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.

(Think Progress)   Romneybot: update Medicaid.exe / WARNING: updating Medicaid.exe will cause Romneycare.exe to crash; do you wish to continue? (y/n) / y   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 53
    More: Dumbass, warnings, block grants, Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, healthcare reform  
•       •       •

2039 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2012 at 1:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-04 11:11:59 AM
I love you Romneybot. You're almost as interesting as Herman Cain.

Almost
 
2012-05-04 11:53:43 AM
These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!
 
2012-05-04 01:20:55 PM
Format HEALTHCARE drive as block grants? (This will remove 98% of your coverage data.) (y/n)
 
2012-05-04 01:22:14 PM
I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.
 
2012-05-04 01:22:43 PM

FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!


Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012
 
2012-05-04 01:25:50 PM
I don't think it's really fair to continue this characterization of Romney as a robot or some sort of rigidly designed computer encased in humanoid features. Computers do what they're told. They accept input and create valid output assuming proper initial design.

This guy is exactly the opposite. He just bounces from one random line of thought to another without any apparent consideration for how any of what he says fits in with anything else he's ever said or done. He's much less like a computer and much more like an unpredictable, drunken lemur.

If this guy's a computer, he's got one hell of a random number generator.
 
2012-05-04 01:29:19 PM

Splinshints: If this guy's a computer, he's got one hell of a random number generator.


That's the point. I think he was conceived originally as a prank by some MIT students. Their project got out of hand quickly though, and look where we are today.
 
2012-05-04 01:30:01 PM

Splinshints: I don't think it's really fair to continue this characterization of Romney as a robot or some sort of rigidly designed computer encased in humanoid features. Computers do what they're told. They accept input and create valid output assuming proper initial design.

This guy is exactly the opposite. He just bounces from one random line of thought to another without any apparent consideration for how any of what he says fits in with anything else he's ever said or done. He's much less like a computer and much more like an unpredictable, drunken lemur.

If this guy's a computer, he's got one hell of a random number generator.


He's a quantum computer. Duh. Observing him forces him into a new realization.
 
2012-05-04 01:31:39 PM

mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012



I love it! I couldn't believe this quote was new, so I did a Google search. We're only a few years too late, and we may be the first to put it on a bumper sticker:

George F. Will writing about the Capitol Steps
 
2012-05-04 01:38:39 PM
What is really sad to me is that Mitt was/is probably really proud of how he managed to get all the funding for RMoney care lined up. Not in a "I'm really helping people who need it" sort of way, but more in a "This is the kind of stuff that finance wizard like me can really do well!".
Sort of like the Hospital Administrator in "the Meaning of Life".

/*bing*
 
2012-05-04 01:40:39 PM
Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.
 
2012-05-04 01:42:21 PM

Close2TheEdge: Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective.


The irony to me is that already happens with a for-profit insurance model.

I also like how Romney's "state plan" gets half of its funding from the federal government (read: US taxpayers).
 
2012-05-04 01:42:22 PM

The one thing that pack of assclowns and mental midgets challenging Mitt's Big Money Inevitability here got right?

He is the worst person on the freaking planet to stand up to Obama in a debate and make the "Obamacare sucks!" argument.

Worst. Choice. EVAH.

www.popscreen.com

This is going to be great...


/Popcorn supplies already laid in for this muthapuppy.
 
2012-05-04 01:46:42 PM

winterwhile: Yes

its a broken dem-o-rat system

kill it off now


Heh. *pats head* How are you, boy? Yes, you're a good little troll, aren't you. No, no, get out of my lap... those are my balls, you can't sniff them.

/ Okay, maybe you can.
 
2012-05-04 01:46:52 PM

Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.


You made the mistake in thinking that the GOP has a sense of irony...or shame.
 
2012-05-04 01:49:58 PM

LoL! I love you GIS!

i1051.photobucket.com
My CPU is a neural net processor; a learning computer. But Skynet pre-sets the switch to read-only when we're sent out alone.
 
2012-05-04 01:54:14 PM
This is a quality headline, though I'd have gone with kernel panic.

/Linux guy
 
2012-05-04 02:00:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

You made the mistake in thinking that the GOP has any sense of irony...or shame of any kind.

 
2012-05-04 02:01:10 PM

winterwhile: Yes

its a broken dem-o-rat system

kill it off now


3000h in a military balloon!
Best part - forevere!!!
 
2012-05-04 02:01:15 PM

blackminded: This is a quality headline, though I'd have gone with kernel panic.



In the parlor with a candlestick?
 
2012-05-04 02:05:33 PM

blackminded: This is a quality headline, though I'd have gone with kernel panic.

/Linux guy


I'm not so much a Linux guy unfortunately. Besides, you think Romneybot would run FOSS like Linux? He's obviously running a piece of corporate software like Windows.

/subby
 
2012-05-04 02:14:32 PM

winterwhile: Yes

its a broken dem-o-rat system

kill it off now


Burma Shave
 
2012-05-04 02:20:32 PM

Serious Black: blackminded: This is a quality headline, though I'd have gone with kernel panic.

/Linux guy

I'm not so much a Linux guy unfortunately. Besides, you think Romneybot would run FOSS like Linux? He's obviously running a piece of corporate software like Windows.

/subby


You kidding? I vote SCO.

I would suggest Novell, as it is from Utah, but Novell had a pretty good product for most of the 90s.
 
2012-05-04 02:31:30 PM

mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012


brilliant.

have this printed next to a parody of the Obama/HOPE poster - with Rmoney wearing that stupid grin, printed in dollar-bill green/black/grey.

i'm going to play with photoshop tonight...
 
2012-05-04 02:33:43 PM

mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012


Money In
Policy Out
Romney 2012
 
2012-05-04 02:38:01 PM

DeaH: mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012

Money In
Policy Out
Romney 2012


Right/Left/Center
All Bases Covered
Romney 2012
 
2012-05-04 02:43:07 PM

monoski: DeaH: mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012

Money In
Policy Out
Romney 2012

Right/Left/Center
All Bases Covered
Romney 2012


All things
To all people
Romney 2012
 
2012-05-04 02:47:09 PM

Splinshints: If this guy's a computer, he's got one hell of a random number generator.


It's not his fault. He has one of the old Pentium FPUs.
 
2012-05-04 02:50:11 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: monoski: DeaH: mrshowrules: FloydA: These are uncertain times, and they call for a President with uncertain positions on the issues!
Rmoney 2012!

Brilliant but needs to be short enough for a bumper sticker.

Uncertain times need
uncertain leadership
Rmoney 2012

Money In
Policy Out
Romney 2012

Right/Left/Center
All Bases Covered
Romney 2012

All things
To all people
Romney 2012


Principles,
all of them
RMoney 2012
 
2012-05-04 03:06:29 PM

qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.


The federal government pays all states for Medicare. Massachusetts actually receives one of the lowest federal match rates (50% in Mass, average state receives about 60% many poor states like Arkansas receive over 70% match), though it does spend more per person, it receives about the same amount as other states with equal populations.
 
2012-05-04 03:27:23 PM

MindStalker: qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.

The federal government pays all states for Medicare. Massachusetts actually receives one of the lowest federal match rates (50% in Mass, average state receives about 60% many poor states like Arkansas receive over 70% match), though it does spend more per person, it receives about the same amount as other states with equal populations.


Other states' programs aren't being lauded as the alternative to putting federal taxpayers on the hook for the uninsured, while deriving half of their funding from federal taxpayers.
 
2012-05-04 03:31:13 PM

winterwhile: nobody wants the Gov in control


Nobody wants big business in control, either.

So we have a problem.

Anything about your health care that you can't take care of yourself...or judging by the waddlers at my local Target, won't take care of yourself...is going to become either a business decision or a political decision.

The blame for a huge chunk of our spiraling health care costs can be placed at the feet of the person each voter sees in the mirror in the morning.

Which is not the sort of thing you say to voters.
 
2012-05-04 03:36:24 PM

Gulper Eel: winterwhile: nobody wants the Gov in control

Nobody wants big business in control, either.

So we have a problem.

Anything about your health care that you can't take care of yourself...or judging by the waddlers at my local Target, won't take care of yourself...is going to become either a business decision or a political decision.

The blame for a huge chunk of our spiraling health care costs can be placed at the feet of the person each voter sees in the mirror in the morning.

Which is not the sort of thing you say to voters.


Right, cause those 1% of Americans who incur over 20% of our total health care costs, and those 5% of Americans who incur 50% of our total health care costs, are really farking things up for the rest of us.
 
2012-05-04 03:52:50 PM

qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.


And as a resident of Massachusetts, I thank you for it
 
2012-05-04 03:55:42 PM

Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.


So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.
 
2012-05-04 04:13:39 PM

GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.


I would be fine with choice (d) if the money were given to the states with certain conditions like:

- Universal coverage,
- Coverage for those visiting other states,
- Uniform access rules, and
- Comprehensive coverage (either by first-dollar or inclusion in benefits).
 
2012-05-04 04:21:33 PM

Serious Black: GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.

I would be fine with choice (d) if the money were given to the states with certain conditions like:

- Universal coverage,
- Coverage for those visiting other states,
- Uniform access rules, and
- Comprehensive coverage (either by first-dollar or inclusion in benefits).


Disagree (strongly) but only on the comprehensive part. "Comprehensive" coverage simply costs too much money and invites too much bureaucracy. The decisions about what should and shouldn't be included are always, always, unduly influenced by profiteers. The only solution is patient paying first dollar, as in High Deductible plans. The size of the deductible must be scaled to your ability to pay somehow, but the only ones who are ever going to stop unnecessary tests are the patients themselves. "Wait.. that test is $600?? And there's only a 1 in 10,000 chance of a positive result, and a positive result today doesn't really change my prognosis, but merely protects you from a possible but unlikely lawsuit?" Only patients ask questions like that.
 
2012-05-04 04:29:05 PM

GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.


e) Single payer, pay half as much as today and have no rationing
 
2012-05-04 04:37:54 PM

GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.


I'd rather have (b), actually: it just might get companies to raise the farking wages. Not that I'm holding my breath on that (or the armed insurrection that would likely cause it), That and it wouldn't actually cause an already existant problem to magnify.
 
2012-05-04 04:46:10 PM

GentDirkly: Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.

I would be fine with choice (d) if the money were given to the states with certain conditions like:

- Universal coverage,
- Coverage for those visiting other states,
- Uniform access rules, and
- Comprehensive coverage (either by first-dollar or inclusion in benefits).

Disagree (strongly) but only on the comprehensive part. "Comprehensive" coverage simply costs too much money and invites too much bureaucracy. The decisions about what should and shouldn't be included are always, always, unduly influenced by profiteers. The only solution is patient paying first dollar, as in High Deductible plans. The size of the deductible must be scaled to your ability to pay somehow, but the only ones who are ever going to stop unnecessary tests are the patients themselves. "Wait.. that test is $600?? And there's only a 1 in 10,000 chance of a positive result, and a positive result today doesn't really change my prognosis, but merely protects you from a possible but unlikely lawsuit?" Only patients ask questions like that.


That's why I suggested first-dollar be an option the states could take. There would almost certainly be some states that would go the first-dollar route for everything (kind of like how Singapore does their Medisave/Medifund system), and there would almost certainly be some states that would convert all their hospitals into a public system like Britain's NHS. There'd probably be a lot of things in between those as well. Ideally, I'd see HHS shift to overseeing what the states are doing by evaluating their performance with, potentially, the ability to put a state's program into receivership temporarily if they fail to meet one of the conditions. I'd also put them in charge of a national EHR system.
 
2012-05-04 04:52:18 PM

mrshowrules: GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.

e) Single payer, pay half as much as today and have no rationing


Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.
 
2012-05-04 04:54:04 PM

GentDirkly: mrshowrules: GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.

e) Single payer, pay half as much as today and have no rationing

Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.


Except for the part where you can still have private insurance and pay for it that way.
 
2012-05-04 04:55:00 PM

qorkfiend: GentDirkly: mrshowrules: GentDirkly: Close2TheEdge: Here's the irony.

Sarah Palin and the GOP bleat on about how Obamacare will result in rationing because go-forbid there is some panel to decide whether endless tests are necessary and cost-effective. Yet every study that comes out about Ryan and Romney's plan point out that all it does is cost-shift healthcare on to the states, who are in no position to pay for it. That leads to the inevitable, and most likely dramatic, rationing of health care.

So we either have
a) Endless deficit creation at the Federal level due to medical needs
b) Taxes significantly higher than today's (nearly double on average) - even taxing the rich at 95% marginal rates won't get you there so don't say that
c) Rationing at the Federal level via specific limits on tests and procedures
d) Block granting at the Federal level leading to rationing at the state level.

Forgive me for feeling more comfortable with choice (d) than choice (c). The state government should be more responsive to the people's concerns when it comes to medicine. In fact, states are already making rationing decisions with Medicaid. These would be amplified, because they'd have to provide a greater share of the care, rather than started out of nothing.

e) Single payer, pay half as much as today and have no rationing

Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.

Except for the part where you can still have private insurance and pay for it that way.


OK, but that is no longer single payer but a hybrid.
 
2012-05-04 04:56:07 PM

GentDirkly: Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.


There are very few countries with true single-payer systems where there is absolutely no private insurance allowed whatsoever. Even Britain with their dirty pinko Commie socialized medicine through the NHS allows people to use private insurance if they so desire.
 
2012-05-04 05:03:02 PM

Arkanaut: winterwhile: Yes

its a broken dem-o-rat system

kill it off now

Burma Shave


I can't believe it took this long for somebody to point that out. Welcome to my favorites list, sir. :)

----------------
/ My fave poem by Ogden Nash:
"Lather As You Go"

Beneath this slab
John Brown is stowed
He watched the ads
And not the road
 
2012-05-04 05:05:47 PM

Serious Black: GentDirkly: Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.

There are very few countries with true single-payer systems where there is absolutely no private insurance allowed whatsoever. Even Britain with their dirty pinko Commie socialized medicine through the NHS allows people to use private insurance if they so desire.


I actually can't think of any that outlaw private insurance.
 
2012-05-04 05:18:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: GentDirkly: Single payer by definition has rationing. If you want speedier or more comprehensive care than the state deems necessary, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself. You get the same ration of care as everyone else.

There are very few countries with true single-payer systems where there is absolutely no private insurance allowed whatsoever. Even Britain with their dirty pinko Commie socialized medicine through the NHS allows people to use private insurance if they so desire.

I actually can't think of any that outlaw private insurance.


Honestly, I'm having trouble finding one myself as well. Sweden has a private health insurance and care sector. So do Norway and Finland. Some of Canada's provinces used to have such a ban, but it was ruled unconstitutional in 2005 for cases where the wait for care was unduly long. The only possibility I've found is Iceland, but I don't think they statutorily ban it.
 
2012-05-04 07:32:25 PM

qorkfiend: MindStalker: qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.

The federal government pays all states for Medicare. Massachusetts actually receives one of the lowest federal match rates (50% in Mass, average state receives about 60% many poor states like Arkansas receive over 70% match), though it does spend more per person, it receives about the same amount as other states with equal populations.

Other states' programs aren't being lauded as the alternative to putting federal taxpayers on the hook for the uninsured, while deriving half of their funding from federal taxpayers.


They figured out how to use the same fed money to provide more services than any other state, and its a bad thing. Efficiency sucks when its socialism!
 
2012-05-04 07:38:08 PM

MindStalker: qorkfiend: MindStalker: qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.

The federal government pays all states for Medicare. Massachusetts actually receives one of the lowest federal match rates (50% in Mass, average state receives about 60% many poor states like Arkansas receive over 70% match), though it does spend more per person, it receives about the same amount as other states with equal populations.

Other states' programs aren't being lauded as the alternative to putting federal taxpayers on the hook for the uninsured, while deriving half of their funding from federal taxpayers.

They figured out how to use the same fed money to provide more services than any other state, and its a bad thing. Efficiency sucks when its socialism!


MA is about to take up debate on eliminating fee for service payments in favor of "global payments" which essentially puts doctors and hospitals on a budget. Now that may seem controversial, but the fact is that major health insurance companies in the state have already begun adopting this strategy and are starting to drive down costs. The criticism about MA health care reform is that it didn't reduce costs, but that is about to change.
 
2012-05-04 09:43:43 PM

MindStalker: qorkfiend: MindStalker: qorkfiend: I find it fascinating that the US taxpayer is subsidizing healthcare for the residents of Massachusetts.

The federal government pays all states for Medicare. Massachusetts actually receives one of the lowest federal match rates (50% in Mass, average state receives about 60% many poor states like Arkansas receive over 70% match), though it does spend more per person, it receives about the same amount as other states with equal populations.

Other states' programs aren't being lauded as the alternative to putting federal taxpayers on the hook for the uninsured, while deriving half of their funding from federal taxpayers.

They figured out how to use the same fed money to provide more services than any other state, and its a bad thing. Efficiency sucks when its socialism!


Matching funds, how the f#$% do they work?
The Federal Government could give 2 shiats how efficient or comprehensive state medicaid is. However much or however little a state is willing to spend to provide healthcare to the poor, the Federal government will match it 1:1. The Federal government figures that if the elected representatives of a state are willing to put their butts and tax dollars on the line for a certain amount and quality of coverage, it must be OK. In certain cases they will match more. MA is not one of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report