So, health insurance
 

I looked up the marketplace early this year and it looked like I could get coverage for something like $55 a month, but open enrollment was closed until November First. I set up a reminder on Google Calendar, but since I could not use it until New Year's Day, I did not say "Shut up and take my money!"

For the six months around Xistday, I went to urgent care five times, which cost $500 - $600 total. The cheaper bronze plan would cost slightly over $2,000 just for coverage--about double what I paid during that period. Add $50 for each doctor visit and $35 for each generic drug, and it creeps higher.

I have not been to urgent care in six months. Not paying for health insurance or urgent care helped me pay off my student loans.

Generally, the more the plan costs, the lower the individual costs and yearly maximum. However, the more expensive silver plan's payments and maximum add up to $11,376 while the cheaper bronze plan would be $10,154.60.

With the discounts, they are probably similar.

Does it make any sense to pay extra for the only insurance that I plan on using?

I went without insurance for years, and that included the time I messed up my back very badly and was essentially non-functional for 2 months (though I did continue working). I saved a boatload of money even though I paid for an MRI out of pocket ($500). It would have been a different story if I had seen a neurologist and had surgery. I purchased grey market opioids (codeine) and used them as sparingly as possible to maintain minimal usefulness.

The point of all insurance is to keep one from financial catastrophe, not to pay for regular expenses or minor/common misfortune. The appropriate amount of insurance for anyone then is the amount that keeps them from financial ruin.

For me, that's an HSA (health savings account) plus HDHP (high deductible health plan). I pay out of pocket for everything until I hit something like $4k in a year. Work subsidizes the plan, so I pay $80/mo. A PPO or HMO plan would have been much more costly.

The advantage of an HSA is that the money accrues interest and is tax free when withdrawn for qualified medical expenses. Whatever you've accrued when you turn 65 just becomes regular funds to you. It's like an IRA that you can spend for health expenses.

Heath ensurance do not ensure health.
Life ensurance do not ensure life.

Funny, isn't it???

Car ensurance ensure your car, repair or a new one.

I dislike terms that are meant to confuse the reality of the situation.

We call it automotive accident insurance, because they pay if an accident occurs. It makes sense. Life insurance doesn't pay you in case you have life, it pays someone else in case you die. It's death insurance. I will not accept the branding "life insurance".

Similarly, pro-choice is not descriptive of anything. It's pro-abortion. I refuse to use the divisive/undescriptive term pro-choice.

Finally, I'm not ever using the term "African American", unless someone actually moved from Africa and is now an American citizen. It's too many syllables and an inaccurate description of most black people. We don't go around calling white people Irish American, or United Kingdom American, or Finland American... and how dumb would a person be if they were in Africa calling black people there African Americans? Then there's the fact that about 10% of Africans are white, and there are white African Americans.

Pro-choice... People have the choice of be rational and responsible and so avoid unwanted pregnancy. Sure there are cases of rape or failure of contraception, but it's a minority.
Most people with unwanted pregnancy (or with fatherhood coming from it) prefer to be irresponsible, dumb, promiscuous...over and over...
Would we call them Pro-Stupidity???

In the same way the act of interrupt a pregnancy when the embryon have no brain, no nervous system, a very early stage, it's not murder of a person. People who insists that it's a murder, like strangle a toddler, are Pro-Lie.

By the why, Redpoint, on Brazil they are accusing a software of racism. It's about the software for face recognition. They said the software point 90% of the criminals as blacks.
It's a arrogance, the idea that blacks most be spoted, even in statistics, as no more prone to crime otherwise it's racism. The criminal rate among blacks are clearly superior in statistic models. Of course that a rational discussion about why this happens among black population can perfect talk about the social side, education level, jobs offers etc... But they prefer to label everything as racism.

On internet I saw accusations against Kodak old film stocks, saying Kodak was racist because the films and prints did not get dark shadows (black skin) well. Other absurd, since wide dynamic range for prints was always a goal they tried to increase, and not a ratial decision.

When I joined the Army I said "African-American" and blacks told me to stop. I returned to Arizona State and someone asked who was in my group. I named everyone. Nobody knew who one girl was. Facebook recommended her and she had many posts about being Chinese-American, Japanese-American, etc., and she usually wore sorority shirts. I said "The Asian sorority girl."

There was a collective gasp.

Apparently sororities offended them.

Then there was my one friend that referred to the black classmate as "The really tan girl."

Really tan!

Well I didn't intend to get into the highly controversial topics, but only wanted to stick to the topic of using accurate descriptors.

My grandmother is 100% Japanese. I'm not Japanese American, I'm 100% native American (native to USA). In the future this will all be seen as absurd because genetics will have been so mixed that it will be meaningless. The USA as a melting pot of people is the template for the future of the world. We're among the least racist nations (though there's always bad examples and room to improve).

Anyhow, I describe things as I see them, with no intention of offending people (usually). As I've always said, it's each individual's responsibility to try as hard as possible to not be offended. After all, who is harmed by being offended but the person that feels offended? We've also got the responsibility to treat people respectfully and avoid intentional offense, but we've got no responsibility to be politically correct. I'd argue that we have the responsibility to disregard political correctness entirely. If you act in good will, the rules only get in the way of meaningful engagement.

Health insurance doesn’t exist outside of catastrophic illness. No one insures against the common cold or a broken leg. They’re ordinary. The system we have ISN’T insurance. Naught but legalized theft.

Were anti-monopoly laws on the books the past century being enforced, your “co-pay” reflects the actual value of services received. Same for pharmaceuticals.

Instead, you get to subsidize the racist “melting pot” underway. As anti-American a concept as ever stated.

Happily, this state of affairs won’t last much longer.

.

Real estate?
That's either ominous or encouraging depending on what you meant.
Those would be people who do not understand computers. I was privileged to be informed by Internet before the World Web Web came along to try to put a lid on the truth. Now the truth leaks onto the Web because of 4chan, etc. and despite 'social media'. Today even the spooks are open source. If you know where to look you can see events that have been on a trajectory since the Stonewall Riots laid bare.

Long story short or as the kids say TLDR;
Garbage [training sets] in, garbage [result out]. You have to be very careful what you wish for.

Pro-abortion or anti-abortion both seem very reasonable terms to me. They are specific enough and don't carry divisive connocations. Perhaps there are better terms, but at least we're familiar with these.

I don't find categorizing people by skin shade and linking it to behavior to be very interesting. What I do find interesting is the correlation between 2-parent families and various measures of life success for their offspring, for example.

If I were reviewing applicants for an academic program or employment, I would run them through a computer program that redacted the name, gender, age, and other non-relevant information so that my decisions were not biased on any of those criteria. This is the best way to facilitate equality in academia and the workplace. Any other schemes that involve giving preference based on gender, ethnicity or other attributes is the very definition of sexism and racism.

As I'm always pointing out, ease of mobility is a very recent thing for humans. On an evolutionary timescale, we've had practically no time for populations to interbreed. At some point associating someone's visual attributes to a particular geographic region will be all but impossible.

The proper level of analysis of behavior with regard to "nature" then is at the relevant parts of the genome that code for that behavior. To mention skin color or other superficial attribute with regard to behavior is ineptitude or lazy thinking.

To open a whole other can of worms, if people can choose their gender, they can chose their race, or any other way of identifying themselves. It would be perfectly acceptable for someone to identify as a bunny, for instance. I've self-identified as "Native American" since I can remember being asked on surveys. What else am I going to put? I've never been to Europe.