have encountered plenty too many males whom I would deem capable of sexual violence, but not even a handful of women who ever struck that note. So I tend to believe women, even as I realize that I may be treading most men unfairly.

 

[Derec]

I’m not googling names you bring up.

I am surprised you don't remember them. Crystal Mangum is the Duke Lacrosse false accuser. She faced no consequences for that, and later on she went on to murder her boyfriend and served only 15 years or so for that. Had she faced consequences for the false rape accusation, maybe her boyfriend would be alive today.
Jackie Coakley is the false accuser in the UVA case that was the subject of the infamous "A Rape on Campus" Rolling Stone article. The case was discussed in this thread.

Actually you are mistaken: I do not automatically believe everyone who alleges inappropriate sexual behavior. I’ve expressed strong doubts about accusations that seemed obviously false on this forum and in real life.

Which ones for example? I know you believe Ramirez re Kavanaugh, even though she admitted that she wasn't sure the alleged penis belonged to Kav until she spoke to her lawyer.

That said: my default is to believe accusers but to verify and to see if the accusation makes sense or is even possible.

Default should be an open mind, without believing either side a priori. If you start believing the accuser by default, you will continue believing the accuser if there is no evidence for nor against the accusation. Example, CBF. There is no evidence for her claim, and there is nothing disproving it. As such, we should not believe that it happened. No evidence is no evidence.

 

[Derec]

Of course if the alleged perpetrator is Donald Trump, I know enough about him to presume his guilt.
No woman is likely to make up shit about him, and few if any who have been abused by him have ever come forward without considerable risk to themselves and their families.

He is exactly the type of person that people would "make up shit about". He is a public figure, and one that a large segment of the population positively hates. So plenty of motivation to "make up shit about him". That does not disprove any accusations per se, but it means that we should not take them at face value either. Especially when somebody is also promoting a book at the time she comes forward.

 

[Derec]

For girls and women, it is in our best interests to give at least some credence to girls and women who say that so and so was ‘a bit rough’ or ‘really really insistent.’

Being insistent is not a crime. Being "a bit rough" is not necessarily a crime either, depending on the definition of "rough" and what was communicated by the woman at the time. Everybody likes a different level of roughness, and it can also vary by mood, so it's important to have good communication when having sex - and that goes for both men and women.

It’s pretty rare for women to accuse men or boys using the word rape, at least in our youth.

[citation needed] There have been plenty of accusations by young women, and many of them turned out to be false.

Unfortunately a lot of us learn to be more forthright. And to believe rumors about boys and men being rough or insistent or not taking no for an answer . Too often through experience.

Rumors can be false, or exaggerated. They usually grow in retelling, no matter what gave rise to them initially.
Women/girls are not necessarily a paragon of virtue that are beyond lying. There are bad actors in both sexes, which is why it is important not to prejudge men and boys as automatically guilty just because of a woman's or girl's say so.

 

[Derec]

There are no posters here who defend white supremacy.

repoman

iidb.org

Ok, you found one. Congratulations. Although I have not seen him write anything in a while.

And existence of repoman certainly does not justify you derailing the thread with your whataboutisms about right wing groups exercising their rights by marching and doing other unconscionable things like riding the subway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're both going too far, just in opposite directions.

In developed countries it comes down to whether there are signs of life. But that is something that we can at best imperfectly measure. There is no magical instant of death to record whether it happened inside or outside. But in some places they do not count it as a live birth if survival is unquestionably impossible. And I suspect the punishment crowd drives up the rate. I'm thinking of a local case, way too premature to have a chance. The doctor did the humane thing and put it in a room and closed the door. A nurse went ape over that. You have to try to save it! The way the country is going the doctors are going to try on cases that would properly be classified as stillbirths.

I think that was an episode of Call the Midwife.

Infant mortality is directly related to prenatal care, or rather the lack of it. This is something socialist countries sort of take for granted. They look at the US and see people and politicians who claim life is sacred, but don't seem to want to do the simple things that preserve it.

A lack of prenatal care is unlikely to cause a prompt fatality, and thus has little effect on stillbirth vs infant mortality.

As with basically every such issue the people who stand to benefit from the issue will make it appear bigger than it is. And the people harmed by it will make it appear smaller than it is.

 

[Toni]

For girls and women, it is in our best interests to give at least some credence to girls and women who say that so and so was ‘a bit rough’ or ‘really really insistent.’

Being insistent is not a crime. Being "a bit rough" is not necessarily a crime either, depending on the definition of "rough" and what was communicated by the woman at the time. Everybody likes a different level of roughness, and it can also vary by mood, so it's important to have good communication when having sex - and that goes for both men and women.

It’s pretty rare for women to accuse men or boys using the word rape, at least in our youth.

[citation needed] There have been plenty of accusations by young women, and many of them turned out to be false.

Unfortunately a lot of us learn to be more forthright. And to believe rumors about boys and men being rough or insistent or not taking no for an answer . Too often through experience.

Rumors can be false, or exaggerated. They usually grow in retelling, no matter what gave rise to them initially.
Women/girls are not necessarily a paragon of virtue that are beyond lying. There are bad actors in both sexes, which is why it is important not to prejudge men and boys as automatically guilty just because of a woman's or girl's say so.

Really? Very few of reported sexual assaults are proven false.

Yes, people do tolerate --and enjoy ---two very different things--different levels of roughness and define roughness differently.

BUT in my experience, if a girl or woman is telling you that someone is 'kind of rough' she's vastly understating her experience. Unless she's telling you with enthusiasm.

I actually never reported any sexual assault of my own or of the one that I stopped and neither did any of the women I know who disclosed their rape to me, with bruised faces and arms and heightened fear response at the sight of their rapist. I know women who stayed married to men who raped them.

The truth is that girls and women often do not anticipate forcefulness or roughness or insistence on the part of men and boys because often, girls and women are not thinking about or anticipating sex at that time or in the very near future. For a lot of us, it's just hanging out with some friends or maybe just one guy, talking, maybe watching a movie and then, to the girl, suddenly you are pushed back into a seat, onto a bed, onto the ground with, as far as you are concerned zero context. By zero context I mean: no kissing, no intimate touching. No: I think you're hot kind of remarks from either side. It could be another girl or your older or younger brother or your grandfather: very platonic on the girl or woman's side.

What I told all of my kids: No means no. Always. Lack of enthusiastic engagement means no.

Fight/flight is well known and often cited. But there are other responses including freeze and placating. Those are survival skills also. If you don’t think you can fight back and win, if you don’t think you can escape, your choices are freezing and hoping the predator will pass you by/he’ll get the hint or get bored or placating, in which you try to minimize the damage you incur until he stops.

That is why enthusiastic. Engage t is necessary.

Many/most girls learn early on to not let their friends wander off from a part or gathering with a guy she is not actively dating. Even if she's actively dating someone else. Even if he's actively dating someone else. It head off a lot of scenarios where someone is defending themselves against someone who thinks that they read a signal when all she did was go look at that puppy over by the garage.

No one should be convicted of a charge based solely on another person’s say so. Sworn testimony is more than that. The fact is that a lot of sexual assaults are committed where the only evidence is if one party says they did not consent. Most lesser than rape instances of sexual assault are shrugged off: He only grabbed her breasts ( without consent/over objections). He only grabbed her crotch—without consent and over her objections. She only grabbed his penis through his pants—what’s the big deal? Guys like that, right? It’s not like she forced him to get erect. He would t have gotten an erection if he didn’t want it, right? What real man doesn’t want it?

 

[ZiprHead]

Graham Platner officially withdraws from Maine Senate race

Graham Platner has officially withdrawn from the Maine Senate race, the state’s secretary of state said Friday, submitting the needed paperwork to remove his name from the ballot.

Platner announced he was suspending his campaign on Wednesday after a woman he previously dated publicly accused him of sexual assault. He has denied the allegations but told his campaign staff on Wednesday night that he intended to officially withdraw from the race on Monday — the deadline to do so. A Platner spokesperson did not respond when asked why he withdrew earlier.

“The Secretary of State’s Office today confirmed that a formal notice has been received from U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner,” the office said in a release. “A public declaration is not an official withdrawal, and a candidate must formally withdraw in writing to the Elections office, including signature.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have to do your due diligence when shopping for a MA plan, though. They have a federal 5 star rating system, so you can check whether yours is highly rated. I selected the best rated one I could for my area. As SoHy said, they also come with vision, hearing, dental and Part D. Plus, preventative care benefits, like free gym membership, etc at minimal extra cost. I'm only paying an additional $35/month for all that extra stuff...well worth it to me.

Have you actually tried using those "extra benefits" yet?

Another not so much of a benefit but a grift.

I had a MA plan. To use the vision benefit there was only one provider of vision services I was allowed to use. An exam and a pair of glasses still cost me $600 out of pocket. There's a lot of places I could have gone and gotten the same services and product for much less without insurance. So much for the MA vision coverage. So just saying they have vision coverage doesn't really mean what most people would think of when hearing that.

So just saying they have X benefits doesn't really tell the whole story of actually using the "extra benefits". Tell me how is someone going to evaluate something like this happening when choosing a plan.

She has a MA plan.

Gym: worked as expected.

Vision: many places, but they have one almost certainly unsuitable option that would actually be fully covered, everything else the insurance "pays" $300--and the price is jacked up accordingly. Costco was cheaper. Likewise, hearing aids appear to work the same way but she doesn't need them so we don't know.

One year they offered rewards for fitness with a ridiculously easy threshold. Then the next year the threshold was pretty hard to meet. Then the next year the rewards dropped considerably. Now there do not appear to be meaningful rewards for fitness.

Dental "works" but they only pay for two cleanings a year, or four periodontal maintenance cleanings a year--but the latter requires a deep clean within the last few years. Ends up being one out of pocket per year.