If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform   (salon.com) divider line 451
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2009 at 4:45 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



451 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-08-06 01:56:08 PM
I'm sure a rational debate is forthcoming.
 
2009-08-06 01:59:49 PM
They missed these two.
The Public Option will force you to change your insurance.

Which it doesn't actually do.

If the government gets involved in health insurance, private insurance will go out of business.

Which explains of course how Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA has been slowly driving health insurance companies into bankruptcy.
 
2009-08-06 01:59:50 PM
Action Replay Nick: I'm sure a rational debate is forthcoming.

This is America - healthy public debate isn't how we roll.
 
2009-08-06 02:02:21 PM
The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange.

Sweet, I gotta ask the government for permission to buy my health insurance. Awesome! Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.
 
2009-08-06 02:03:05 PM
KaponoFor3: Sweet, I gotta ask the government for permission to buy my health insurance. Awesome! Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.

Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.
 
2009-08-06 02:06:53 PM
DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: Sweet, I gotta ask the government for permission to buy my health insurance. Awesome! Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.

Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.


AWESOME!
 
2009-08-06 02:08:06 PM
Nabb1: AWESOME!

I know, right? It is pretty awesome.
 
2009-08-06 02:08:25 PM
DamnYankees: This is America - healthy public debate isn't how we roll.

You're right, what was I thinking?

SOCIALIST ZUURRRAGGGAAAMMMAAATTTAAANNN GOVERNMENT BAD TOO MANY LAYERS SUPPLY SIDE JESUS FAVOR BIG INSURANCE COMPANY BECAUSE CAPITALISM!!
 
2009-08-06 02:10:20 PM
Have any of you ever been to a VA Hospital?

Your health care isn't as good.
 
2009-08-06 02:11:09 PM
DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: Sweet, I gotta ask the government for permission to buy my health insurance. Awesome! Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.

Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.


Why is this one of those "sometimes"?
 
2009-08-06 02:14:06 PM
KaponoFor3: Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.

If they aren't efficient, why does our economy have so damn many? Insurance middle men, consumer goods middle men, distributors, wholesalers...

I hear the argument a lot out of folks, and I know the answer is that they do add value. I can even prove it. But I am curious if there is some kind of explanation behind the "middle men are bad" meme. Well, an explanation beyond some producer or middle man trying to dump inventory quick by 'GOING DIRECTLY TO YOU, THE CUSTOMER!'
 
2009-08-06 02:16:47 PM
palladiate: KaponoFor3: Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.

If they aren't efficient, why does our economy have so damn many? Insurance middle men, consumer goods middle men, distributors, wholesalers...

I hear the argument a lot out of folks, and I know the answer is that they do add value. I can even prove it. But I am curious if there is some kind of explanation behind the "middle men are bad" meme. Well, an explanation beyond some producer or middle man trying to dump inventory quick by 'GOING DIRECTLY TO YOU, THE CUSTOMER!'


Well, in this instance, I fail to see why I need the government standing in between me and a service I wish to purchase. I'm a big boy. I know how to buy insurance all by myself. This really doesn't seem to be about efficiency at all.
 
2009-08-06 02:17:10 PM
Code_Archeologist: Which explains of course how Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA has been slowly driving health insurance companies into bankruptcy.

Also how every country that has universal coverage also has private insurance companies.
 
2009-08-06 02:18:10 PM
palladiate: If they aren't efficient, why does our economy have so damn many? Insurance middle men, consumer goods middle men, distributors, wholesalers...

Lots of people like to get their hands on the pie.
 
2009-08-06 02:26:52 PM
Nabb1: I fail to see why I need the government standing in between me and a service I wish to purchase.

You're just too much of a stupid neocon teabagging mouth breathing whargarbler to know what's good for you.

(did I miss anything)
 
2009-08-06 02:27:41 PM
KaponoFor3: palladiate: If they aren't efficient, why does our economy have so damn many? Insurance middle men, consumer goods middle men, distributors, wholesalers...

Lots of people like to get their hands on the pie.


That did not answer the question. If they are inefficient, what protects them from competition? Why do they exist? Lots of folks want in growing business; very few succeed without servicing a need.

Nabb1: This really doesn't seem to be about efficiency at all.

It's probably not efficient, but the argument "ZOMG MIDDLEMAN" isn't exactly an argument. I'd like to see it argued, not trotted out as a boogey man.

I'm all for a real efficient solution to healtcare. My vision is probably not widely supported because it would, in fact, ration care to those who would best be able to pay, and force societal costs back onto the sufferers. If you can't pay your medical bills, and your value to society is eclipsed by your bills, you can suffer and die, or find a charity to provide you hospice care while you suffer and die.

A real fix would be to value an individual's life rationally, not on the belief "I'm the most important person in the world, and I'm entitled to all possible care." But most everyone WOULD do anything to preserve their lives, and pay any cost, no matter how otherwise irrational.

To have a free and efficient market here, you will need to address that externality. Until you do, there is no possible fix, unless you do not want a solution that's efficient or free. Which it sounds like most Americans are OK with. And that's fine, we are governed by a representative democracy, not in an absolute market economy, making such decisions possible.
 
2009-08-06 02:28:38 PM
Nabb1: Well, in this instance, I fail to see why I need the government standing in between me and a service I wish to purchase. I'm a big boy. I know how to buy insurance all by myself.

No, actually you don't. The paper work, contracts, and questions of an insurance policy are specifically designed to be confusing. This is to facilitate rescission in the instance that you might come down with a disease that is so expensive as to make your continuing your policy unprofitable.

When you are purchasing an insurance policy you are doing it so that you will be taken care of if you get sick. They are offering you the policy on the gabble that you will make a mistake in the paper work so that they can cut you if you get too sick.

So yes the government does need to be there as a guarantor that insurance company is coming into the agreement as a fair broker.
 
2009-08-06 02:33:59 PM
Nabb1: Well, in this instance, I fail to see why I need the government standing in between me and a service I wish to purchase. I'm a big boy. I know how to buy insurance all by myself. This really doesn't seem to be about efficiency at all.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT LEVEL OF CARE!!!
 
2009-08-06 02:37:49 PM
KaponoFor3: The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange.

Sweet, I gotta ask the government for permission to buy my health insurance. Awesome! Inserting a middle man ALWAYS improves efficiency.


Here, I think you dropped this, it's the rest of the quote:
Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
 
2009-08-06 02:38:34 PM
what_now: THIS ISN'T ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT LEVEL OF CARE!!!

Logic, truth, and reality have no place in political discussion. Instead you must argue from a list of truisms:

1) Government never works, ever, no matter what
2) The current government is illegitimate and always wrong
3) God Bless the USA, the best country on earth


Therefore, since the other side is doing it, it's wrong. And the president is illegitimate. Furthermore, if we did do it, the government will mess it up like they did World War II, The Civil War, and/or the Space Race. God Bless our troops.
 
2009-08-06 02:39:12 PM
Code_Archeologist: Nabb1: Well, in this instance, I fail to see why I need the government standing in between me and a service I wish to purchase. I'm a big boy. I know how to buy insurance all by myself.

No, actually you don't. The paper work, contracts, and questions of an insurance policy are specifically designed to be confusing. This is to facilitate rescission in the instance that you might come down with a disease that is so expensive as to make your continuing your policy unprofitable.

When you are purchasing an insurance policy you are doing it so that you will be taken care of if you get sick. They are offering you the policy on the gabble that you will make a mistake in the paper work so that they can cut you if you get too sick.

So yes the government does need to be there as a guarantor that insurance company is coming into the agreement as a fair broker.


Oh, well played.
 
2009-08-06 02:40:06 PM
Code_Archeologist: No, actually you don't. The paper work, contracts, and questions of an insurance policy are specifically designed to be confusing.

... and, knowing this fact, courts have consistently held that when language is an insurance policy or application is ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation that supports the insured (rather than the insurer) is the interpretation they will go with.
 
2009-08-06 02:41:11 PM
All I know is I'm getting like, twelve abortions the minute this b*tch passes.
 
2009-08-06 02:41:30 PM
Code_Archeologist: So yes the government does need to be there as a guarantor that insurance company is coming into the agreement as a fair broker

Nonono, don't trot out contract law arguments against a lawyer. You'll lose that fight.

The insurance companies have every legal right to do what they do to deny care. The contracts are good. And if you don't like the contract, you don't have to sign, you can just go to another provider.

And if all other insurers do the same thing? Well, nobody's forcing you to buy insurance, are they? Not yet. You could just die.
 
2009-08-06 02:43:14 PM
propasaurus: Here, I think you dropped this, it's the rest of the quote:
Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."


"Broader risk pools" -- that almost sounds like the government is treating all of the private insurance policies that you can buy as being the same policy. Strange. Why would the premiums given to Farmers Insurance be mixed with the premiums given to Blue Cross/Blue Shield? Will I pay my premiums to the companies or directly to the government agency that runs the exchange? Does the insurance exchange dictate what policy options that the private companies on it are allowed to offer?

palladiate: Therefore, since the other side is doing it, it's wrong.

The sad thing is that you have your head so far up you know what that you don't see yourself doing this -- i.e. "ZOMG GOP is against this, therefore it must be good!"
 
2009-08-06 02:44:15 PM
palladiate: The insurance companies have every legal right to do what they do to deny care.

Another "left wing myth" about insurance companies. Google "bad faith lawsuits".
 
2009-08-06 02:49:07 PM
Code_Archeologist:
No, actually you don't.


Do not tell me what I can and cannot understand. Do not do that. Period.
 
2009-08-06 02:51:31 PM
Nabb1: Do not tell me what I can and cannot understand. Do not do that. Period.

It's called "projection"
 
2009-08-06 02:51:32 PM
palladiate: The insurance companies have every legal right to do what they do to deny care.

Except when they violate terms of their own agreements. Which they do regularly.
 
2009-08-06 02:51:44 PM
KaponoFor3: palladiate: The insurance companies have every legal right to do what they do to deny care.

Another "left wing myth" about insurance companies. Google "bad faith lawsuits".


And guess who is NOT subject to bad faith suits. Anyone? Anyone?
 
2009-08-06 02:51:56 PM
KaponoFor3: Code_Archeologist: No, actually you don't. The paper work, contracts, and questions of an insurance policy are specifically designed to be confusing.

... and, knowing this fact, courts have consistently held that when language is an insurance policy or application is ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation that supports the insured (rather than the insurer) is the interpretation they will go with.


So sick people who are dropped from the policy over this confusing language will need to hire a lawyer, and go to court to get their medical care. I can see what you'd like about the status quo.
 
2009-08-06 02:53:16 PM
KaponoFor3: The sad thing is that you have your head so far up you know what that you don't see yourself doing this -- i.e. "ZOMG GOP is against this, therefore it must be good!"

Only on Fark does a two-time Bush voter get accused of being a liberal.

I'm talking about both sides here, ass.

KaponoFor3: Google "bad faith lawsuits".

Wow, like there aren't dozens and dozens. And wouldn't you know that nearly every industry has abuses? Wow, I totally didn't know that. They must ALL be evil! Thanks Libtardman!

However, from the perspective of an insurer, you will try to minimize costs and maximize profits. Note to you here: I'm not passing any moral judgment on anyone with this observation.

And since a huge amount of health insurance policies are group policies, the costs of individual behavior cannot be molded to individual policies. This drives up costs by making risk a hell of a lot harder to manage.

Individual policies are incredibly specific. Why? Because they can be and the risk goes up ENORMOUSLY with certain factors. You lie about it, or you fail to provide that information? You get dropped. Same as if you commit suicide and tried to collect life insurance. Companies do not like to be defrauded. You paid a lower rate because your risk was assessed lower. You lied. How's that for bad faith?

The best way to be cost-conscious is to deny claims where you can. Insurance is a cut-throat industry, and don't expect insurers to jack costs like your local convenience store.

Note: I am blaming the insured for not being appropriately educated on their insurance. You did it wrong? You don't get covered or you get dropped. Then they prey on the public with sob stories because of our natural human reaction to value life over profit.
 
2009-08-06 02:54:07 PM
KaponoFor3: Code_Archeologist: No, actually you don't. The paper work, contracts, and questions of an insurance policy are specifically designed to be confusing.

... and, knowing this fact, courts have consistently held that when language is an insurance policy or application is ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation that supports the insured (rather than the insurer) is the interpretation they will go with.


That sounds efficient to you? When people sue and go through the process of court adjudiction, then the insured will be given the benefit of the doubt on ambiguous and confusing language.

That's not an efficient system. An efficient system is designed to reduce ambiguities.
 
2009-08-06 02:55:29 PM
palladiate: The best way to be cost-conscious is to deny claims where you can.

Utter bullshiat.

This drives up costs by making risk a hell of a lot harder to manage.

Likewise.
 
2009-08-06 02:56:16 PM
WhyteRaven74: Except when they violate terms of their own agreements. Which they do regularly.

And has been stated, when they do it ILLEGALLY or in BAD FAITH, they get hauled into court, like anyone else. As far as I can tell, we don't stop you from suing.

But don't act like you're entitled to care because you're a huge risk to insure or lied on your risk assessment.
 
2009-08-06 02:57:17 PM
palladiate: The best way to be cost-conscious is to deny claims where you can. Insurance is a cut-throat industry, and don't expect insurers to jack costs like your local convenience store.

Bad faith laws generally provide financial penalties severe enough to remove any economic benefit to baseless denials of coverage, and provide attorneys fees on top of that so that the plaintiff will not have to pay for the attorney out of his recovery, and on top of that, there are often even provisions for consequential damages caused by the bad faith. And if an insurer acts egregiously enough on enough occasions, a state's commissioner of insurance can revoke their power to write policies in that particular state.
 
2009-08-06 02:58:10 PM
palladiate: WhyteRaven74: Except when they violate terms of their own agreements. Which they do regularly.

And has been stated, when they do it ILLEGALLY or in BAD FAITH, they get hauled into court, like anyone else. As far as I can tell, we don't stop you from suing.

But don't act like you're entitled to care because you're a huge risk to insure or lied on your risk assessment.


Yeah, fark those sick people, thinking they're entitled to health care. What's up with those guys?
 
2009-08-06 02:59:56 PM
Nabb1: Bad faith laws generally provide financial penalties severe enough...

I know. So do insurers. Thus the: 'WHERE YOU CAN' bit.

Do you really think that insurers are going around KIND HEARTEDLY giving out benefits where they do not feel they have to?

Would you invest in a company that wastes money that way?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2009-08-06 03:00:12 PM
KaponoFor3: ZOMG GOP is against this,

The correct term is "colostomy-baggers".
 
2009-08-06 03:01:08 PM
palladiate: If you can't pay your medical bills, and your value to society is eclipsed by your bills, you can suffer and die, or find a charity to provide you hospice care while you suffer and die.

What the hell is wrong with you.
 
2009-08-06 03:01:13 PM
aegisalpha: Yeah, fark those sick people, thinking they're entitled to health care. What's up with those guys?

Yea, I'd like to know what Constitution they're reading from.
 
2009-08-06 03:05:55 PM
Nabb1: Code_Archeologist:
No, actually you don't.

Do not tell me what I can and cannot understand. Do not do that. Period.


Why not? You tell us how we think all the freakin' time.
 
2009-08-06 03:06:12 PM
aegisalpha: Yeah, fark those sick people, thinking they're entitled to health care. What's up with those guys?

Health care is not a right. It's a luxury. Sorry, but you don't have a "right" to goods or services provided by someone else. Just because something may be a necessity, like food or shelter or clothing, and just because helping those who cannot provide those things for themselves is something we should work towards, doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to have them supplied to you, especially if you have the means to provide them to yourself.
 
2009-08-06 03:07:01 PM
Nabb1: aegisalpha: Yeah, fark those sick people, thinking they're entitled to health care. What's up with those guys?

Health care is not a right. It's a luxury. Sorry, but you don't have a "right" to goods or services provided by someone else. Just because something may be a necessity, like food or shelter or clothing, and just because helping those who cannot provide those things for themselves is something we should work towards, doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to have them supplied to you, especially if you have the means to provide them to yourself.


Okay, so if we don't have a right to access to healthcare than you don't have a right to access to guns. Sound good?
 
2009-08-06 03:08:20 PM
Nabb1: Code_Archeologist:
No, actually you don't.

Do not tell me what I can and cannot understand. Do not do that. Period.


My apologies. But the fact is that the applications are made so that even intelligent people will inadvertently enter fraudulent data. Between fifteen and fifty percent (depending on the insurer) of the people with serious (and seriously expensive) life threatening illnesses who have health insurance will face rescission because of some mistake that they have made on their original policy.

They can try to fight it in court, but the cases usually go in the insurance company's favor... because the patient dies before the insurance company is forced to pay for treatment.
 
2009-08-06 03:08:34 PM
Nabb1: Health care is not a right. It's a luxury. Sorry, but you don't have a "right" to goods or services provided by someone else.

Yes. Yes you do. You have a right to police protection. You have a right to a jury. You have a right to a fire department. You have a right to military protection. All of these things requires you having "right" to good or services provided by someone else. Yet you and other conservatives keep repeating this line.

It's blatantly false.
 
2009-08-06 03:09:15 PM
DamnYankees: Action Replay Nick: I'm sure a rational debate is forthcoming.

This is America - healthy public debate isn't how we roll.


FTFY
 
2009-08-06 03:09:33 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Okay, so if we don't have a right to access to healthcare than you don't have a right to access to guns. Sound good?

Well, let's see, the right to bear arms is set forth in the Second Amendment, and the right to access to health care is set forth in, well, gosh, it's not there. You have "access" to all the health care there is. You may lack the money to pay for it, but no one gets turned away at the emergency department.
 
2009-08-06 03:10:52 PM
Code_Archeologist: They missed these two.
The Public Option will force you to change your insurance.

Which it doesn't actually do.


Sure, you may keep your insurance. However, if anything other than price for the insurance changes, then the insurance is no longer "qualified" under the plan. Any person who does not have "qualfied" plan insurance (including the public option) will pay an additional 2.5% on their income as a penalty.

Read the bill, or as much of it as you can. The myths aren't completely inaccurate.

H.R. 3200 (new window)
 
2009-08-06 03:11:32 PM
Nabb1: Health care is not a right. It's a luxury. Sorry, but you don't have a "right" to goods or services provided by someone else. Just because something may be a necessity, like food or shelter or clothing, and just because helping those who cannot provide those things for themselves is something we should work towards, doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to have them supplied to you, especially if you have the means to provide them to yourself.

Here's a fun little thought experiment that I find helps people figure health care out.

If an enemy organization, like Al-Queda, was deliberately increasing the number of illnesses in the US-- spraying around some flu, contaminating water supplies, etc.-- do you think it would be the duty of the government to treat people who became sick from those actions?

You can, of course, refuse to think about this.
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report