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 (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-25 12:08:37 AM  
Do you like icecream?

Sure it is awesome!

Do you support Obama's icecream is good opinion?

OMG why is Obama trying to take us to UN death camps with his communist fascist icecream?!?!?!?!?!
 
2012-06-25 12:09:50 AM  

abb3w: truthseeker2083: Obama needs to come out and say this country should be a xian theocracy with a gun in every hand. The right wing would explode in rage over it...

Probably because of the implication that it isn't already one.


Eh, whatever the cause, it'd be hilarious. Every time the republicans have exploded in rage recently, it reminds me of the nature documentaries where the animals are always loudest right before they have their throat ripped out. The right wing noise machine is screeching it's loudest now, and it's a pleasing sound.
 
2012-06-25 12:11:04 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: It's pathetic but I've seen you post before so it's not unexpected.


Ah, troll. Just as I suspected.

Botkin of the Yard: It shouldn't be either, because it's an incredibly stupid and damaging way to go at the problem of health insurance.


Why?

Botkin of the Yard: The law will not make health care more affordable in the long run


[citation needed]

Botkin of the Yard: you support insurance companies over people. Good job.


Incorrect. Rather, I'm trying to puzzle out why you're basically arguing that the healthcare refore act is a bad thing when you seem so poorly informed about it. It's almost like you're trying to lay the groundwork for the next set of GOP talking points, whatever they may be; I'm too tired to work it out tonight, but if it comes to me in the morning, I'll let you know.

/I'm a single-payer man myself
//I'd have been happy with a public/private system like Japan or Germany
///But what we're getting is better than what we currently have, which means a lot to me, as I haven't been able to afford insurance since 2008.
 
2012-06-25 12:12:41 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-25 12:38:46 AM  

GAT_00: Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"

You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.


They never proposed anything, Romney was never Governor of anywhere, and socialism.
 
2012-06-25 12:47:50 AM  
Dwight_Yeast

Much better. You almost sounded like an adult this time. I knew you could do it.

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases. I suppose that's why Obama opposed the mandate when he was running for office. I'm sure you thought he was an idiot then. After all, that's how you view those with whom you disagree.

I agree that single payer is the way to go but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem. By supporting this law, you approve of keeping us tied to the employer paid model. That alone tells me you are incredibly uninformed.
 
2012-06-25 12:49:52 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: Dwight_Yeast

Much better. You almost sounded like an adult this time. I knew you could do it.

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases. I suppose that's why Obama opposed the mandate when he was running for office. I'm sure you thought he was an idiot then. After all, that's how you view those with whom you disagree.

I agree that single payer is the way to go but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem. By supporting this law, you approve of keeping us tied to the employer paid model. That alone tells me you are incredibly uninformed.


Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.
 
2012-06-25 01:00:37 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: Dwight_Yeast

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases.


If only I could seperate that last post to only this, you'd be voted funny. Please elaborate and try not to be condescending about it.
 
2012-06-25 01:01:54 AM  

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.


And what if you somehow end up at the hospital (which is for all intents and purposes obligated to save your farking life) without choosing to go there?

/ 250+ posts in and people are still offering up this argument?
// not to mention all the preceding threads on this topic
 
2012-06-25 01:04:44 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem.


See, by not backing up anything you're saying, you're still sounding like a troll. Specifically, a concern troll.
 
2012-06-25 01:06:45 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional,


You're not really good at this whole arguing a point thing.
 
2012-06-25 01:11:23 AM  
The lack of universal coverage is one of the primary reasons healthcare is so expensive. No primary/preventative care causes people to delay treatment, thereby resulting in costly emergency visits. There's a reason the rest of the civilized world has 2/3 of their doctor's in primary care, while the U.S. has 2/3 in specialty/surgery.

Prevention is always cheaper than emergency maintenance. This is a law of systems, from healthcare to software engineering to societal crime.

The U.S. is on its way to spending 20% of its GDP on healthcare, a sum that far outstrips any other nation in the world, while providing worse services and not covering all of its citizens. That's 20 cents out of every dollar, money that could go to schools, to roads, to infrastructure projects, to research and development, or even the military. When you're talking about trillions of dollars, that's staggering. Germany, a country where 100% of citizens are covered for any service, including massages and dance classes, spends under 15% of its GDP on healthcare. Japan, a country whose citizens live longer, healthier lives, has lower infant mortality, and lower mental illness prevalence, spends less than 10%.

The U.S. must have universal coverage, if not with "Obamacare", then with something, and soon, because 20% of the GDP is not a max. We can go beyond that, and that's a terrifying thought. This issue will haunt our society until it is addressed. It will not go away. We must pass laws to fix it.
 
2012-06-25 01:12:07 AM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


derp
 
2012-06-25 01:12:19 AM  

firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.



wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?
 
2012-06-25 01:16:18 AM  
Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?
 
2012-06-25 01:16:56 AM  

natmar_76: The lack of universal coverage...



As they say, THIS (allofit).
 
2012-06-25 01:30:09 AM  

Truncks1: OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.

derp


Why on earth would you call that 'derp'?

If it's unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional , end of story. Just because you want something badly doesn't override it.

You can change the constitution , it's designed for that. Go start the process.
 
2012-06-25 01:30:37 AM  

relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?


So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.
 
2012-06-25 01:32:33 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Truncks1: OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.

derp

Why on earth would you call that 'derp'?

If it's unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional , end of story. Just because you want something badly doesn't override it.

You can change the constitution , it's designed for that. Go start the process.


The constitution already has a commerce clause... if your argument is that regulating a market that 95% of Americans participate in over any 5 year period and 98% of Americans participate in over the course of their lifetime doesn't fall within the scope of regulating interstate commerce, then by all means, make that case.
 
2012-06-25 01:36:58 AM  

Tor_Eckman: Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.

Good lord, do you not understand wtf this is about? When people like you get a disease or gets injured or sick and have to go to the hospital and then can't pay, guess what happens? Yep, the hospital that has to eat your bill ups the price of aspirin and band-aids and everything else another percent to make up for it.

But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?


pretty much that...
 
2012-06-25 01:37:44 AM  
Dwight_Yeast: See, by not backing up anything you're saying, you're still sounding like a troll. Specifically, a concern troll.

Everything I've said is common knowledge at this point. Nothing I've said was incorrect. Do you need a citation to be sure the mandate is unpopular? Really?

You support the law and you can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. So you label them trolls. It doesn't work.
 
2012-06-25 01:49:49 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: You support the law and you can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. So you label them trolls. It doesn't work.


Incorrect, I see no reason to attack the law, as -and I've said this before above- it's better than what we have now, which is NOTHING.

Botkin of the Yard: Do you need a citation to be sure the mandate is unpopular? Really?


No, that's the point of TFA. What I need is a citation for this nonsense, posted by YOU:

Botkin of the Yard: the ACA is not a real improvement


Botkin of the Yard: It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come


Botkin of the Yard: as even democrats now concede


Botkin of the Yard: the law does not control costs,


Go ahead and back all that up. I won't be holding my breath, as I know concern trolling when I see it.

So I'm glad we've (indirectly) answered my original question.
 
2012-06-25 01:59:31 AM  

Talondel: NEWSFLASH: People like the parts where they get things for free from the insurance companies (guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on parents insurance).


Those things are not free. You still have to pay your premiums in order to get them.
 
2012-06-25 02:01:41 AM  
firefly212: The constitution already has a commerce clause... if your argument is that regulating a market that 95% of Americans participate in over any 5 year period and 98% of Americans participate in over the course of their lifetime doesn't fall within the scope of regulating interstate commerce, then by all means, make that case.

Nobody is arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate commerce. People are arguing that the Commerce clause does not give the government the power to write a law that says "You must buy [Lobbyist-sponsored Product X] by [Date] or it is a legal offense." It's kind of amazing how many people want this to be the case.

Throwing out everything and installing a single-payer healthcare system is more constitutional than the mandate.
 
2012-06-25 02:03:27 AM  

Somacandra: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x323]

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.


Here's the problem with that thinking for those of us who have actually been through the system as it is: It's all a lie.

You get 'good' coverage, pay for it happily for years without even needing it. All of a sudden something serious happens. You're laid up and in the hospital for a month or six. You finally get to go home and heal and then the bills come. Suddenly your coverage is no longer there. Bullshiat letters from lawyers start arriving disputing every charge. Unpaid bills arrive. Your coverage gets cancelled. You have to declare bankruptcy and lose your house...

The people who don't buy coverage are at least smart enough to sidestep all this. I wish I had that foresight before they screwed me. All insurance does is take your money these days, they don't take care of people or uphold their obligations and because they've bought government, you are powerless to do anything about it.
 
2012-06-25 02:03:38 AM  
Dwight_Yeast

This is ridiculous. At this point, if I said Tom Seaver was a great pitcher, you'd ask for a citation.

Once again, everything I've said is common knowledge at this point. A citation is not required when I point out that a number of items in the law took effect immediately or almost immediately, and that those items poll well. Everyone who has followed the story knows this. There has also been extensive coverage of the cost issue. Much of it discusses the very real limitations the federal government will have in trying to hold down rate increases. I'm not your errand boy. Go use the google.

I might as well ask you to provide some evidence that this will control costs. I doubt you can find anything. This is not entirely your fault of course. Much of the funding relies on tax increases and cuts that are yet to be made. If you are among the few who actually believes any of those things will happen, good luck. But again, rates have continued to increase and there is no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

You never addressed my main complaint about the ACA. It is not an improvement over the current system because keeps us tied to the employer paid model. That is an incredibly stupid idea. You are, of course, free to disagree with this. You'd be wrong, but feel free to think the employer paid model (which you support) is just dandy.
 
2012-06-25 02:06:25 AM  
Oh and Obamacare won't change anything at all about how things I mention happen, other than you are now going to be mandatorily screwed rather than have the option of not buying worthless 'insurance.' Heh.
 
2012-06-25 02:12:26 AM  

firefly212: relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?

So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.


my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small company that does contract analysis and commercial contracting for big hospital conglomerates. we, providers, drive costs. I personally help to drive cost increases. 3 weekends ago I worked on an acquisition deal for a couple of hospitals in the northeast. the conglomerate wanted independent analysis about whether they could squeeze an extra 15 million extra out of the commercial side of business in the first year after a takeover a certain regional hospital with a billion in revenue and 160 million in revenue on commercial side from 5 big insurers. they essentially wanted to know if it was reasonable to expect to be able to jack the rates on the big revenue insurers by about 10% in the first year. I got a pretty nice bonus for going over the 8 main commercial contracts that hospital had over the weekend.

I'm just telling you this so you understand I know a little bit about what I talk about here and in fact my interests as they pertain to job security are directly opposed to what I argue and have always argued. the providers are the cost drivers in this industry. if you don't link commercial costs to medicare or some other way limit what providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc) can charge insurers you will never slow costs. that's why the hospital lobby made the deal to kill the public option with obama; because the public option was going to use rates linked to medicare. trust me when I say that even if ACA is fully implemented as written and even if the regulators are as diligent as possible nothing I have seen in it will slightly dent healthcare cost increases. and healthcare cost increase is what is killing us.

when I speak about this stuff I am pretty much begging the american people to dig deep and pull out enough brains and courage to make the politicians put myself and people like me out of a decent paying job forever for good of the country. I don't do it because it is a nice way to bad mouth democrats. it is absolutely against my personal interests to argue what I argue. I do it because we have a disaster on our hands right now and we haven't even driven off the cliff we are headed straight for yet.
 
2012-06-25 02:21:59 AM  

relcec: firefly212: relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?

So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.

my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...


I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.
 
2012-06-25 02:44:56 AM  

firefly212: my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...

I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.


what is kind of ridiculous about the whole thing is from what I understand ACA with a public option wasn't foing to limit what providers could get out of the exisiting commercial side in any way. it was just going to limit what they could get out of the newly insured. it wasn't a threat. but that wasn't enough. they wanted and got the new customers that they could charge their best commercial rates (ignoring the medicaid expansion for a moment). why does every thing the governemnt does have to provide a sweet profit for everybody? efficient operations can actually make 2-3% off medicare rates, and they are much higher rates than the rest of the world gets to charge. wtf?
 
2012-06-25 03:22:39 AM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


I can give names of people who have done exactly that. Not just for HC, but to take advantage of any number of programs. Its messed up, and I freely admit that it sucks that the 'safety net' is set up like this. However, there is a uniform pattern of repeated shiatty choices in every case ive seen. I've got a co-worker right now who is pulling this shiat. Will not work more than 30 hours a week, wife doesnt work, has 4 kids. Works under the table to support his weed and booze habits, and has every subsidy he can possibly get. HC for the kids, food stamps, subsidized mortgage. State also paid for his wifes lap-band surgery, and helps cover the power bill. However, he cant stop spending money. fast food everyday for lunch and breakfast, a smart phone he cant use and a huge TV.
 
2012-06-25 04:10:24 AM  

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


Which means 61% oppose the massive premium hike that would be necessary to cover those that decline insurance until they need it.

Wait, everyone will decline health insurance until they need it because it will be free with no downside.

Somehow this isn't fixable and that 61% will grow to the 99%ers that actually have health insurance today.,
 
2012-06-25 04:18:03 AM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Have you ever been presented with the choice between "you can work, but your 1k a month disqualifies you from getting help with buying your meds, which cost 3k a month" or "you can quit, be disabled, and you'll get the drugs you need to stay alive?" Let me assure you, regardless of your belief structure, it's a very counterintuitive thing to say "I want to work, even knowing that means I'm gambling on whether or not I'm picking the right 1 or 2 of the 4 drugs I've been prescribed." Ya, there are people (I know a few) who have drug costs that would exceed what they would make were they working 3 or 4 part time jobs... the choice for them is whether or not they want to live... I don't at all think they're bad people regardless of which side they land on.

As for the frauds and fakes... the system sucks... my grandmom had a double-hip, double-knee replacement and was denied disability on the first pass.... the system works in such an arduous, disjointed, and frustrating way that the only people it filters out are those who are actually disabled to the point they can't make 20 some odd meetings with every doctor the government wants to evaluate them, every paper pusher who wants to "review" documents in meeting form twice a week... basically, the anti-fraud system is so tough that it seems to filter out just about everyone but the frauds. Old ladies who can't stand get denied disability, farked up diaper fetishists who want to play baby all day get it. It's frustrating, from the legitimate side, to see these moochers getting money when so many far more deserving people can't... the worst part is, the more moochers and fraudsters get caught, the more people clamor for the anti-fraud measures that keep even more deserving people out... it's a terrible cycle.
 
2012-06-25 04:20:51 AM  

relcec: firefly212: my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...

I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.

what is kind of ridiculous about the whole thing is from what I understand ACA with a public option wasn't foing to limit what providers could get out of the exisiting commercial side in any way. it was just going to limit what they could get out of the newly insured. it wasn't a threat. but that wasn't enough. they wanted and got the new customers that they could charge their best commercial rates (ignoring the medicaid expansion for a moment). why does every thing the governemnt does have to provide a sweet profit for everybody? efficient operations can actually make 2-3% off medicare rates, and they are much higher rates than the rest of the world gets to charge. wtf?


Max Bauchus (a democrat) made a power play to get the public option taken out... he saw his chance to use the Republican goosestepping for his own political gain so he could be the guy who got rid of (what he thought conservatives would say was) the worst part of the ACA... he thought he could claim a place on the high, center ground... and for that, millions and millions of Americans will suffer.
 
2012-06-25 04:45:56 AM  

Chimperror2: abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

Which means 61% oppose the massive premium hike that would be necessary to cover those that decline insurance until they need it.

Wait, everyone will decline health insurance until they need it because it will be free with no downside.

Somehow this isn't fixable and that 61% will grow to the 99%ers that actually have health insurance today.,



Your logic is sound. You should apply for a job as head of the CBO. They could use your knowledge since they obviously have it all wrong.
 
2012-06-25 05:08:54 AM  

namatad: but but obama is black


...and there is your answer.
 
2012-06-25 06:23:11 AM  

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.

Botkin of the Yard: I might as well ask you to provide some evidence that this will control costs.


No, a rational argument doesn't work that way. You made the statements, so you've got to back them up. You can't wuss out and demand that prove the opposite of your statements; I'm not doing your homework for you.

Botkin of the Yard: You never addressed my main complaint about the ACA. It is not an improvement over the current system because keeps us tied to the employer paid model.


I did. Twice: We have no working system at the moment, so any reform which creates a universal system is a vast improvement.

And though you've made the claim a number of times, it does not 'keep us tied to the employer-paid model', as there is no requirement that employers provide insurance. They can continue to shift the costs of healthcare to their workers as they've been doing, but now there's actually going to be an affordable, workable system of insurance for those who are losing healthcare as a perk or benefit.

Banning employer-paid healthcare as part of the reform bill would have been a good way of forcing people to see their real healthcare costs, but there is no legal way it could have been done.
 
2012-06-25 07:19:45 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: And though you've made the claim a number of times, it does not 'keep us tied to the employer-paid model', as there is no requirement that employers provide insurance.


The lack of a requirement that employers provide insurance doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who have health insurance are provided it as an employment benefit, and that any other source of private health insurance is almost prohibitively expensive.
 
2012-06-25 07:32:11 AM  

GoldSpider: starsrift: Nothing else would help business, small and large alone, than having single payer.

Too bad we don't have a credible force backing single payer here.


We don't? What do you mean by 'credible'. I mean seriously, if a genuine Canadian-style single-payer plan were to cross his desk, do you think that Obama would:

a) hem and haw on it for a while
or
b) sign it immediately, hopefully before fainting from the shock?

Likewise, a classic single-payer bill would get at least 42 if not 45-46 votes in the Senate as it exists right now. There were very close to enough reps in the 2009 House. There are enough corporate rimjobbers in the Democratic party (Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson being the primary Senators in 2009), though, it would take more than a simple majority to get there.

40-45% of the elected body is a minority, sure, but 'credible' as I see the word.
 
2012-06-25 08:08:23 AM  

mrjared: Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?


yeah but a representative democracy is supposed to perform the will of the people.
 
2012-06-25 08:10:13 AM  
So if they uphold the law, are the derpers still going to call it unconsittutional?

Because on one hand, if they uphold it, it means it is constitutional

But on the other hand, the people screaming about how unconstitutional it is are mostly the same people who are staunch defenders of what they imagine the consitution to be
 
2012-06-25 08:12:24 AM  

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?
 
2012-06-25 08:24:30 AM  

rev. dave: Once the law fails, then we can try again for single payer.


This is what I don't get about the "OBAMA SHOULDN'T HAVE BARGAINED AWAY SINGLE PAYER" crowd. You can't bargain away something you never had. The public option had only about 45 votes in the Senate, what makes you think Single Payer was *ever* in the cards?
 
2012-06-25 08:32:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: mrjared: Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?

yeah but a representative democracy is supposed to perform the will of the people.


...which is why we were set up as a democratic republic.

/I'm in the middle of reading Ron Chernow's excellent biography of Alexander Hamilton, and one of the things he points out is that Washington's experience dealing with the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War made him extremely wary of weak central government, as they're easily swayed by the will of the people and would rather not act than act as a means of self-protection.

Which of course is completely counter to what been claimed about the Founding Fathers for the last 30 years.

Washington also understood that a strong republican government was key, as the government frequently has to act against the popular will of the people for the common good.
 
2012-06-25 08:35:16 AM  

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

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.
 
2012-06-25 08:36:54 AM  
Sane Person "What part of Obamacare do you not like?"

Conservative "The OBAMA part".
 
2012-06-25 08:39:51 AM  
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)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

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 )

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 )

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.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

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 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

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

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.

New ways to stop fraud are created.

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

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

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.

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.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

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.


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.
 
2012-06-25 08:49:03 AM  

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?
 
2012-06-25 09:01:18 AM  

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.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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