Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Chicago Trib)   Final poll before SCOTUS rules on Obamacare shows Americans still hate it even though they love everything in it   (articles.chicagotribune.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Americans, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, Ipsos, political independents, health care law, Americans oppose, individual mandate  
•       •       •

2803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 7:27 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 09:06:50 AM  

RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,


And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.
 
2012-06-25 09:08:35 AM  

RolandGunner: trotsky: Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.

Yeah, it is pretty horrible. I don't have the time to go line-by-line, but take the last provision as an example. It's a fairy tale. The consumer will HAVE to pay for those preventative care procedures one way or another, or there will stop being providers of those services. The federal government could order that all TV manufacturers give away free TVs, and all that would end up doing is eliminating TV manufacturers.

In the end, procedures like colonoscopies are not a net cost saver since only 1% of the population contracts colon cancer, so the vast majority of the cost of funding colon cancer screenings is overhead/wasted. If a colonoscopy costs $1000 and treatment for colon cancer is $75,000 it is still cheaper to treat colon cancer than to screen for it.

In short, Obamacare in a catastrophically stupid solution to US Health care as it doesn't even take into account the economics of most of it's idiotic provisions.

Kill it with fire.


Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.
 
2012-06-25 09:09:53 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.



And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.
 
2012-06-25 09:12:15 AM  

RolandGunner: LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.


And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.


OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?
 
2012-06-25 09:12:32 AM  
i wonder what popular opinion was on civil rights in the south in the early 1960s...
 
2012-06-25 09:15:58 AM  

RolandGunner: LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.


And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.


That depends. Are you starving to death?
 
2012-06-25 09:18:42 AM  

trotsky: Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.


Well, there is a well reasoned response!

And yes, the reason the 26 year olds are on their parents plan is because they would not pay for their own health care coverage otherwise. Health insurers like having young people with health insurance because they also don't tend to use health insurance so the money they spend now is funding the program for the old an infirm (the way medicare works now).

By switching to allowing 26 year olds to stay on their parents plan the insurer actually sees little added income to cover those "children". For the system to actually have a net funding benefit for the insurance programs then the 19-26 year olds should cost significantly more to insure on their parents plan than they did when they were 18... but then we can't do that because big mean insurance companies and blah blah emotional bullcrap.

Single payer is crap too, they usually solve the colonoscopy conundrum by making then almost impossible to schedule one.
 
2012-06-25 09:24:02 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?


How do I know you don't understand how the ACA works...?
 
2012-06-25 09:29:00 AM  

trotsky: RolandGunner: trotsky: Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.

Yeah, it is pretty horrible. I don't have the time to go line-by-line, but take the last provision as an example. It's a fairy tale. The consumer will HAVE to pay for those preventative care procedures one way or another, or there will stop being providers of those services. The federal government could order that all TV manufacturers give away free TVs, and all that would end up doing is eliminating TV manufacturers.


Great Buddha's ghost, you're an idiot! Requiring preventative care (which many insurers already provide) will lead to a net savings for insurers, as it's better to spend a little money today to catch something like breast cancer early, rather than spend a huge sum later on trying to keep someone alive as they die from breast cancer.
 
2012-06-25 09:31:03 AM  
The level of misinformation about the ACA is sickening. I literally cannot have an intelligent conversation with my family about it because all they know is OMG THE SOCIALIZMMM, and no amount of reasoning can dissuade them. When asked what parts make them feel that way, they can't articulate why, just that it is.

The GOP should be ashamed to peddle ignorance in their own self-interest. Its almost treason.
 
2012-06-25 09:39:40 AM  

GoldSpider: LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?

How do I know you don't understand how the ACA works...?


What, I was simply replying to a crappy analogy. You can do better I'm guessing?
 
2012-06-25 09:56:18 AM  

Madbassist1: The level of misinformation about the ACA is sickening. I literally cannot have an intelligent conversation with my family about it because all they know is OMG THE SOCIALIZMMM, and no amount of reasoning can dissuade them. When asked what parts make them feel that way, they can't articulate why, just that it is.

The GOP should be ashamed to peddle ignorance in their own self-interest. Its almost treason.


THIS. I have the same problem with my parents. They're convinced Obamacare will destroy their own current health care coverage. They hate the idea of poor people leeching off of the system. Somehow the current system of uninsured people getting emergency care doesn't leech off the taxpayers.

Also, neither of my parents could tell me any details about Obamacare beyond "the mandate" and "all of the prices are going to go up".
 
2012-06-25 10:02:18 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?


I'd rather a fresh ham sandwich, thanks.
 
2012-06-25 10:20:03 AM  

RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care

How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.


How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?
 
2012-06-25 10:23:33 AM  

CPennypacker: That depends. Are you starving to death?



No.

NeoCortex42: Also, neither of my parents could tell me any details about Obamacare beyond "the mandate" and "all of the prices are going to go up".



Prices are going up and the mandate is likely to be shot down. You should listen to your parents.
 
2012-06-25 10:33:43 AM  
well since our insurance company jacked rates 25% when this all started last year, I'm sure if it gets struck down the rates will go back down, right?
 
2012-06-25 10:37:38 AM  

Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?



Yeah, nobody really wants those new cures anyway.
 
2012-06-25 10:40:10 AM  

Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?



Follow-up: Also, since R&D is all overhead expense the answer is "none of it".
 
2012-06-25 10:47:50 AM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?


Yeah, nobody really wants those new cures anyway.


It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.

theincidentaleconomist.com

Overdiagnosis is a HUGE problem with our health care system because the treatment is often worse than the cure. Did you know that iatrogenic medicine, i.e. cases caused by the intervention of a health care professional, kill the equivalent of a fully-loaded Boeing 747 crashing into a mountain every day for an entire year?
 
2012-06-25 11:00:16 AM  

RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care

How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.


US government funds most of the R&D. You could continue doing that or cut back on it. Either way it has nothing to do with single-payer versus private insurance.
 
2012-06-25 11:14:32 AM  

mrshowrules: RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care

How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.

US government funds most of the R&D. You could continue doing that or cut back on it. Either way it has nothing to do with single-payer versus private insurance.


Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?
 
2012-06-25 11:20:47 AM  

RolandGunner: trotsky: Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.

Well, there is a well reasoned response!

And yes, the reason the 26 year olds are on their parents plan is because they would not pay for their own health care coverage otherwise. Health insurers like having young people with health insurance because they also don't tend to use health insurance so the money they spend now is funding the program for the old an infirm (the way medicare works now).

By switching to allowing 26 year olds to stay on their parents plan the insurer actually sees little added income to cover those "children". For the system to actually have a net funding benefit for the insurance programs then the 19-26 year olds should cost significantly more to insure on their parents plan than they did when they were 18... but then we can't do that because big mean insurance companies and blah blah emotional bullcrap.

Single payer is crap too, they usually solve the colonoscopy conundrum by making then almost impossible to schedule one.


LOL, SIngle payer is miles ahead of the shiat we Americans have to deal with. There's a reason the number one cause of bankruptcy is Medical in this country. It would also be a big boon for small businesses. But us fark libtards know damn well the GOP could give a shiat about small businesses in this country anymore. If it ain't worth a billion, it ain't worth talking about. Ask the average Middle Class Canadian or German: they like it. And for the most part the same issues exist but at least they don't drive themselves to the poor house everytime they need a medical procedure done. While your R&D argument does hold some water, at the same time the overall positive a single payer system I think outweighs it.

And my response is right on, you need to be called on the bullshiat you spew.
 
2012-06-25 11:22:23 AM  

Serious Black: It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.



Well sure, that goes back to my point about colonoscopies and mammograms which the insurance companies are now forced to give away for free when there is little benefit to the health care system as a whole. All the provision does is ensure that costs go up.
 
2012-06-25 11:25:43 AM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.


Well sure, that goes back to my point about colonoscopies and mammograms which the insurance companies are now forced to give away for free when there is little benefit to the health care system as a whole. All the provision does is ensure that costs go up.


Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?
 
2012-06-25 11:34:16 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?


I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.
 
2012-06-25 11:43:01 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Botkin of the Yard: This is ridiculous. At this point, if I said Tom Seaver was a great pitcher

I've no idea who Tom Seaver is.


I don't even watch baseball and I know who Tom Seaver is. Did you know baseball is the American National sport? Why do you hate America, Dwight Yeast???
 
2012-06-25 11:54:13 AM  

ghare: GhostFish: Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.

In other words, it's GOP SOP.


GOP SOP is what you do after a particularly bad case of santorum, I've heard...
 
2012-06-25 11:59:45 AM  

mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?

I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.


I remember this. Also, how come so many retirees have to go on "Medical Holidays" in order to get procedures done in third world countries? Also, how come so many retirees have to travel to Canada to buy cheap yet lifesaving drugs that are cost prohibitive in the land of the free?

RolandGunner won't answer that. Nor can he. The American system is borked pretty badly. It offers no advantages over the single payer systems in the rest of the world and comes with many of the same problems. In essence he's defending the middle man, the insurance company that has proven to be the biggest road block to true first world medical care in the US. Not doctors, not researchers, insurance men.
 
2012-06-25 12:07:14 PM  

trotsky: mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?

I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.

I remember this. Also, how come so many retirees have to go on "Medical Holidays" in order to get procedures done in third world countries? Also, how come so many retirees have to travel to Canada to buy cheap yet lifesaving drugs that are cost prohibitive in the land of the free?

RolandGunner won't answer that. Nor can he. The American system is borked pretty badly. It offers no advantages over the single payer systems in the rest of the world and comes with many of the same problems. In essence he's defending the middle man, the insurance company that has proven to be the biggest road block to true first world medical care in the US. Not doctors, not researchers, insurance men.


The really sad part is the the US system would actually be much better than Canada's if they just dealt with insurance side.
 
2012-06-25 12:50:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Arthur Jumbles: They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?

How much does a library book cost in the US?


Depends on a lot of factors but it ultimately comes down to the budget of the library, the cost of any outstanding bonds the city used to build the library, and the property tax the city charges its citizens to pay for the costs of the library's budget and bonds.
 
2012-06-25 01:51:57 PM  

trotsky: If they strike it down a large number of "conservatives" will lose the following:

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
Unintended side effect is that patent clock starts earlier than medical trials. Drug development for promising drugs will be stopped before completion of trials if the developing company cannot make a profit before generics come into effect. New drugs that would have been a good addition simply will never have their trials completed as the company evaluates it's profitability to continue development. They won't just continue to develop because "they are so close." They will stop once the profitability evaporates. Generic companies can't/won't complete the clinical trials.

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
Drugs cost the same. Someone else pays the rebate. Who?

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
And what is impact of not following PCORI protocols? Denial of coverage? It's either toothless or it's a way to keep costs down by stopping treatment for certain conditions (or stopping expensive protocols). They don't decide individual cases but they could easily decide that "palliative care" is preferred to "chemotherapy" for certain incurable conditions and if the insurance companies can reject a chemo claim based on a PCORI directive, that can be life-altering. (I have a friend with incurable stomach cancer and will die. She would have died a year ago without chemo but chose to live with the effects of chemo simply to prolong her life as chemo only slows her death, doesn't eliminate it. If these PCORI studies influence the insurable options, that is going to suck. If they don't then they are a pointless bureaucracy.)

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
Did anyone really walk into a McDonalds thinking they needed a healthy choice? Diet Coke to go with their Big Mac and fries? The information has entertainment value but people have already made a decision when they a) choose what to eat and b) choose where to get it. No one walks into McDonalds as the "healthy alternative." This mandate will do nothing but increase food prices. It won't cure or reduce obesity or any other related disorder. Maybe the sugar information can be used by diabetics to see what size soda they need for their shot.

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
And premiums/taxes will rise to cover/subsidize this new actuarial reality

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
I guess I can't argue against the creation of new unnamed bureaucrats. I'm betting the new positions aren't health care workers so we can just tack it on to direct overhead expense.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
Why? Isn't orange already enough of a penalty? How much revenue is the Orange Tax? But really, this is just a door opener for taxing activities the government doesn't like. Pick small, then incrementally increase. Next tax will be on golfers that use golf carts instead of walking.

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
And premiums will rise to cover this new actuarial reality.

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
Perhaps the largest increase in premiums. 18-26 y/o women of child bearing age will have their kids under a plan designed for children. This will increase family premiums substantially. In my company, employees can opt out and receive a credit (i.e. bonus) for being covered under someone elses plan. When these child-bearing age women start opting out to be covered by daddy/mommies plan, the family plan premium will explode.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
And premiums will rise to account for this new actuarial reality

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
And premiums will rise to create reserves that will be necessary to have this flexibility in place (unless you want to see catastrophic insurance company failures that will be deemed "too big to fail.")

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Who pays for that? Oh, Tax increase

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
And premiums will rise to account for this new actuarial reality

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
overhead is added to the premium

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
Overhead is added to the premium

New ways to stop fraud are created.
Wasn't there an article recently that the new computer to find this fraud cost billions and has found thousands? Genius

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Is that more or less expensive to the taxpayer?

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Either this is way to keep medicare patients from getting care for chronic illnesses by making it cumbersome and bureaucratic or the new bureaucracy will cost more (I'd bet tax money, the government can't make care for chronic illnesses less expensive with red tape. Won't happen.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
How exactly? Must be subsidy from taxpayers. Or less elderly under the plan?

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
More bureaucracy and spending with no discernible or measurable benefit.

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
Solyndra Solar Powered medicine?

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
Law of unintended consequences. This will squeeze out competition and create mergers. Limiting profit does not in itself stop price gouging. In fact, if it's actually profit they measure, expenses such as salary and bonuses and dividends and stock buy back can all affect it. Companies that have the resources to do this will destroy smaller companies and create substantial payouts to avoid "profit." How much did GE pay in taxes on their profit? Exxon?

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
So this is increasing costs for prescription drugs by essentially eliminating prescriptions and coverage. If a Dr. prescribes you a medication and it's not covered by insurance, this is a reduction in benefits. Basically the insurance company lobby will put pressure on the FDA to make a lot more medications OTC so the peoples out-of-pocket expenses go up. This reduces premiums, though.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
In anticipation of taxing them. There is no longer a lifetime limit, but there will be a tax on whatever benefit you got. In addition, your treatment will be shared with other government agencies (this has already started with things like the VA hospital sharing medical records with the FAA about treatment that military veteran pilots receive.)

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
and premiums will rise to reflect this new reality.


Basically, people want all the "good stuff" for free. They won't like paying for it though and that is what is insidious. Playing it off as "the people like what's in it" without a word on the cost and price increases for it is disingenuous. What's sad is that when the insurance companies do increase prices to cover these things, the left will cry about how the cost of health care premiums is rising faster than the actual cost of health care and not take any responsibility that the role of these mandates has.

The overall effect will be less R&D, more routine care from less competent sources (PA's, NP's, etc). Less procedures that are covered when the PCORI crap kicks in. Less covered medications when the FDA starts making more medications available OTC. Higher premiums to cover kids to 26 (especially the impact this will have on family plans that triple the time that child-bearing age women are on family plans). And giant multinational insurance conglomerates to shell game the profits. Sign me up.
 
2012-06-25 02:52:15 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: mrshowrules: Arthur Jumbles: They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?

How much does a library book cost in the US?

Depends on a lot of factors but it ultimately comes down to the budget of the library, the cost of any outstanding bonds the city used to build the library, and the property tax the city charges its citizens to pay for the costs of the library's budget and bonds.


A library book doesn't cost anything. It is free. No charge to you. If you want to argue that nothing is free. Technically there is a cost to walking in a park or even the air we breath. Health care is Canada is free in the same sense that it is "provided without charge" which is one of the definitions of free.

I don't know why Conservatives always get so bent out of shape when I tell them that we have free health care in Canada. It is a social program provided at not cost to users. The cost in terms of tax is less than the US but completely independent to how much you use the service as an individual. That book in the Library that sits on shelf will cost you just as much if you read it not.
 
2012-06-25 03:41:36 PM  

Altair: People hated Social Security when it was first implemented. Now, you can't even get a Tea Bagger to want to cut it.


Uuuuuuhhhhhh, that's because we've all been forced to pay into it. If i didn't have 10% of my hard earned salary raped to cover some dusty old fart's retirement villa in God's waiting room, I'd want none of it either, but since they're taking it now, I want it back later!
 
2012-06-25 04:02:42 PM  

Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?


No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.
 
2012-06-25 04:03:22 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?


It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.
 
2012-06-25 04:33:28 PM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.


So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.
 
2012-06-25 06:19:56 PM  

Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.


Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?
 
2012-06-25 07:36:30 PM  

Serious Black: RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.

So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.


Who says? The Health care economy isn't just money spent by us on our health, it is also money spent by companies and individuals on research and development and elective treatments and so on. Private expenditure in health care is 55% of the total expenditure on health care, and that includes R&D and manufacturing expenses.

US federal spending on healthcare per capita is already fifth in the world... in theory they already spend enough in Medicaid and Medicare dollars to cover everyone in the country just like any European city and leave the private sector alone, that would include running government hospitals and clinics only for people who chose the government program... why don't we just do that?
 
2012-06-25 08:23:37 PM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.

So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.

Who says? The Health care economy isn't just money spent by us on our health, it is also money spent by companies and individuals on research and development and elective treatments and so on. Private expenditure in health care is 55% of the total expenditure on health care, and that includes R&D and manufacturing expenses.

US federal spending on healthcare per capita is already fifth in the world... in theory they already spend enough in Medicaid and Medicare dollars to cover everyone in the country just like any European city and leave the private sector alone, that would include running government hospitals and clinics only for people who chose the government program... why don't we just do that?


Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that. If you include that those costs, the US would be paying even more for a shiatty system.
 
2012-06-25 08:54:15 PM  

mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.



Do you have a citation?
 
2012-06-25 09:14:42 PM  

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?


not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
 
2012-06-25 09:28:05 PM  

mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?


No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nanny state?? If people want to get sick and die, let them.
 
2012-06-25 09:33:12 PM  

Momjong: mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?

No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nanny state? ...


When Dubya was giving a tax credit for people buying SUV's, I don't remember all you Conservatives shiatting your pants.
 
2012-06-25 09:47:12 PM  

mrshowrules: RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?

not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html


Thank you for the citation, but that isn't any clearer than the WHO stats. It doesn't expressly state is excludes R&D, and it expressly excludes is water and sanitation. I've heard your claim a few times over the years, but nobody seems to have a solid source that that is the actual case.
 
2012-06-25 09:50:20 PM  

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?

not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Thank you for the citation, but that isn't any clearer than the WHO stats. It doesn't expressly state is excludes R&D, and it expressly excludes is water and sanitation. I've heard your claim a few times over the years, but nobody seems to have a solid source that that is the actual case.


It lists what it includes because a list of what it didn't include would be nearly infinite.
 
2012-06-26 12:17:54 AM  

mrshowrules: It lists what it includes because a list of what it didn't include would be nearly infinite.


Yes, but the cost of medication and services is directly affected by the providing companies costs which include provider salaries and R&D. To exclude the huge amount of R&D you would have to somehow find the root cost of all medication minus the cost to produce it so since they don't appear to have done that the costs are baked into the final tally.

And once you realize that the US consumes 40% of the world health services and products it's easy to see that we aren't suffering for lack of health care services from the government or the private sector. The issue is that the government apparently has enough per capita dollars to be the UK or France or Japan without even touching the private sector but they wade in to the private sector rather than clean up the shiat they already have control over.
 
2012-06-26 05:08:05 AM  
I love everything in a McLaren F1. Every single part of it.

I'm not going to buy one, because to do so would put my children and grandchildren into a hole of debt from which they could never escape.

/ why do you think its okay for your children's children to pay for my health care? If this country had and character, we would admit that it isn't.
 
2012-06-26 07:41:58 AM  

I sound fat: why do you think its okay for your children's children to pay for my health care?


Why do you think they won't be without this bill?
 
2012-06-26 08:01:30 AM  

mrshowrules: Momjong: mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?

No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nan ...


Don't lump all conservatives together and don't think for a second we all agree to half the shiat he did while in office. A SMART Republican picks the gems out of the bullshiat regardless of the POTUS' party affiliation. That being said, I don't like tax credits for bullshiat things like buying green vehicles, etc. A true tax cut is across the board, not a thank you for doing what most people don't.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:46 AM  
I think what we have today is a perfect storm of multiple generations of Americans who all have one thing in common - a huge entitlement mentality - from the boomers to Generation Y.

Everyone wants low taxes, and a lot of government services/mandates. They all like things that benefit themselves, and dislike things that they don't perceive to get any benefit from.

And we are getting the government we want. For all the talk about "personal responsibility" nowadays, how about having "personal responsibility" towards the good of society?

Hell, when we go to war we can't have a draft, because it would cause public opinion to come out massively against the war. You can't give the people what they want and then ask them to sacrifice for it. People want their wars like they want their medicare and tax cuts -- without making any sacrifices. Hell, the American people insisted on keeping tax cuts in place while the country fought two extremely expensive wars -- one of which was started for no good reason.

So I think the thing that defines the current generation of Americans - from young folks through the boomers -- the most is this sense of wanting it all without having any regard for the responsibilities and sacrifices that go along with it.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report