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.

(The Atlantic)   Pre-existing conditions are hard for the GOP. They're the center of the Venn Diagram of "People Ayn Rand Said To Ignore" and "People Jesus Said To Help"   ( theatlantic.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, venn diagrams, GOP, pre-existing condition, Yuval Levin  
•       •       •

16334 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 12:17 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



636 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-10 11:34:54 AM  
Oh please, subby. Your fake Jesus may have taken care of the sick and the downtrodden, but Supply-Side Jeezus would look at those assholes and proclaim:

toppun.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 11:43:56 AM  
The GOP follows the teachings of Jesus?
 
2012-09-10 11:45:48 AM  
Like Republicans actually follow the words of Jesus.
 
2012-09-10 12:20:53 PM  
blogmail.com.brView Full Size


/What said Venn diagram might look like.
 
2012-09-10 12:20:58 PM  
Aren't those venn diagrams just overlapping circles really?
 
2012-09-10 12:22:29 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The GOP follows the teachings of Jesus?


No, they just like to say his name a lot.
 
2012-09-10 12:22:40 PM  
Jesus would be too liberal for the GOP
 
2012-09-10 12:22:59 PM  
To be fair Romney doesn't know what to do with preexisting conditions either.
 
2012-09-10 12:23:50 PM  
In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.
 
2012-09-10 12:24:08 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: /What said Venn diagram might look like.


I'm not sure what's funnier... how true that statement is, or the not-so-subtle hinting at the GOP's similarities to WWII-era Japanese fighters.

/career kamikaze!
 
2012-09-10 12:24:16 PM  
If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.
 
2012-09-10 12:25:04 PM  
This thread.

advancedmasturbation.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:25:10 PM  

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


Not going to let facts dictate what you say, eh?
 
2012-09-10 12:25:27 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


I'd be thrilled to have Medicare for All!
 
2012-09-10 12:25:59 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry.


Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people. By definition, the industry is a fraud if it the "insurance" they're selling doesn't cover the sick.
 
2012-09-10 12:26:07 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


A lot of us have been SCREAMING that for years now. But we can't get that done. So, here's this sh*tty compromise. Enjoy it.
 
2012-09-10 12:26:15 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.
 
2012-09-10 12:26:16 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


You have a better solution?
 
2012-09-10 12:26:33 PM  
The GOP needs better healthcare themselves: they've been walking around for 30 years with undiagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:08 PM  

MrEricSir: Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people.


Did you not understand how insurance works, or are you just fooling around?
 
2012-09-10 12:27:21 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Aren't those venn diagrams just overlapping circles really?


I see what you did there.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:22 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


Ok, let's do it.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:26 PM  

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:45 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?
 
2012-09-10 12:27:48 PM  
If you think obvious contradictions are difficult for Republicans to explain then you haven't been paying attention.

It's a well documented fact that most don't think about the contradiction so it isn't a problem for them. And most aren't asked follow-up questions because the media does a terrible job.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:54 PM  
Oh f*ck it. This could have been a decent thread on a decent article. Instead it got trolled to sh*t and back right out of the gate. F*ck this thread. F*ck this place. F*ck all you. F*ck yo' couch and f*ck yo mamas.
 
2012-09-10 12:28:10 PM  
-- Romney Shell v99.25.1562.lachawana.351.beta
Select position where votes(position) > votes(opposing_position) - derp(herp);
-- Data Shimmering Detected --
0 Rows Returned
 
2012-09-10 12:28:22 PM  
Jesus said to help the poor to, and we know how well THAT is going, so why should people with pre-existing conditions be different?
 
2012-09-10 12:28:22 PM  
Since money doesn't grow on trees, and insurance companies are in the business of making money, why in fark would they want to take on known expenses.

In the end, I guess the pre-existing conditions argument simply makes the case for single payer.

/ I'm a simpleton
 
2012-09-10 12:28:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.


Subtle.

I pay for the health insurance for 21 families. How many are you covering?
 
2012-09-10 12:28:44 PM  
Pre-existing conditions are a problem because every idea that involves covering them and not providing a public

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


In before some jackass says something useless instead of telling us his version of what Republicans actually believe.

Damn, you're fast.
 
2012-09-10 12:28:45 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


Most liberals (and I'd bet that quite a few centrists too) want a nationalized health care system for basic care. That works for the majority of the developed world and it would lift a huge cost from US based companies.
 
2012-09-10 12:28:50 PM  
Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

kburchard.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:29:11 PM  
Romney's play here was obvious enough: By being a little fuzzy about what, exactly, he was proposing, he could sound like he had a way to protect people with preexisting conditions while still saying he wants to repeal Obamacare. He'd get the best of both worlds. But the problem with trying to strategically confuse people is that you actually confuse them, and that's what happened here. Rather than coming away thinking Romney had a secret plan to protect people with preexisting conditions, they went away thinking Romney had a secret plan to protect Obamacare. Link
 
2012-09-10 12:29:52 PM  

coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?


Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?
 
2012-09-10 12:30:28 PM  
In before people who say:

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


bother to say how those peoples' claims are wrong.
Yay, still early.
 
2012-09-10 12:30:30 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?


Single payer. It still destroys the industry but it would cost us less and be less complicated.
 
2012-09-10 12:30:40 PM  
Conservatism and the 2012 GOP are the antithesis of Christianity.
 
2012-09-10 12:30:50 PM  
Even Obama knows that you can't cover preexisting conditions without a mandate/tax to cover the cost. What is Romeny going to do about that? Try an repeal the mandate?
 
2012-09-10 12:31:03 PM  

The Muthaship: I pay for the health insurance for 21 families. How many are you covering?


How many old people, soldiers, poor people, and sick kids are there?

because I'm paying for all of them with my tax dollars.
 
2012-09-10 12:31:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.


Because prior to the ACA that's exactly what happened.
 
2012-09-10 12:31:28 PM  
This shouldn't be so difficult for the GOP.

"My plan will create two options. One will be a market-based system that gives people the freedom to choose their own private health insurance provider by issuing vouchers and letting consumers decide what plan is the best for their unique circumstances. The other will work a lot like Medicare does today, for people who are familiar with how that works and don't want to change things too much."

Private insurers will then be free to attract relatively healthy persons to hand over their vouchers for free government subsidies, while diverting people with cerebral palsy, Type I diabetes, degenerative neurologic conditions, multiple sclerosis, cancer, chronic renal failure, and other unprofitable diseases and conditions onto the government-run option.

Then the captains of industry can crow about the profits they're making thanks to the magic of the free market, while disparaging the dismal fiscal sinkhole of government-run Medicare.
 
2012-09-10 12:31:33 PM  
Jesus said to help the poor too, and we know how well THAT is going, so why should people with pre-existing conditions be different?

FTFM
 
2012-09-10 12:31:54 PM  

Aarontology: How many old people, soldiers, poor people, and sick kids are there?

because I'm paying for all of them with my tax dollars.


Glad to hear someone on here has a job.
 
2012-09-10 12:32:06 PM  

The Muthaship: Philip Francis Queeg: Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.

Subtle.

I pay for the health insurance for 21 families. How many are you covering?


You pay out of your own pocket, or out of company coffers? There's a world of difference there, you know.
 
2012-09-10 12:32:08 PM  
Covering pre-existing conditions is a horribly irresponsible thing for an insurance company to do, it's intentionally screwing over the healthy people in the pool that are actually using insurance for its intended purpose (it only functions if people pay in when they're healthy, too) and if it's a for-profit company it's also horribly irresponsible to the owners.

Which is, y'know, why a basic level of care should probably be provided from tax money instead. Sure, if you're an adult and need an organ replaced or your kid draws a genetic short straw and gets some weird, arcane chronic illness, that's a solution for insurance. If you break your leg or your kid needs MMR boosters, I think that's a common enough issue with a broad enough social impact that it's legitimate to dump some of the 1/3 or so of my income that's in the various levels of government into it.

//In the case of MMR, you also shouldn't be given a choice. Because of basically the reason an insurance company accepting pre-existing conditions is unfair to the customers, but with the context reversed.
 
2012-09-10 12:32:31 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


Oh, you really want to get into the nuts and bolts for how insurance works? That's going to be a fun conversation for me, and probably a not-so-fun one for you.
 
2012-09-10 12:32:54 PM  

The Muthaship: Philip Francis Queeg: Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.

Subtle.

I pay for the health insurance for 21 families. How many are you covering?


Really? You pay for the health insurance for 21 families out of your own pocket? How very generous. Many companies pay for health insurance for groups of people out of their revenues. I don't know of many people like you who generously pay for the health insurance of strangers out of their own income.

Do you ask them if they have pre-existing conditions before you make these generous donations?

T
 
2012-09-10 12:32:56 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


Does it work even when people are going to the ER and getting thousands of dollars of benefits and those costs are passed on to my premiums? If your argument is financial, than your real quabble is with the Hippocratic Oath, bro.
 
2012-09-10 12:32:56 PM  

ghare: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

Not going to let facts dictate what you say, eh?


The best thing about having your mind made up ahead of the facts is that you have more free time to for important things, like researching birth certificates.
 
2012-09-10 12:33:49 PM  

The Muthaship: MrEricSir: Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people.

Did you not understand how insurance works, or are you just fooling around?


Do you not understand what the word "insurance" means?
 
2012-09-10 12:34:14 PM  
Said a statement subsequently released by his campaign: "In a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features."

Finally, a second clarification put it this way: "Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited."


So in other words, he wants to change nothing, and let the free market decide... just like it always has
 
2012-09-10 12:34:14 PM  

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


As far as I can tell, most Republicans don't know what they actually believe (and to be fair, most Democrats). It's easy to wave slogans around all day about helping others or god helps those who help themselves, but when you get right down to specific hard questions on specific cases, most people are inconsistent and shoot from the hip, giving or rescinding empathy based on how similar the case is to their own situation or someone they know or just how they feel that day... or simply collapsing into a nervous "can't decide" state.

HCR is 1000 pages long specifically to nail down as many of those cases as possible. People just don't really want to know what's in it, because health care is an expensive scary thing that people generally want to put off and ignore and hope it goes away. That's why campaigning on repealing HCR is a lost cause: Not only do people actually like some of it, everyone is sick of hearing about it.
 
2012-09-10 12:34:15 PM  

Serious Black: Oh please, subby. Your fake Jesus may have taken care of the sick and the downtrodden, but Supply-Side Jeezus would look at those assholes and proclaim:

[toppun.com image 403x254]


Why is he holding a caduceus and not a rod of Asclepius?
 
2012-09-10 12:34:40 PM  

Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.


static.ddmcdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:35:13 PM  

Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.


Ironically not intended to be a hypocritical statement.
 
2012-09-10 12:35:35 PM  
Is it constitutional to force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?
Somehow I see this going to the SC where it will rule in favor of the insurance companies.
 
2012-09-10 12:35:43 PM  

qorkfiend: You pay out of your own pocket, or out of company coffers?


Not as much difference as you might think. It's my company. Of course, I didn't build that.

/really, I didn't....

Serious Black: Oh, you really want to get into the nuts and bolts for how insurance works? That's going to be a fun conversation for me, and probably a not-so-fun one for you.


You're never much fun, honestly. But, we're talking basics here anyway. Insurance is able to pay for the care of people who require more money for their care than they pay in because lots of other people are paying in more than their care requires. If people can wait until they are sick to opt in (and then opt back out when they are better) the company is doomed.
 
2012-09-10 12:35:46 PM  
You know what's weird? I knew a guy in HS whose older brother, named Yuval Levin, died at age 18 of a heart defect.

// I assume the guy quoted in the story was not my friend's late brother
 
2012-09-10 12:36:05 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Philip Francis Queeg: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.

Because prior to the ACA that's exactly what happened.


Yes, as a matter of fact it did happen.

Advocacy group: 26,000 die prematurely without health insurance

A national health care consumer advocacy group estimates that three Americans die every hour as a result of not having health insurance.

According to "Dying for Coverage," the latest report by Families USA, 72 Americans die each day, 500 Americans die every week and approximately Americans 2,175 die each month, due to lack of health insurance.
 
2012-09-10 12:36:13 PM  
"People Jesus said to help"

Not Free Market Jesus

bornagainpagan.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:36:20 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Covering pre-existing conditions is a horribly irresponsible thing for an insurance company to do, it's intentionally screwing over the healthy people in the pool that are actually using insurance for its intended purpose (it only functions if people pay in when they're healthy, too) and if it's a for-profit company it's also horribly irresponsible to the owners.

Which is, y'know, why a basic level of care should probably be provided from tax money instead. Sure, if you're an adult and need an organ replaced or your kid draws a genetic short straw and gets some weird, arcane chronic illness, that's a solution for insurance. If you break your leg or your kid needs MMR boosters, I think that's a common enough issue with a broad enough social impact that it's legitimate to dump some of the 1/3 or so of my income that's in the various levels of government into it.

//In the case of MMR, you also shouldn't be given a choice. Because of basically the reason an insurance company accepting pre-existing conditions is unfair to the customers, but with the context reversed.


No that's Socialism if we do that then wait times will automatically increase tenfold because african americans and illegal immigrants will be using up all the services.
 
2012-09-10 12:36:25 PM  
 
2012-09-10 12:36:34 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The GOP follows the teachings of Jesus?


They sure CLAIM to an awful lot. I'll let you know when they actually try it.
 
2012-09-10 12:36:48 PM  

The Muthaship: Aarontology: How many old people, soldiers, poor people, and sick kids are there?

because I'm paying for all of them with my tax dollars.

Glad to hear someone on here has a job.


I'm also paying for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are in my insurance companies plans through my payments. Just as they are paying for me.

Because that's how insurance works. Everyone contributes to the risk pool so that everyone may draw from it when they need it. The only way you are not, at all, paying for someone else's health care (aside from those government plans above) is if you have an HSA or you don't have insurance. If you have a traditional health insurance policy, you are paying for other people, and they are paying for you.

In terms of health insurance, or any insurance, there is no such thing as "every man for himself" The very idea of insurance is based upon collectivism and an avoidance of going it alone and being completely, 100% responsible for your own health care costs.
 
2012-09-10 12:37:01 PM  
Some of you just don't understand the basic tenets of Christianity. If the bible says the earth is 6000 years old, then the earth is 6000 years old (no matter if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary), but there are some portions of the bible that clearly weren't intended to be taken literally - for example:

"Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 19:21
 
2012-09-10 12:37:15 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


I want the government to pay the bill of out health care.

//happy?
 
2012-09-10 12:37:47 PM  

Free Radical: Is it constitutional to force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?
Somehow I see this going to the SC where it will rule in favor of the insurance companies.


It's already been framed as whether or not the mandate is constitutional, and it is according to SCOTUS.
 
2012-09-10 12:38:04 PM  

Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.


What that might look like:

a.abcnews.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:38:08 PM  
Cognitive Dissonance is only a problem if you think about it.
 
2012-09-10 12:39:07 PM  
Most of the pre-existing condition issues would have disappeared if the government hadn't slanted the system towards employer provided coverage.

When you don't have to change carriers almost every time you change jobs, you don't have to deal with a new insurance company worrying about your immediate need to draw from a pool you haven't contributed to.
 
2012-09-10 12:39:32 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: You pay out of your own pocket, or out of company coffers?

Not as much difference as you might think. It's my company. Of course, I didn't build that.


How much in revenue do you think you'd have if someone from those 21 families wasn't working for you?


Serious Black: Oh, you really want to get into the nuts and bolts for how insurance works? That's going to be a fun conversation for me, and probably a not-so-fun one for you.

You're never much fun, honestly. But, we're talking basics here anyway. Insurance is able to pay for the care of people who require more money for their care than they pay in because lots of other people are paying in more than their care requires. If people can wait until they are sick to opt in (and then opt back out when they are better) the company is doomed.


So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?
 
2012-09-10 12:39:33 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: You pay out of your own pocket, or out of company coffers?

Not as much difference as you might think. It's my company. Of course, I didn't build that.

/really, I didn't....


I bet you are pissed that you have to pay your workers too. They should be paying you for the privilege of laboring for you.
 
2012-09-10 12:40:23 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


In their world, insurance companies should just give all their premiums and capital away. Anything less is unethical.

Charge more for higher risk customers? Earn any profit on capital? Outrage!!!
 
2012-09-10 12:40:28 PM  

The Muthaship: Serious Black: Oh, you really want to get into the nuts and bolts for how insurance works? That's going to be a fun conversation for me, and probably a not-so-fun one for you.

You're never much fun, honestly. But, we're talking basics here anyway. Insurance is able to pay for the care of people who require more money for their care than they pay in because lots of other people are paying in more than their care requires. If people can wait until they are sick to opt in (and then opt back out when they are better) the company is doomed.


And that's exactly the logic behind the shared responsibility payment which SCOTUS has ruled is constitutional. Once you open up the risk pool to everyone, you have to get everyone to jump in so it won't collapse into a death spiral.
 
2012-09-10 12:41:03 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oh f*ck it. This could have been a decent thread on a decent article. Instead it got trolled to sh*t and back right out of the gate. F*ck this thread. F*ck this place. F*ck all you. F*ck yo' couch and f*ck yo mamas.


This is why political submissions should never be main paged.
 
2012-09-10 12:41:04 PM  
LOL this isn't difficult for the GOP because of the Venn Diagram - the answer to that is easy and would have been used 5-10 years ago. "Let the insurance companies off the hook; volunteers and churches will take care of those who can't afford care and are truly deserving." In other words, Invisible Hand, market uber alles, etc etc etc

It's a lot harder to get people to reject concrete help for fantasies about capitalism and how nice the church is when it's a difficult economic time and it's openly acknowledged by the public and the media that the market doesn't have the answers. Because of the financial crisis.
 
2012-09-10 12:41:13 PM  

Free Radical: Is it constitutional to force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?
Somehow I see this going to the SC where it will rule in favor of the insurance companies.


No. There is no way. You could not possibly be here talking about healthcare and be unaware the SCOTUS already ruled on this. I'm not buying it.
 
2012-09-10 12:41:31 PM  

qorkfiend: So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?


Explain how you got that.

Philip Francis Queeg: I bet you are pissed that you have to pay your workers too. They should be paying you for the privilege of laboring for you.


I treat them like family. Of course, my family are all assholes....
 
2012-09-10 12:41:32 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

 

i908.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:41:36 PM  

qorkfiend: So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?


Damn, you beat me there by a minute.
 
2012-09-10 12:41:37 PM  

qorkfiend: So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?


I'm in favor of insurance companies telling people to fark off if they decide to get insurance only after being sick, the exact same way I would if a person crashes their car and then decides to buy full coverage.

Dumb decisions sometimes have negative consequences.
 
2012-09-10 12:42:44 PM  

trippdogg: Some of you just don't understand the basic tenets of Christianity. If the bible says the earth is 6000 years old,


Difficulty: the Bible never says the Earth/universe is 6,000 years old. If you believe that the Genesis story was told in "real" time (a "Biblical creation day" = 24 hours), there are a number of other problems (the least of which being the 7-900 year old people walking around, when we know life expectancy was 30-35).

That absolutist belief is a fig-leaf for rejection of science, specifically evolution, and promotion of religion (and I leave it to the audience to determine which religion is being promoted).
 
2012-09-10 12:43:09 PM  
Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.
 
2012-09-10 12:43:19 PM  
as someone with a physical birth defect, I am getting a kick out of this thread. Especially since the insurance company refused to cover most of the treatment to begin with, and my parents had to seek the help of a charity to cover part of the rest.

/its hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps, especially when you have a 50% chance of being confined to a wheelchair for your entire life.
 
2012-09-10 12:43:22 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Philip Francis Queeg: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.

Because prior to the ACA that's exactly what happened.


Are . . . are you actually going to challenge that statement?

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:43:27 PM  
In other news, Republicans are not entirely libertarians, nor are they socialists
img1.fark.netView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:44:01 PM  
The human condition is a juxtaposition of insanity and ignorance.
 
2012-09-10 12:44:04 PM  

pedrop357: qorkfiend: So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?

I'm in favor of insurance companies telling people to fark off if they decide to get insurance only after being sick, the exact same way I would if a person crashes their car and then decides to buy full coverage.


What if you're born sick?
 
2012-09-10 12:44:14 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Covering pre-existing conditions is a horribly irresponsible thing for an insurance company to do,


Which is, y'know, why a basic level of care should probably be provided from tax money instead. Sure, if you're an adult and need an organ replaced or your kid draws a genetic short straw and gets some weird, arcane chronic illness, that's a solution for insurance.


You realize that both of those are considered "pre-existing" conditions if your insurance lapses right? I had to pay $1,700 for 1 month of coverage under COBRA when I switched jobs because the contract I was supposed to work on got pushed back after I had left my previous company. Without that, just 29 days of lapse, I wouldn't have been able to get insurance because I have an "arcane genetic illness" which causes me to have to go to the doctor.....1 time a year.

Free Market FTW!
 
2012-09-10 12:44:19 PM  
I don't see the problem. Romney has shaken the etch a sketch and taken four contradictory positions on prexisting conditions in the last 24 hours.

Voters are pretty smart, and understand that whichever position they like the most is Romney's real ppsition and will be the one he fights for once he's elected.

It's almost exactly like abortion, where Romney gave us two different positions in four hours, and then had a surrogates take two more positions in the same week.

Voters love choice!
 
2012-09-10 12:44:27 PM  

imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.


I don't recall hearing the part of Jesus fairy tale where he advocated that people be forced to help others under penalty of law.
 
2012-09-10 12:44:51 PM  

JRaynor: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

I want the government to pay the bill of out health care.

//happy?


The government paying for all health care is greatly superior to ACA. But the dems couldn't get that, so they decided to take a dump on society with with this half ass ACA.

We could debate how the government should raise revenues for single payer healthcare, buy you are right, IMO, that we should have it.
 
2012-09-10 12:45:15 PM  

Mr. Right: That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.


Liberals may do it in their minds, but conservatives do it on national television.

static01.mediaite.comView Full Size


hurriyetdailynews.comView Full Size


#stillwinning
 
2012-09-10 12:45:15 PM  
It's almost as if trying to treat something like a commodity when it does not behave like one in the marketplace (i.e health care) can present problems.
 
2012-09-10 12:45:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?

In their world, insurance companies should just give all their premiums and capital away. Anything less is unethical.

Charge more for higher risk customers? Earn any profit on capital? Outrage!!!


Once again you prove that Profit is the only value you hold dear. You'd happily watch a relative go untreated rather than see insurance company shareholders receive a diminished rate of return on their investment.
 
2012-09-10 12:46:02 PM  

imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.


There's also actual proof that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, existed. And do you know what he said about taking care of other people?

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."

That's the very first farking sentence to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
 
2012-09-10 12:46:20 PM  

pedrop357: I'm in favor of insurance companies telling people to fark off if they decide to get insurance only after being sick, the exact same way I would if a person crashes their car and then decides to buy full coverage.

Dumb decisions sometimes have negative consequences.


dumbobruni: as someone with a physical birth defect, I am getting a kick out of this thread.


Way to be have a birth defect, stupid. That dumb decision means the insurance company should be able to tell you to fark off.
 
2012-09-10 12:46:49 PM  

wedun: No that's Socialism if we do that then wait times will automatically increase tenfold because african americans and illegal immigrants will be using up all the services.


You're joking, but yes, actually what I'm outlining as the route of basic goddamned common sense for this application is in fact literally socialism (it's nationalization of a large portion of an industry). And it does result in some increase in usage of medical services, if the examples of Canadian and UK implementation show anything. Which we know because other people did it first, and we can thus account for.

None of which changes the fact that it's the obvious, sensible way to do things. I mean, I understand that the middle-men don't like to be cut out of things, but come on, having private entities do a sort of back-end tax and try to make medical decisions with bureaucrats while skimming off the top for investors is like trying to take a one-horse buggy onto a six-lane modern highway. Sure, it kinda eventually gets you to the right place, but it's slow, awkward, arrives late, and mostly just produces horseshiat.
 
2012-09-10 12:47:02 PM  
Retarded Jesus often confused for Supply Side Jesus. GOP Multiple Personaity Disorder suffering same fate.

cf.sketchfu.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:47:24 PM  
The entire healthcare industry should be run by the government, basically. The federal government should pay for health care, they should institute price-controls, they should pay to train physicians, and they should fund all research.

It's the only way it can work. Keeping people healthy should not be left to the whims of the marketplace. It's too important and fundamental.

Socialism is the BEST solution to some problems. Healthcare is one of those problems.
 
2012-09-10 12:47:54 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Jesus would be too liberal for the GOP

16 And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt. 19:16-24).


Make no mistake about it, Jesus would be deemed a *communist* if any of his followers would open up the damned book they profess to live their life by.
 
2012-09-10 12:48:02 PM  
Mitt should have ditched the teabaggers as soon as he vanquished the other clown show members.


I mean, when you have to say moronic, easily disprovable shiat like: "Said a statement subsequently released by his campaign: "In a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features." ...just to placate them, they're doing nothing but hurting you.
 
2012-09-10 12:49:07 PM  

Karac: In before people who say:
Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

bother to say how those peoples' claims are wrong.
Yay, still early.


Since this is on the internet, everyone here has the ability to find out the truth. That they ha ent is more a testament to self-reinforced ignorance.

But I'll play along as if you haven't been told this before. Insurance by definition fan not cover a pre-existing condition. You can't insure against something that has already happened happening. The issue is really one of care... To which the liberal position seems to rely on society covering it.. As if communal morality trumps private morality.

Tell that to Jesus when he asks what you did to help the least among us.

"Well I belonged to a group that advocated something be done. So were cool, right bro?"
 
2012-09-10 12:49:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Once again you prove that Profit is the only value you hold dear. You'd happily watch a relative go untreated rather than see insurance company shareholders receive a diminished rate of return on their investment.


Insurance is a low profit margin business to begin with. They have an obligation to protect the risk pool and their shareholders. They have natural and regulatory limits on the premiums they can charge, thus they must have some limits on how they pay-they achieve this by trying to limit payouts.

Don't like it? Find another way to fund your medical care, OR try to fix the system so that insurance isn't needed for nearly everything.
 
2012-09-10 12:49:55 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Way to be have a birth defect, stupid. That dumb decision means the insurance company should be able to tell you to fark off.


I mentioned people who choose not to have coverage until they get sick, NOT people who are born that way.
 
2012-09-10 12:50:23 PM  

pedrop357: imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.

I don't recall hearing the part of Jesus fairy tale where he advocated that people be forced to help others under penalty of law.


Yeah, we found out that christians aren't charitable enough to provide healthcare on a national level ages ago. That's why we came up with other plans.
 
2012-09-10 12:50:25 PM  

Free Radical: Is it constitutional to force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions?
Somehow I see this going to the SC where it will rule in favor of the insurance companies.


Of course. Think of those unfortunate shareholders who would have to buy a new BMW every six months, instead of every three.
And it will reduce the cash they have to buy politicians, too.
Poor little guys. Have some feelings for the suited ones.  Their lives are **so** hard. Really.
 
2012-09-10 12:51:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?

In their world, insurance companies should just give all their premiums and capital away. Anything less is unethical.

Charge more for higher risk customers? Earn any profit on capital? Outrage!!!

Once again you prove that Profit is the only value you hold dear. You'd happily watch a relative go untreated rather than see insurance company shareholders receive a diminished rate of return on their investment.


Why haven't you, or some liberal millionaire started an insurance company that paid out all claims without question and took on all customers without regard for preexisting conditions?

Warren buffets got a lot of money, has plenty of cash, and is very familiar with insurance. All he'd have to do is provide seed capital for this not for profit insurance company, and the issue of preexisting conditions would be gone forever!

Oh wait they'd go out of business due to adverse selection. Just like any insurer who doesn't price based on risk.
 
2012-09-10 12:51:14 PM  
When most of us think of pre existing condition, we picture someone who has had cancer or some serious illness.
If in the past ten years you went to an emergency room for anything, were prescribed any medication by a doctor, drink more than one glass of wine a week, you have a pre existing condition and will not get health insurance, without group coverage.
So, yeah, it's not those really sick people, it's you as well.
Was denied health insurance due to the fact that last year, I went to an emergency room on a Sunday for pink eye, and was prescribed something to lower my cholesterol (which wasn't that bad) about 5 years ago.
No shiat.
 
2012-09-10 12:51:24 PM  

Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.


What a republican winning a debate with a democrat looks like:
i232.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:51:30 PM  

realmolo: The entire healthcare industry should be run by the government, basically. The federal government should pay for health care, they should institute price-controls, they should pay to train physicians, and they should fund all research.

It's the only way it can work. Keeping people healthy should not be left to the whims of the marketplace. It's too important and fundamental.

Socialism is the BEST solution to some problems. Healthcare is one of those problems.


Exactly what other problems is socialism the best solution to ?
How you propose we pay for such things?
 
KIA
2012-09-10 12:51:50 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


The full sequence is not yet clear. Allow me to be explicit:

1) Feds mandate insurance for all without limitation or cost effectiveness.

2) Insurance companies strive to comply by jacking up rates for paying folks who rapidly look for other options.

3) Finding none, people give up and join the free queue.

4) Insurance companies go broke, cry to the Feds.

5) Feds take over insurers, creating government-run healthcare as planned.
 
2012-09-10 12:52:08 PM  

Aarontology: If you have a traditional health insurance policy, you are paying for other people, and they are paying for you.


I disagree. The insurance is a service from a company. You buy this service and how the company handles the money is not relevant.
 
2012-09-10 12:52:27 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.

What that might look like:

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]


Ah, senility.
 
2012-09-10 12:52:55 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


Of course we know how insurance works.

Step 1: Pay insurance company for health insurance.
Step 2: Ask insurance company to pay for health care.
Step 3: Insurance company says no. PROFIT!
 
2012-09-10 12:53:01 PM  
Well, Ayn Rand did become a "looter" at the end...
 
2012-09-10 12:53:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why haven't you, or some liberal millionaire started an insurance company that paid out all claims without question and took on all customers without regard for preexisting conditions?


Because no one is saying that that's what they want.

Well, that was an easy question. Got any more head scratchers?
 
2012-09-10 12:53:19 PM  

KIA: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

The full sequence is not yet clear. Allow me to be explicit:

1) Feds mandate insurance for all without limitation or cost effectiveness.

2) Insurance companies strive to comply by jacking up rates for paying folks who rapidly look for other options.

3) Finding none, people give up and join the free queue.

4) Insurance companies go broke, cry to the Feds.

5) Feds take over insurers, creating government-run healthcare as planned.


There are a few issues with this one here. I'll give you some time to self-correct.
 
2012-09-10 12:53:19 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: I had to pay $1,700 for 1 month of coverage under COBRA when I switched jobs because the contract I was supposed to work on got pushed back after I had left my previous company.


Maybe relying on employer-provided when you do contract labor is not a good plan? Not that that necessarily changes your central point about insurance adjusters being dicks, but in general that'd be a good thing to look into changing. With any insurance pool the more assurance of continuity you've got the better it'll tend to be from your perspective.
 
2012-09-10 12:53:27 PM  

pedrop357: thurstonxhowell: Way to be have a birth defect, stupid. That dumb decision means the insurance company should be able to tell you to fark off.

I mentioned people who choose not to have coverage until they get sick, NOT people who are born that way.


Yet people who are born sick are often deemed by insurance companies to have a pre-existing condition that they don't have to cover. Here's an example.
 
2012-09-10 12:53:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Oh wait they'd go out of business due to adverse selection. Just like any insurer who doesn't price based on risk.


So you are saying that the free market business model doesn't really work for healthcare. Hmmmm. How interesting.
 
2012-09-10 12:54:22 PM  
I think it is vital this discussion is continued under the assumption that health insurance works the same way - economically, socially, and morally - as car insurance.
 
2012-09-10 12:54:50 PM  

pedrop357: imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.

I don't recall hearing the part of Jesus fairy tale where he advocated that people be forced to help others under penalty of law.


You mean other than the laws he claimed to not be doing away with, like the one that mandates giving to charity, or the ones he actually said, like giving a beggar the shirt off your back (no really, that's where the expression comes from) when he asks for your jacket?

What about the Good Samaritan story, which ends with Jesus commanding the dude to "do likewise" and help people you don't know, or the OT verses it's based on?

In short, I hope you're trolling, because if not, you're terminally dumb.

// also, if nothing Jesus said is supposed to become law, why are abortion, gayness, and separation of church and state "controversial"?
 
2012-09-10 12:54:52 PM  

NeverDrunk23: main paged.


Ah I was wondering who all these fresh new shiatposting faces were, that explains it.
 
2012-09-10 12:54:55 PM  
i560.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:55:11 PM  

Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.


Do you include the GOP's nominee?

What Romney proposes is a bit more complicated. To quote the relevant statements:

The candidate said one goal of his health care plan "is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage."

Said a statement subsequently released by his campaign: "In a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features."

Finally, a second clarification put it this way: "Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited."
 
2012-09-10 12:55:28 PM  

Mrbogey: The issue is really one of care... To which the liberal position seems to rely on society covering it.. As if communal morality trumps private morality.


Those people should either die faster or pray harder.
 
2012-09-10 12:55:35 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


They know what they have been told to believe. That the CEO of health insurance companies are actually harvesting human organs to keep themselves alive long enough that they can take over the planet.
 
2012-09-10 12:55:51 PM  

Jake Havechek: Well, Ayn Rand did become a "looter" at the end...


Collecting social security and Medicare benefits makes on more of a MOOCHER in my mind, but why quibble over details?
 
2012-09-10 12:55:51 PM  

KIA: The full sequence is not yet clear. Allow me to be explicit:

1) Feds mandate insurance for all without limitation or cost effectiveness.

2) Insurance companies strive to comply by jacking up rates for paying folks who rapidly look for other options.

3) Finding none, people give up and join the free queue.

4) Insurance companies go broke, cry to the Feds.

5) Feds take over insurers, creating government-run healthcare as planned.


Pretty much. Obamacare seems to be designed to crash the health insurance industry and leave single payer as the "best" alternative. Instead of fixing the problems of the current system, single payer will only have to fix the problems of the destroyed system in the future.
 
2012-09-10 12:56:00 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Mr. Right: Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

That's how liberals, in their own mind, win the debate. It's hard to lose an argument when you get to write your opponent's lines a well as your own.

What that might look like:

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

 

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 12:56:20 PM  

pedrop357: thurstonxhowell: Way to be have a birth defect, stupid. That dumb decision means the insurance company should be able to tell you to fark off.

I mentioned people who choose not to have coverage until they get sick, NOT people who are born that way.


what about people with birth defects who then lose jobs and their benefits? the birth defect is now a pre-existing condition.

because I have a birth defect, do I need to have the same insurance company for life? given that individual states are individual insurance markets, does that mean I can never move?
 
2012-09-10 12:56:34 PM  

pedrop357: Exactly what other problems is socialism the best solution to ?


Even by most heterodox capitalist theory, capitalist markets do not work for wholly inelastic markets like health care. Of course, I could go deeper in all the ways that capitalism fails on all levels but you wouldn't read it.

How you propose we pay for such things?

For a nationalized health system? Taxes, same as every other developed country, same as how the current national health systems in the US are already funded. And before you start talking stupid crap about the debt, remember, the national debt is a product of military expansion in the 80s. Medicare did not break the bank and a real single-payer or socialized system would be cheaper by any possible metric.
 
2012-09-10 12:56:58 PM  

Serious Black: imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.

There's also actual proof that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, existed. And do you know what he said about taking care of other people?

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."

That's the very first farking sentence to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.


I'm reminded of Dr. Gatling and his gun that would end all wars.

When you start with the assumption that there is some sort of limit to the human capacity for selfishness and cruelty, every idea that comes after is going to have an inherent flaw.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:12 PM  

I alone am best: The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?

They know what they have been told to believe. That the CEO of health insurance companies are actually harvesting human organs to keep themselves alive long enough that they can take over the planet.


Well, that would go with our well-vetted narrative that "You Didn't Built That", you just stole it off of some dead people.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:39 PM  
Is this the thread where psuedo intellectuals make attempts at snarky comments about an author they aren't able to understand?

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the theory of relativity is stupid, too.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: DoBeDoBeDo: I had to pay $1,700 for 1 month of coverage under COBRA when I switched jobs because the contract I was supposed to work on got pushed back after I had left my previous company.

Maybe relying on employer-provided when you do contract labor is not a good plan? Not that that necessarily changes your central point about insurance adjusters being dicks, but in general that'd be a good thing to look into changing. With any insurance pool the more assurance of continuity you've got the better it'll tend to be from your perspective.


I don't work on a contract basis, I'm a full time employee. But since they are GSA schedule I couldn't come on until x days prior to the start up of the contract that they won or some bullshiat. Once this contract is up I'll move on to other things here.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:46 PM  
If you have a pre-existing condition then it isn't insurance, it is cost transfer.

The number one thing that would lower healthcare costs is to change the mandate in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to alleviating pain as opposed to stabilizing the patient. Basically the only obligation the emergency rooms should have to the bums and illegals that come in is to keep them sedated until they die. Yes this would encourage drug seekers to hit up the emergency rooms but the problem would be self correcting since the drug seekers would eventually die of something due to their lifestyle without emergency care.

That is both the most humane and most economical solution.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:56 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: So, you're in favor of the individual mandate?

Explain how you got that.


You didn't know that the entire point of the individual mandate was to prevent precisely the sort of jump-on, jump-off behavior you were describing?
 
2012-09-10 12:57:58 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?


Practically every other 1st world nation have a better solution.
 
2012-09-10 12:58:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Even by the most heterodox capitalist theory


FTFM. And I guess that isn't true, since ignorant "libertarian" nonsense, I suppose, counts as capitalist theory.
 
2012-09-10 12:58:31 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Serious Black: Oh please, subby. Your fake Jesus may have taken care of the sick and the downtrodden, but Supply-Side Jeezus would look at those assholes and proclaim:

[toppun.com image 403x254]

Why is he holding a caduceus and not a rod of Asclepius?


Because a caduceus is a fitting symbol of the for-profit health care insurance industry.

"In Roman iconography it was often depicted being carried in the left hand of Mercury, the messenger of the gods, guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars, and thieves... By extension of its association with Mercury and Hermes, the caduceus is also a recognized symbol of commerce and negotiation."
 
2012-09-10 12:58:33 PM  

MrEricSir: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry.

Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people. By definition, the industry is a fraud if it the "insurance" they're selling doesn't cover the sick.


Your premise is wrong. Insurance companies today will cover the sickest of the sick. The problem is that the premiums would so be exorbitant that it's basically the equivalent of paying out of pocket.

The real issue is how to provide affordable health care to people with pre-existing conditions. The Democrats have put forth that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs. I haven't heard a workable plan from the Republicans.
 
2012-09-10 12:59:06 PM  

doubled99: Is this the thread where psuedo intellectuals make attempts at snarky comments about an author they aren't able to understand?

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the theory of relativity is stupid, too.


Did... Did you just compare Rand and Einstein?
 
2012-09-10 12:59:10 PM  
Possibly one of the best headlines I've seen on here in a while. I actually laughed out loud at this one at work. It's definitely so true.

Insurance is a low profit margin business? Where are you getting your facts from son? Here is Keiser alone, 663 million in profits. Yeah, that sounds totally crappy to me.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/08/05/kaiser-perman e ntes-q2-profits-soar-64.html?page=all

Sutter Health had over 800 million in profits in one quarter alone

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/03/25/sutter-health s -2010-profits-surge-30.html?page=all

Cleveland Clinic, 300 million in net operating income for 2011, http://my.clevelandclinic.org/media_relations/library/2012/2012-03-08- cleveland-clinic-in-strong-financial-health.aspx

Christ, if that's low margin, sign me up to provide health care. I would be willing to bet others are reporting similar outcomes across the country.

Or are you talking about the brokers who "run" the plans and add extra cost for not a lot of extra service? I'll give you that, those companies don't make a lot of profit margin. And they get the added benefit of breaking the bad news to you about the rise of insurance premiums every year.
 
2012-09-10 12:59:11 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The GOP follows the teachings of Jesus?


Bill Maher had a Catholic + Republican on last Friday (Christine O'Donnell). She said Jesus wouldn't be a Republican, but she felt that trickle down economics was more important.

I also wonder if every single Republican is aware why they are repeating "this is a single issue election and that issue is Jobs." The reason if you don't know is when you poll people and independents on who would do better with different social issues, 'Jobs - Economy' is the only area that Romney wins on.

Even I agree that Romney would do better, but that has more to do with Congress (which will hopefully change speakers in 2014). So it would only be a two year advantage, and come at great cost to every other issue.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:13 PM  

fozziewazzi: The real issue is how to provide affordable health care to people with pre-existing conditions. The Democrats have put forth that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs. I haven't heard a workable plan from the Republicans.


Wait, yes we have! It was proposed back in the day by the Heritage Foundation as a response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. I think it involved mandating everyone purchase insurance to socialize the costs.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:14 PM  

Saiga410: Aarontology: If you have a traditional health insurance policy, you are paying for other people, and they are paying for you.

I disagree. The insurance is a service from a company. You buy this service and how the company handles the money is not relevant.


It's entirely relevant, because of how an insurance company handles it's money. The money goes into the risk pool, not individualized accounts based upon each person's payment history. Every time someone with my insurance goes to the doctor, they're using a little bit of my money. And vice versa.

For example, I had about $600 worth of dental work done recently. I have not paid nearly that much into the plan I'm currently on. They drew from the risk pool in order to make those payments to my dentist. However, I've not been to the doctor for anything more serious than a stomach infection. The cost to my insurer was about two months worth of my contributions. One of my co-workers recently had a child, and her costs were far beyond what she had contributed. In that case, she was paying for my dental work, and i was paying for her delivery. Along with everyone else whose payments are put into the risk pool.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:18 PM  

qorkfiend: You didn't know that the entire point of the individual mandate was to prevent precisely the sort of jump-on, jump-off behavior you were describing?


I wasn't in favor of violating the Constitution, and forcing people to act in a way that for many is against their own interests on order to finance this mess. Didn't seem to bother arch "conservative" Roberts though.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:19 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oh f*ck it. This could have been a decent thread on a decent article. Instead it got trolled to sh*t and back right out of the gate. F*ck this thread. F*ck this place. F*ck all you. F*ck yo' couch and f*ck yo mamas.


Otherwise OK?
 
2012-09-10 01:00:21 PM  

pedrop357: KIA: The full sequence is not yet clear. Allow me to be explicit:

1) Feds mandate insurance for all without limitation or cost effectiveness.

2) Insurance companies strive to comply by jacking up rates for paying folks who rapidly look for other options.

3) Finding none, people give up and join the free queue.

4) Insurance companies go broke, cry to the Feds.

5) Feds take over insurers, creating government-run healthcare as planned.

Pretty much. Obamacare seems to be designed to crash the health insurance industry and leave single payer as the "best" alternative. Instead of fixing the problems of the current system, single payer will only have to fix the problems of the destroyed system in the future.


By all means, please make suggestions for how to fix the current health care and insurance systems.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:38 PM  

dumbobruni: because I have a birth defect, do I need to have the same insurance company for life? given that individual states are individual insurance markets, does that mean I can never move?


Maybe you would. I fail to see why a risk pool should be obligated to accept you (or me or anyone else) and the possibility that you will need a payout immediately despite not having contributed to the pool.

As for individual states being separate markets, that's another wonderful federal government mandate.

It might be worth looking at why medical care is so expensive as to virtually require insurance for even routine care.
 
2012-09-10 01:00:50 PM  

Saiga410: Aarontology: If you have a traditional health insurance policy, you are paying for other people, and they are paying for you.

I disagree. The insurance is a service from a company. You buy this service and how the company handles the money is not relevant.


Um, their only "service" is funneling money from one person to another. It's a money pool. There is no actual "service" being provided beyond managing that pool. You aren't *buying* anything. You're hedging on a gamble.

Insurance is a hedge, nothing more. Pay some money into a pool as a way to buy-in so that if you get sick down the road, you can draw more money out of that pool than you would have had otherwise. There is literally nothing else to it.
 
2012-09-10 01:01:05 PM  
Since when is it supposed to be a good thing to have people turning their religious obligations into governmental fiats?

Individuals choosing to take care of the needy and politicians forcing everyone to take care of the needy are two different things.
 
2012-09-10 01:01:16 PM  

Mrbogey: Karac: In before people who say:
Mrbogey: In before people who don't know what Republicans actually believe claim to know what they believe...

Damn too late.

bother to say how those peoples' claims are wrong.
Yay, still early.

Since this is on the internet, everyone here has the ability to find out the truth. That they ha ent is more a testament to self-reinforced ignorance.

But I'll play along as if you haven't been told this before. Insurance by definition fan not cover a pre-existing condition. You can't insure against something that has already happened happening. The issue is really one of care... To which the liberal position seems to rely on society covering it.. As if communal morality trumps private morality.

Tell that to Jesus when he asks what you did to help the least among us.

"Well I belonged to a group that advocated something be done. So were cool, right bro?"


What "private morality" looks like:

blogs.esanjoaquin.comView Full Size


Okay, so Yolanda needs 800k just for the surgery and that doesn't count the medication she'll need to take forever. If each person who attends the benefit splurges on the two-meat combo, her friends will only need to sell 47,059 dinners to cover the cost of the surgery. (Not counting food costs. Here's hoping the venue is free.)

Have no fear, Yolanda. Private morality is totally going to work out for you.
 
2012-09-10 01:01:22 PM  

MrEricSir: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry.

Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people. By definition, the industry is a fraud if it the "insurance" they're selling doesn't cover the sick.


I'd like to see you crash your car until it is totaled, then try to take an insurance policy out on it.
 
2012-09-10 01:01:22 PM  

pedrop357: Don't like it? Find another way to fund your medical care, OR try to fix the system so that insurance isn't needed for nearly everything.


We are. One step at a time.

/UHC
 
2012-09-10 01:01:30 PM  

FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

[kburchard.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]


Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/also time to ditch all your worldly possessions and follow Jesus...assuming you think that's what that passage in the Bible was actually trying say
 
2012-09-10 01:01:33 PM  

Mighty Taternuts: Single payer. It still destroys the industry but it would cost us less and be less complicated.


Good, destroy the industry, health care should not be about obscene profits.
 
2012-09-10 01:01:59 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: You didn't know that the entire point of the individual mandate was to prevent precisely the sort of jump-on, jump-off behavior you were describing?

I wasn't in favor of violating the Constitution, and forcing people to act in a way that for many is against their own interests on order to finance this mess. Didn't seem to bother arch "conservative" Roberts though.


Well then, good news! It doesn't violate the Constitution.

For whom would purchasing insurance be against their financial interests?
 
2012-09-10 01:02:01 PM  

pedrop357: Exactly what other problems is socialism the best solution to ?


Education.
Criminal justice.
Transportation.
Communication.
Power (electricity).
Water.
Military.
Public health in general.
...and more, I'm sure.

Yes, there is room for private actors in all the above.

How you propose we pay for such things?

Taxes. Civilisation isn't free.
 
2012-09-10 01:02:14 PM  
I have a pre-existing condition for which I have been denied individual-plan health care multiple times, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2012-09-10 01:02:20 PM  

doubled99: Is this the thread where psuedo intellectuals make attempts at snarky comments about an author they aren't able to understand?

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the theory of relativity is stupid, too.


I'm sure you're well versed with the works of Bakunin and Marx & Engels as well.
 
2012-09-10 01:02:38 PM  

JesseL: Since when is it supposed to be a good thing to have people turning their religious obligations into governmental fiats?

Individuals choosing to take care of the needy and politicians forcing everyone to take care of the needy are two different things.


Yes, because the latter actually solves the problem in a real and sustainable way.

I am eternally bewildered by this right-wing attitude that real solutions must always take a backseat to letting someone feel good about how rich they are.
 
2012-09-10 01:02:46 PM  

pushpinder: Possibly one of the best headlines I've seen on here in a while. I actually laughed out loud at this one at work. It's definitely so true.

Insurance is a low profit margin business? Where are you getting your facts from son? Here is Keiser alone, 663 million in profits. Yeah, that sounds totally crappy to me.



You tossed out dollar amounts without actually mentioning the margin. If insurance is a one trillion dollar market, then 663 million is a slim margin.
 
2012-09-10 01:02:58 PM  

The Muthaship: Philip Francis Queeg: Just say that you want those who are sick and not wealthy to die painful deaths without treatment so that you can save a few bucks, and be done with it.

Subtle.

I pay for the health insurance for 21 families. How many are you covering?


Of course you are.

Appeal to authority. Ten yard penalty.
 
2012-09-10 01:03:06 PM  
A Dark Evil Omen SmartestFunniest 2012-09-10 12:59:06 PM


doubled99: Is this the thread where psuedo intellectuals make attempts at snarky comments about an author they aren't able to understand?

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the theory of relativity is stupid, too.

Did... Did you just compare Rand and Einstein?


They were married, right?
 
2012-09-10 01:03:08 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


I'm OK with this. Insurance companies operate just like casinos: the house always wins and the suckers almost always lose. That's not a good health care policy.

I don't like the fact that Obamacare leaves private insurers in the driver's seat. They'll find ways to keep health insurance unattainable for many. It's not going to be a more efficient marketplace. It will become more complex, fraught with red tape, and full of gotchas. Not to mention even more expensive. More money will be spent on things other than health care.

Single payer. Tax everyone because we're all in this life together.
 
2012-09-10 01:03:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.


Where in the gospels does Jesus advocate the nationalization of industry or outlawing the ownership of capital goods?
 
2012-09-10 01:03:25 PM  
Christ's commandments regarding social justice were aimed at the individual Christian not the State. Just sayin'...
 
2012-09-10 01:03:40 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: You didn't know that the entire point of the individual mandate was to prevent precisely the sort of jump-on, jump-off behavior you were describing?

I wasn't in favor of violating the Constitution, and forcing people to act in a way that for many is against their own interests on order to finance this mess. Didn't seem to bother arch "conservative" Roberts though.


Why does the shared responsibility payment violate the Constitution?
 
2012-09-10 01:03:49 PM  

hdhale: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

[kburchard.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]

Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/also time to ditch all your worldly possessions and follow Jesus...assuming you think that's what that passage in the Bible was actually trying say


Unlike the right wing, the left wing doesn't loudly proclaim, at every opportunity, that they are pious followers of Jesus and that their philosophies of law and government are based directly on the inerrant word of the Bible.
 
2012-09-10 01:04:16 PM  

Koalacaust: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

Where in the gospels does Jesus advocate the nationalization of industry or outlawing the ownership of capital goods?


Neither of those things are necessary or even common components of socialist theory. Stop reading propaganda.
 
2012-09-10 01:04:30 PM  

Serious Black: The Muthaship: qorkfiend: You didn't know that the entire point of the individual mandate was to prevent precisely the sort of jump-on, jump-off behavior you were describing?

I wasn't in favor of violating the Constitution, and forcing people to act in a way that for many is against their own interests on order to finance this mess. Didn't seem to bother arch "conservative" Roberts though.

Why does the shared responsibility payment violate the Constitution?


Because sohshulizm? Baby Jesus? Aliens?

One of those.
 
2012-09-10 01:04:34 PM  

qorkfiend: For whom would purchasing insurance be against their financial interests?


18-29 year olds whose "tax" will exceed their average cost for medical care if they paid out of pocket.

/and it is unconstitutional
//that was a travesty of ends justify the means thinking
 
2012-09-10 01:04:56 PM  

klawade: Christ's commandments regarding social justice were aimed at the individual Christian not the State. Just sayin'...


Then individual Christians shouldn't have any problems with the State doing some of the things they should be doing.
 
2012-09-10 01:05:01 PM  

klawade: Christ's commandments regarding social justice were aimed at the individual Christian not the State. Just sayin'...


I am eternally bewildered by this right-wing attitude that real solutions must always take a backseat to letting someone feel good about how rich they are.
 
2012-09-10 01:05:36 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: For whom would purchasing insurance be against their financial interests?

18-29 year olds whose "tax" will exceed their average cost for medical care if they paid out of pocket.

/and it is unconstitutional
//that was a travesty of ends justify the means thinking


Do you have any concept of what "insurance" is? Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.
 
2012-09-10 01:05:54 PM  

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: For whom would purchasing insurance be against their financial interests?

18-29 year olds whose "tax" will exceed their average cost for medical care if they paid out of pocket.

/and it is unconstitutional
//that was a travesty of ends justify the means thinking


So go get in a car accident and get your money's worth.
 
2012-09-10 01:06:13 PM  

wmoonfox: Appeal to authority. Ten yard penalty.


Why didn't he get flagged for putting words in my mouth?
 
2012-09-10 01:06:18 PM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: because I have a birth defect, do I need to have the same insurance company for life? given that individual states are individual insurance markets, does that mean I can never move?

Maybe you would. I fail to see why a risk pool should be obligated to accept you (or me or anyone else) and the possibility that you will need a payout immediately despite not having contributed to the pool.

As for individual states being separate markets, that's another wonderful federal government mandate.

It might be worth looking at why medical care is so expensive as to virtually require insurance for even routine care.


In what world is saying "we'll let insurance companies violate anti-trust laws if the states adequately regulate them" a federal mandate to have 50 different health insurance markets?
 
2012-09-10 01:06:24 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: Since when is it supposed to be a good thing to have people turning their religious obligations into governmental fiats?

Individuals choosing to take care of the needy and politicians forcing everyone to take care of the needy are two different things.

Yes, because the latter actually solves the problem in a real and sustainable way.

I am eternally bewildered by this right-wing attitude that real solutions must always take a backseat to letting someone feel good about how rich they are.


Separate issue. I was addressing subby's apparent insinuation that the GOP's failure to implement a theocracy is hypocritical.
 
2012-09-10 01:06:31 PM  

hdhale: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

[kburchard.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]

Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/also time to ditch all your worldly possessions and follow Jesus...assuming you think that's what that passage in the Bible was actually trying say


Dear Mr. Right Winger:

The left can lecture to what Jesus taught and said because it's a matter of record. It's written down in a book called the Bible. You may have heard of it, not sure? The fact that the right invokes Jesus at nearly every turn yet fails to practice the actual teachings of this messiah is just a shinning example of hypocrisy. I know you probably don't like being called out on it and that it probably makes you angry. In short, we on the left, apologize for pointing out your hypocrisy.

Best regards,

A friendly socialist.
 
2012-09-10 01:07:07 PM  
I showed my wife my boner last night and she told me there was nothing she could do about a pre-existing condition.
 
2012-09-10 01:07:09 PM  

gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.


And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.
 
2012-09-10 01:07:32 PM  

pedrop357: Socialism is the BEST solution to some problems. Healthcare is one of those problems.

Exactly what other problems is socialism the best solution to ?
How you propose we pay for such things?


topforeignstocks.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 01:07:36 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Single payer. Tax everyone because we're all in this life together.

 
2012-09-10 01:07:41 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?


Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity. He was kind of against theft, which is what Obamacare is.

The best solution would be to get rid of insurance entirely.
 
2012-09-10 01:07:54 PM  

Bullseyed: MrEricSir: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry.

Um, no. It's not really insurance if it only covers healthy people. By definition, the industry is a fraud if it the "insurance" they're selling doesn't cover the sick.

I'd like to see you crash your car until it is totaled, then try to take an insurance policy out on it.


1) Auto insurance is not analogous to health insurance

2) Cars aren't people.

3) you're kinda a moran for even using this analogy
 
2012-09-10 01:08:17 PM  

hdhale: The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.


I'm not a Democrat and I don't live in the US. If I was, my reply would have been something like this:

Jesus is your master and there's nothing wrong in pointing out that you're not following his commands while simultaneously not wanting him in our playbook.

...But then I'm neither a Democrat nor in the US so I won't say anything at all.
 
2012-09-10 01:08:58 PM  

doubled99: A Dark Evil Omen SmartestFunniest 2012-09-10 12:59:06 PM


doubled99: Is this the thread where psuedo intellectuals make attempts at snarky comments about an author they aren't able to understand?

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the theory of relativity is stupid, too.

Did... Did you just compare Rand and Einstein?

They were married, right?


Nononono.

Einstien was married to that Jewish chick - Helen Keller
 
2012-09-10 01:09:02 PM  

Bullseyed: He was kind of against theft, which is what Obamacare is.


You're serious, aren't you? I bet you think taxes are theft, as well.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:07 PM  

The Muthaship: /and it is unconstitutional


bigbaddie.comView Full Size
 
2012-09-10 01:09:08 PM  

Bullseyed: Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity.


One in five children in the U.S. live in poverty. Private charity ain't cutting it. Never will.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:09 PM  

The Muthaship: gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.

And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.


So what you're saying is that you advocate a policy of "Fark you, I got mine?" Hmmm....I wonder which party is using that as their slogan.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:33 PM  

hdhale: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

[kburchard.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]

Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/also time to ditch all your worldly possessions and follow Jesus...assuming you think that's what that passage in the Bible was actually trying say


Dear Right Wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while allowing charlatans spewing the Prosperity Gospel to prosper (without saying a word against them), it will be time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/Because the bible says, both literally AND figuratively, that it doesn't work that way.
//It also says that capitalism is, to some extent, incompatible with Christianity. "you cannot serve both God and Mammon."
///Mammon being THE GOD OF MONEY.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:51 PM  

dumbobruni: /its hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps, especially when you have a 50% chance of being confined to a wheelchair for your entire life.


At least in a wheelchair you won't wear those bootstraps out quite so fast.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:57 PM  

Koalacaust: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

Where in the gospels does Jesus advocate the nationalization of industry or outlawing the ownership of capital goods?


Nationalization does not equal socialism. Workers controlling the means of production ahhh now that is socialism.

Considering there was no such thing as mass production and essentially there was no capital during the time of Jesus I'd say he was a primitive communist (kind of like the Native Americans).
 
2012-09-10 01:09:58 PM  

pedrop357: Philip Francis Queeg: Once again you prove that Profit is the only value you hold dear. You'd happily watch a relative go untreated rather than see insurance company shareholders receive a diminished rate of return on their investment.

Insurance is a low profit margin business to begin with. They have an obligation to protect the risk pool and their shareholders. They have natural and regulatory limits on the premiums they can charge, thus they must have some limits on how they pay-they achieve this by trying to limit payouts.

Don't like it? Find another way to fund your medical care, OR try to fix the system so that insurance isn't needed for nearly everything.


Corporations exist to serve people, not the other way around.
 
2012-09-10 01:10:12 PM  

pushpinder: Possibly one of the best headlines I've seen on here in a while. I actually laughed out loud at this one at work. It's definitely so true.

Insurance is a low profit margin business? Where are you getting your facts from son? Here is Keiser alone, 663 million in profits. Yeah, that sounds totally crappy to me.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/08/05/kaiser-perman e ntes-q2-profits-soar-64.html?page=all

Sutter Health had over 800 million in profits in one quarter alone

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/03/25/sutter-health s -2010-profits-surge-30.html?page=all

Cleveland Clinic, 300 million in net operating income for 2011, http://my.clevelandclinic.org/media_relations/library/2012/2012-03-08- cleveland-clinic-in-strong-financial-health.aspx

Christ, if that's low margin, sign me up to provide health care. I would be willing to bet others are reporting similar outcomes across the country.

Or are you talking about the brokers who "run" the plans and add extra cost for not a lot of extra service? I'll give you that, those companies don't make a lot of profit margin. And they get the added benefit of breaking the bad news to you about the rise of insurance premiums every year.


the figures you are citing are overall profits, not profit margins. a 5% profit margin (Kaiser and Cleveland Clinic) isn't great. health insurance and hospital industries average just under 5% overall, near the bottom of the barrel in US industries.
 
2012-09-10 01:10:22 PM  

blahpers: BarkingUnicorn: Single payer. Tax everyone because we're all in this life together.


Did... did you have a comment on this or were you just quoting it because you agreed with it.

/I am quoting it because I agree with it.
 
2012-09-10 01:10:29 PM  

FarkedOver: Dear Mr. Right Winger:

The left can lecture to what Jesus taught and said because it's a matter of record. It's written down in a book called the Bible. You may have heard of it, not sure? The fact that the right invokes Jesus at nearly every turn yet fails to practice the actual teachings of this messiah is just a shinning example of hypocrisy. I know you probably don't like being called out on it and that it probably makes you angry. In short, we on the left, apologize for pointing out your hypocrisy.

Best regards,

A friendly socialist.


Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.
 
2012-09-10 01:10:42 PM  

The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.


Oh my god! Spread the risk evenly throughout society and use economies of scale to encheapen care for everyone?!?! Next they will want the government to do everything for us, like build, or clean water!

/where's my gun(s)?
 
2012-09-10 01:10:44 PM  

Bullseyed: Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?

Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity. He was kind of against theft, which is what Obamacare is.

The best solution would be to get rid of insurance entirely.


Yes, that'll go over like gangbusters. I mean, I know millions of people that could just, at the drop of a hat, spend over $100,000 on their chemotherapy or $200,000 on their physical therapy.
 
2012-09-10 01:10:54 PM  

The Muthaship: wmoonfox: Appeal to authority. Ten yard penalty.

Why didn't he get flagged for putting words in my mouth?


Because you're the only one playing games.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:03 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oh f*ck it. This could have been a decent thread on a decent article. Instead it got trolled to sh*t and back right out of the gate. F*ck this thread. F*ck this place. F*ck all you. F*ck yo' couch and f*ck yo mamas.


Look. F*ck you. F*ck the plane you flew in on. F*ck them shoes. F*ck those socks with the belt on it. F*ck your gay a** fairy f*ggot accent. F*ck them cheap a** cigars. F*ck your yuckmouth teeth. F*ck your hairpiece. F*ck your chocolate. F*ck Guy Ritchie. F*ck Prince William. F*ck the Queen. This is America. My president is black and my Lambo is blue, n*gga. Now get the f*ck out my hotel room, and if I see you on the street, I'm slapping the sh*t out of you.

\ Sorry, I just couldn't help myself
\\ Please, resume your discussion.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:07 PM  

The Muthaship: gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.

And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.


Unless they get seriously injured or ill while not covered. Then they're farked for life.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:20 PM  

hdhale: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

[kburchard.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]

Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

/also time to ditch all your worldly possessions and follow Jesus...assuming you think that's what that passage in the Bible was actually trying say


Are you for real? The point is that the republicans are forever going on about how this is a Christian nation, yet when it come to implementing Christ-like ideals it seems that the demonrats are more in line with Jesus's teaching.

Tell us what your Jesus is saying? How does his philosophy apply to healthcare? Where would Jesus come down in the healthcare debate?
 
2012-09-10 01:11:22 PM  

Serious Black: By all means, please make suggestions for how to fix the current health care and insurance systems.


-Eliminate the employer tax deduction OR extend it to individuals
-Allow insurance companies to offer high deductible, catastrophe only plans
-Allow insurance companies to charge different rates based on risk the same way they do with automobile insurance. (that would mean that companies could charge women, old people, etc. more the same car insurance companies charge men and young people more)
-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines
-Eliminate laws that require insurance companies need to show need before offering insurance in a certain market

-Despite the fact that it will be difficult, painful, inconvenient, and imperfectt - engage in serious reforms in the entire medical industry to address the numerous inputs that make medical care costly-everything from device certification, malpractice tort reform, pharmaceutical certification, doctor qualification, etc.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:24 PM  
Amusing that liberals work so hard to stop evolution.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:28 PM  

TheGogmagog: Even I agree that Romney would do better, but that has more to do with Congress (which will hopefully change speakers in 2014). So it would only be a two year advantage, and come at great cost to every other issue.


Romney would slash taxes for the rich and deregulate everything, including undoing what little regulation is on Wall Street. Knowing that they have a muppet in the White House would remove "uncertainty" that is keeping some companies from investing the trillions in capital are currently collecting dust. We would see a temporary bounce, with most of the jobs likely going overseas.

The problem is that we've already tried deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. We know exactly where that road ends. Wall Street would double down on the same short-sighted garbage they pulled while Bush was in office. They'll make a mountain of cash, and we'll have another catastrophic crash in short order, only this time, we will have already exhausted the usual means to jumpstart the economy.

A slow, anemic recovery is better than a quick, reckless recovery that results in another '08-style crash.
 
2012-09-10 01:11:39 PM  

Serious Black: Bullseyed: Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?

Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity. He was kind of against theft, which is what Obamacare is.

The best solution would be to get rid of insurance entirely.

Yes, that'll go over like gangbusters. I mean, I know millions of people that could just, at the drop of a hat, spend over $100,000 on their chemotherapy or $200,000 on their physical therapy.


Duh. That's why you have a chicken dinner benefit or a pancake breakfast benefit.

Try to keep up.
 
2012-09-10 01:12:09 PM  
That's "build roads." Dang.
 
2012-09-10 01:12:14 PM  

gimmegimme: So what you're saying is that you advocate a policy of "Fark you, I got mine?"


How do you get that? I'm just saying that young healthy people are often better off without insurance. And they should have the right not to be forced to buy it until they feel the benefits of having it are greater than the cost.
 
2012-09-10 01:12:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: In their world, insurance companies should just give all their premiums and capital away. Anything less is unethical.
Charge more for higher risk customers? Earn any profit on capital? Outrage!!!


It offers an extremely strong perverse incentive to deny care. (Or was I supposed to ask whether your arm was tired from beating that dead strawman?)

Debeo Summa Credo: The government paying for all health care is greatly superior to ACA. But the dems couldn't get that, so they decided to take a dump on society with with this half ass ACA.

passed the Republican plan. FTFY
We could debate how the government should raise revenues for single payer healthcare, buy you are right, IMO, that we should have it.

No debate needed: By raising taxes. Removing the caps on FICA and Medicare contributions would be a nice start.

/Who are you, and how did you manage to take out DSC / slip DSC the proper medications?
 
2012-09-10 01:12:33 PM  

andrewagill: blahpers: BarkingUnicorn: Single payer. Tax everyone because we're all in this life together.

Did... did you have a comment on this or were you just quoting it because you agreed with it.

/I am quoting it because I agree with it.


I was invoking the "implicit 'This!" meme. I agree wholeheartedly.
 
2012-09-10 01:12:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 1) Auto insurance is not analogous to health insurance


Tell that to all the people who justified the mandate by saying that people were require to buy car insurance.
 
2012-09-10 01:12:47 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Koalacaust: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

Where in the gospels does Jesus advocate the nationalization of industry or outlawing the ownership of capital goods?

Neither of those things are necessary or even common components of socialist theory. Stop reading propaganda.


Please enlighten me, what are the necessary and common components of socialist theory?
 
2012-09-10 01:13:15 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Maybe relying on employer-provided when you do contract labor is not a good plan?


Yeah. Get more expensive insurance to avoid expensive insurance.

Duh!
 
2012-09-10 01:13:30 PM  

JesseL: Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.


Again just pointing out hypocrisy. Not advocating implementation of religious doctrine. Merely suggesting that people remove their patriotic blinders and maybe take a long hard look at how their religious views may line up better with different economic models (i.e. socialism)
 
2012-09-10 01:13:35 PM  
When the GOP comes up with an idea that isn't just "if you were ever poor enough to not have health insurance you should just go die in the street", most of humanity will stop calling a spade a spade.

What they fail to realize is that most of America doesn't get free health insurance as a benefit to their job. Most of America gets NO benefits at all. Most of America has never had paid vacation, and very few even an unpaid one. Most of America would be threatened with termination for trying to request the time off. Oh yeah, and most of America loses their job if they are sick or injured bad enough to miss more than a day or two.

That's your GOP Ayn Rand fantasy come to life, most of the populace ground to dust so that shiatt Rmoneys great great great great great great great great grandchildren can live a life of sloth and America destroying, while most people never see a doctor from cradle to grave.

Face it, you people are literally the dictionary definition of evil.
 
2012-09-10 01:13:59 PM  

Bullseyed: Amusing that liberals work so hard to stop evolution.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.


Really? I was told in a thread in the past few days that liberals were in favor of Eugenics because of their "pro-abortion" platform?

Could someone please come and tell the GOP what their talking points are supposed to be?
 
2012-09-10 01:14:07 PM  

Bullseyed: Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity.


Well, sure. If by "better" you mean "worse in every possible way"

We tried that, and it doesn't work.
 
2012-09-10 01:14:17 PM  

Bullseyed: Amusing that liberals work so hard to stop evolution.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.


Is-ought + strawman one-two combo! TAKE THAT LIBS!
 
2012-09-10 01:14:46 PM  

Jekylman: I have a pre-existing condition for which I have been denied individual-plan health care multiple times, so I'm getting a kick...


That "getting a kick" feeling is also a pre-existing condition. Surrender your house and car the next time you want a checkup, hippie.
 
2012-09-10 01:15:33 PM  

JesseL: A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: Since when is it supposed to be a good thing to have people turning their religious obligations into governmental fiats?

Individuals choosing to take care of the needy and politicians forcing everyone to take care of the needy are two different things.

Yes, because the latter actually solves the problem in a real and sustainable way.

I am eternally bewildered by this right-wing attitude that real solutions must always take a backseat to letting someone feel good about how rich they are.

Separate issue. I was addressing subby's apparent insinuation that the GOP's failure to implement a theocracy is hypocritical.


It is hypocrisy. The Bible specifically calls for public supports from pious governments and says that all governments are backed by and put in place by God. This whole "personal morality vs. government fiat" thing is a completely false narrative.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans do turn personal religious beliefs into government fiat, incessantly. They harp on being Christians and how this is a Christian nation and should have a Christian government that Christianizes all over the place with the Christs, and yet somehow this only ever manifests as stripping rights from people and trying to put giant icons in public places. When it comes to actually following the supposed precepts of their religion, however, they're curiously silent.
 
2012-09-10 01:15:35 PM  
Surely you're talking about brown-skinned, middle-eastern, terrorist Jesus stubby! The real, white, gun-toting, objectivist fark-the-lazy-bums Jesus wouldn't have a problem in this context.
 
2012-09-10 01:15:52 PM  

neongoats: When the GOP comes up with an idea that isn't just "if you were ever poor enough to not have health insurance you should just go die in the street", most of humanity will stop calling a spade a spade.


thats_racist_kid.gif
 
2012-09-10 01:16:32 PM  

fozziewazzi: The real issue is how to provide affordable health care to people with pre-existing conditions. The Democrats have put forth that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs. I haven't heard a workable plan from the Republicans.


Sure you have. The Republicans' plan was that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs.
 
2012-09-10 01:16:52 PM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: because I have a birth defect, do I need to have the same insurance company for life? given that individual states are individual insurance markets, does that mean I can never move?

Maybe you would. I fail to see why a risk pool should be obligated to accept you (or me or anyone else) and the possibility that you will need a payout immediately despite not having contributed to the pool.

As for individual states being separate markets, that's another wonderful federal government mandate.

It might be worth looking at why medical care is so expensive as to virtually require insurance for even routine care.


so because insurance companies need to make a profit, no one can ever move or change their employer, nor can employers every change insurance companies.

congratulations, you now have the employment rigidity of Europe (actually worse) without all those evil worker protections, just to please a single industry in the country.

fark you and your belief system.
 
2012-09-10 01:16:57 PM  

Bullseyed: Amusing that liberals work so hard to stop evolution.

Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.


You argue that right up until you discover that I'm a faster draw than you. Then you'll be begging for protection from the state. Hypocrite.
 
2012-09-10 01:17:25 PM  

The Muthaship: gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.

And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.


Ah, yes, the Justice Scalia argument.

Here's a question: how do you know when it makes financial sense to buy health insurance? If you're healthy, odds are you have absolutely no idea just how exorbitant prices are for treating various medical conditions. A health insurance company could say they want to charge you $100 a month for coverage, or $200, or $300, or whatever. If you don't know what it costs to get treated for any number of things, you don't know what your health care expenses will be like for the next year, and you really have no idea if that premium is worth it. OTOH, if you know that you had thyroid cancer and paid your bills, you probably have a pretty good idea of what your expected future costs will be like, so you can look at the premium the insurance company wants to charge you and instinctively know "yes, that's a good deal" or "that's terrible, I'm not buying it." That's exactly why the market for people with pre-existing conditions doesn't exist today: there is absolutely no way to make these plans actuarially sound.
 
2012-09-10 01:17:26 PM  

impaler: fozziewazzi: The real issue is how to provide affordable health care to people with pre-existing conditions. The Democrats have put forth that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs. I haven't heard a workable plan from the Republicans.

Sure you have. The Republicans' plan was that everyone should be mandated to purchase insurance to socialize the costs.


Yeah, but that was like 80 years ago.

(checks history).

Oh, damn. That was like a 15 minutes ago.
 
2012-09-10 01:17:30 PM  

blahpers: neongoats: When the GOP comes up with an idea that isn't just "if you were ever poor enough to not have health insurance you should just go die in the street", most of humanity will stop calling a spade a spade.

thats_racist_kid.gif


Isn't that just shovel/spade, spade/shovel?
 
2012-09-10 01:17:36 PM  
the only "people" who matter in Republicanville are rich people. everyone else is just in the way.
 
2012-09-10 01:17:55 PM  

Parthenogenetic: This shouldn't be so difficult for the GOP.

"My plan will create two options. One will be a market-based system that gives people the freedom to choose their own private health insurance provider by issuing vouchers and letting consumers decide what plan is the best for their unique circumstances. The other will work a lot like Medicare does today, for people who are familiar with how that works and don't want to change things too much."

Private insurers will then be free to attract relatively healthy persons to hand over their vouchers for free government subsidies, while diverting people with cerebral palsy, Type I diabetes, degenerative neurologic conditions, multiple sclerosis, cancer, chronic renal failure, and other unprofitable diseases and conditions onto the government-run option.

Then the captains of industry can crow about the profits they're making thanks to the magic of the free market, while disparaging the dismal fiscal sinkhole of government-run Medicare.


The flaw in Romney's thinking is that no one is in a "unique circumstance" when it comes to health care. We're all going to get sick or injured, and die. There is absolutely no need for multiple health insurance "options." Providing them is like adding more slots and colors to a roulette wheel; it benefits only the house.
 
2012-09-10 01:18:07 PM  

Bullseyed: Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.


OMFG! Tell me you're a creationist in addition to a "taxes are theft" derper Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease
 
2012-09-10 01:19:26 PM  

Linux_Yes: the only "people" who matter in Republicanville are rich people. everyone else is just in the way.


The whole idea of supply side is retarded - if everyone can get any manner of wealth, where would the rich go to have their golden showers?
 
2012-09-10 01:19:28 PM  

FarkedOver: JesseL: Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.

Again just pointing out hypocrisy. Not advocating implementation of religious doctrine. Merely suggesting that people remove their patriotic blinders and maybe take a long hard look at how their religious views may line up better with different economic models (i.e. socialism)



I'd just as soon keep the religious views separate from politics. You can make an argument for socialism, but leave religion out of it.

Religious virtue comes from choices like choosing to make sacrifices and help the needy. Where is the virtue when the choice is coerced by the state?

If you think that kind of coercion is a good idea, that's fine. Using religion as a justification though, that opens some ugly doors.
 
2012-09-10 01:19:30 PM  

pedrop357: Serious Black: By all means, please make suggestions for how to fix the current health care and insurance systems.

-Eliminate the employer tax deduction OR extend it to individuals
-Allow insurance companies to offer high deductible, catastrophe only plans
-Allow insurance companies to charge different rates based on risk the same way they do with automobile insurance. (that would mean that companies could charge women, old people, etc. more the same car insurance companies charge men and young people more)
-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines
-Eliminate laws that require insurance companies need to show need before offering insurance in a certain market

-Despite the fact that it will be difficult, painful, inconvenient, and imperfectt - engage in serious reforms in the entire medical industry to address the numerous inputs that make medical care costly-everything from device certification, malpractice tort reform, pharmaceutical certification, doctor qualification, etc.


Those aren't serious reforms.

People who can't afford insurance now aren't going to be able to pay out-of-pocket with a high-deductible plan.
Insurance companies already charge different rates based on risk; this is why old people, with the global pre-existing condition of old, aren't expected to find affordable insurance in the private market and are instead covered by the public.
Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines is code for removing regulations, as all insurance companies would find the state with the least regulations and set up shop there.

None of these would do anything to fix any of the problems.
 
2012-09-10 01:19:48 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Bullseyed: Do you or do you not believe in evolution?

Then you only want the fit to survive.

OMFG! Tell me you're a creationist in addition to a "taxes are theft" derper Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease


Seriously. This thread hasn't gotten popcorny enough.
 
2012-09-10 01:20:11 PM  

Serious Black: Here's a question: how do you know when it makes financial sense to buy health insurance?


On an individual basis there's no way to know, because we can't see the future. Actuarially, it would be around 30. So, I suppose you feel that's sufficient basis to remove the person's choice in the matter?
 
2012-09-10 01:20:42 PM  
So when did the GOP start caring about what Jesus said?

Of course your average Republican has probably never even heard of Rand, so maybe I'm just taking the headline too literally.
 
2012-09-10 01:20:55 PM  

hdhale: Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.


Dear Republican scum,

Read the Bible sometime.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.
 
2012-09-10 01:21:28 PM  
To the GOP, not being a white straight rich Christian male is a "pre-existing condition", and their recommended treatment is not giving a f*ck about it.
 
2012-09-10 01:21:41 PM  

qorkfiend: Unlike the right wing, the left wing doesn't loudly proclaim, at every opportunity, that they are pious followers of Jesus and that their philosophies of law and government are based directly on the inerrant word of the Bible anything.


FTFY. The Democrats will never do anything full-throated if there's a way to whimper it.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:06 PM  

JesseL: I'd just as soon keep the religious views separate from politics. You can make an argument for socialism, but leave religion out of it.

Religious virtue comes from choices like choosing to make sacrifices and help the needy. Where is the virtue when the choice is coerced by the state?

If you think that kind of coercion is a good idea, that's fine. Using religion as a justification though, that opens some ugly doors.


Socialism is a workers revolution. It is when workers seize control of the means of production, not when the state does.

You know, when workers decide to rise up and actually declare we are more power and valuable than our employers.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:11 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: Since when is it supposed to be a good thing to have people turning their religious obligations into governmental fiats?

Individuals choosing to take care of the needy and politicians forcing everyone to take care of the needy are two different things.

Yes, because the latter actually solves the problem in a real and sustainable way.

I am eternally bewildered by this right-wing attitude that real solutions must always take a backseat to letting someone feel good about how rich they are.

Separate issue. I was addressing subby's apparent insinuation that the GOP's failure to implement a theocracy is hypocritical.

It is hypocrisy. The Bible specifically calls for public supports from pious governments and says that all governments are backed by and put in place by God. This whole "personal morality vs. government fiat" thing is a completely false narrative.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans do turn personal religious beliefs into government fiat, incessantly. They harp on being Christians and how this is a Christian nation and should have a Christian government that Christianizes all over the place with the Christs, and yet somehow this only ever manifests as stripping rights from people and trying to put giant icons in public places. When it comes to actually following the supposed precepts of their religion, however, they're curiously silent.


Well I'll tell you, I'm not Christian and I don't want to be told that I should be forced into socialized medicine because Jesus said_ any more than I want to be told who I can't marry because the Bible says_.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:19 PM  

Koalacaust: A Dark Evil Omen: Koalacaust: FarkedOver: Dear right wing:

Let this sink in.

Where in the gospels does Jesus advocate the nationalization of industry or outlawing the ownership of capital goods?

Neither of those things are necessary or even common components of socialist theory. Stop reading propaganda.

Please enlighten me, what are the necessary and common components of socialist theory?


Well, many socialists are anarchists; they - that is to say, we - are opposed the state entire, which both obviates even the concept of nationalization and eliminates much of the legal basis on which "capital goods" even exist. There are plenty of syndicalists and libertarian collectivists who would see the corporation - a legal fiction manufactured by hundreds of years of law and no sort of "natural" creature, just to gut that particular capitalist lie - put to the sword and replaced with non-governmental collective control, by unions or labor councils, of industrial and commercial capacity. Again, no sort of nationalization.

What you are talking about is one of two things, degenerate state communism (which is really just another form of capitalism with the capitalist class misappropriating radical imagery) as seen in the Soviet Union and China, or social democracy, which is a compromise position allowing capitalism to continue largely unmolested while placing certain components under public control to curb its most destructive excesses.

The nature of socialism is some form of collective ownership rather than the hierarchical ruling class structure of capitalism.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:32 PM  
pedrop357: dumbobruni: because I have a birth defect, do I need to have the same insurance company for life? given that individual states are individual insurance markets, does that mean I can never move?

Maybe you would. I fail to see why a risk pool should be obligated to accept you (or me or anyone else) and the possibility that you will need a payout immediately despite not having contributed to the pool.

As for individual states being separate markets, that's another wonderful federal government mandate.

It might be worth looking at why medical care is so expensive as to virtually require insurance for even routine care.


Wait, that's a joke right? Because you seem to be on the side of "Fark you sick people, profit über alles" concerning the insurance industry and you're throwing the for profit medical industry under the bus? Wow, pick a side and stop flip flopping.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:43 PM  

dumbobruni: so because insurance companies need to make a profit, no one can ever move or change their employer, nor can employers every change insurance companies.

congratulations, you now have the employment rigidity of Europe (actually worse) without all those evil worker protections, just to please a single industry in the country.

fark you and your belief system.


Then don't use insurance companies.

Insurance companies won't operate if they can't make a profit. The only reason that it's difficult to change insurance companies is that the government has heavily slanted the market towards the current system of employer provided health care.

Get rid of the perks for companies that offer health insurance OR extend those perks to individuals, and the resulting competition will take care of many of the current problems.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:57 PM  

Kuroshin: Cognitive Dissonance is only a problem if you think about it.


That's like saying that mental illness is all in your head.
 
2012-09-10 01:23:00 PM  

JesseL: FarkedOver: Dear Mr. Right Winger:

The left can lecture to what Jesus taught and said because it's a matter of record. It's written down in a book called the Bible. You may have heard of it, not sure? The fact that the right invokes Jesus at nearly every turn yet fails to practice the actual teachings of this messiah is just a shinning example of hypocrisy. I know you probably don't like being called out on it and that it probably makes you angry. In short, we on the left, apologize for pointing out your hypocrisy.

Best regards,

A friendly socialist.

Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.


Why not? It's called "framing the debate". The right wing argues that things should be done based on particular religions teachings all the farking time.
 
2012-09-10 01:23:44 PM  

impaler: hdhale: Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

Dear Republican scum,

Read the Bible sometime.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.


Alternatively, the one about having a beam in their eye.

/If you tell them there are left-wing churches, like the UCC, their heads will probably explode.
 
2012-09-10 01:24:05 PM  

The Muthaship: gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.

And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.


This always boils down to the same question.

If someone decided not to buy insurance because it didn't make "financial sense" to him at the time, but then develops a debilitating, potentially fatal and expensive-to-treat medical condition, what then? Because I only see two options :

1) Treat them off the taxpayers dime
2) Insist they suffer and die in silence and out of sight

Which one are you proposing?
 
2012-09-10 01:24:22 PM  

FarkedOver: JesseL: I'd just as soon keep the religious views separate from politics. You can make an argument for socialism, but leave religion out of it.

Religious virtue comes from choices like choosing to make sacrifices and help the needy. Where is the virtue when the choice is coerced by the state?

If you think that kind of coercion is a good idea, that's fine. Using religion as a justification though, that opens some ugly doors.

Socialism is a workers revolution. It is when workers seize control of the means of production, not when the state does.

You know, when workers decide to rise up and actually declare we are more power and valuable than our employers.


And if I'm self employed will you just leave me the fark alone?
 
2012-09-10 01:24:28 PM  

The Muthaship: Serious Black: Here's a question: how do you know when it makes financial sense to buy health insurance?

On an individual basis there's no way to know, because we can't see the future. Actuarially, it would be around 30. So, I suppose you feel that's sufficient basis to remove the person's choice in the matter?


They have plenty of choices. For one, they can face a fine. Which is the government's way of saying "F*ck you, you're the selfish asshole who raises everyone's premiums by going to the ER without insurances."

Personal choice is great until it f*cks everyone else, which it OFTEN does. Aren't you guys the party of responsibility? I think that's why this was the GOP's idea in the first place.

WHAR 1996 Healthcare Debate Outrage from the Right When it Was Their Idea WHAR?
 
2012-09-10 01:24:28 PM  

The Muthaship: coeyagi: Definition? What definition? Is this definition found in The Bible or other GOP publications? WHAR definition WHAR?

Do you guys really not know how insurance works? Is that even possible?


Yes, we do, and that's why we don't like it.

For many Americans, it works like this: Your small business employer gives you OK, maybe even great insurance as part of your compensation package. You get sick in April, really sick, as in cancer. It's treatable, maybe even curable. The catch is that it will cost well north of $100,000 in treatment, maybe even close to $1M. So the insurance company slow rolls you while they negotiate the 2013 rates with your employer. Guess what? They are going to raise the company's premiums by $1M, unless they find a pretext to fire you. If they don't, then it will bankrupt the company, and all the employees will lose benefits, including you. If they fire you, you will lose benefits. So by January, you're both without a job and without insurance. You won't be able to find a job, and even if you do, you'll have a "pre-existing condition", even if you're insured by the same damned insurance company. At best you'll go bankrupt, your kids will lose their college fund. At worst, you'll die a year or ten or 20 early. The best thing you can do for your spouse at this point is to divorce her, so that the debt you're about to incur doesn't crush her. Even though you played by the rules, your life is ruined, and your family's lives are at best made tragically more difficult.

Or maybe you work for a large firm, a really big firm, where you won't get fired. Good for you. You can never leave that job, because the next job won't cover your pre-existing condition. You can't start your own firm, because you won't be covered at all. You're stuck forever.

That's how insurance works in America, or at least before Obamacare. There is no market in reliable, life-long insurance. I defy you to find a single policy that any middle class family could afford that will protect them even if they get really sick. There just isn't.

And for this crappy, sorta-insurance-but-not-really, we Americans manage to spend twice what other industrialized countries pay, with much poorer outcomes.

I understand that we can't have a system where individuals choose when to enter the system, AND insurance companies have to take all comers. But it's stupid to have a system where the insurers get to throw people out who have been in the system their entire adult lives. That's an insurance company enrichment system, not a health care system.
 
2012-09-10 01:24:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, many socialists are anarchists; they - that is to say, we - are opposed the state entire, which both obviates even the concept of nationalization and eliminates much of the legal basis on which "capital goods" even exist. There are plenty of syndicalists and libertarian collectivists who would see the corporation - a legal fiction manufactured by hundreds of years of law and no sort of "natural" creature, just to gut that particular capitalist lie - put to the sword and replaced with non-governmental collective control, by unions or labor councils, of industrial and commercial capacity. Again, no sort of nationalization.

What you are talking about is one of two things, degenerate state communism (which is really just another form of capitalism with the capitalist class misappropriating radical imagery) as seen in the Soviet Union and China, or social democracy, which is a compromise position allowing capitalism to continue largely unmolested while placing certain components under public control to curb its most destructive excesses.

The nature of socialism is some form of collective ownership rather than the hierarchical ruling class structure of capitalism.


This is why you are green. I would change you to red, but you seem like more of a red/black kind of fella than simply red individual
 
2012-09-10 01:25:27 PM  

qorkfiend: JesseL: FarkedOver: Dear Mr. Right Winger:

The left can lecture to what Jesus taught and said because it's a matter of record. It's written down in a book called the Bible. You may have heard of it, not sure? The fact that the right invokes Jesus at nearly every turn yet fails to practice the actual teachings of this messiah is just a shinning example of hypocrisy. I know you probably don't like being called out on it and that it probably makes you angry. In short, we on the left, apologize for pointing out your hypocrisy.

Best regards,

A friendly socialist.

Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.

Why not? It's called "framing the debate". The right wing argues that things should be done based on particular religions teachings all the farking time.


And do you normally argue against it, except in this particular case? If so, you are just as much a hypocrite.
 
2012-09-10 01:25:36 PM  

JesseL: FarkedOver: JesseL: I'd just as soon keep the religious views separate from politics. You can make an argument for socialism, but leave religion out of it.

Religious virtue comes from choices like choosing to make sacrifices and help the needy. Where is the virtue when the choice is coerced by the state?

If you think that kind of coercion is a good idea, that's fine. Using religion as a justification though, that opens some ugly doors.

Socialism is a workers revolution. It is when workers seize control of the means of production, not when the state does.

You know, when workers decide to rise up and actually declare we are more power and valuable than our employers.

And if I'm self employed will you just leave me the fark alone?


I don't think socialists are gunning for the mom and pop businesses. They aren't exactly the root of all evil.
 
2012-09-10 01:25:54 PM  

pedrop357: Serious Black: By all means, please make suggestions for how to fix the current health care and insurance systems.

-Eliminate the employer tax deduction OR extend it to individuals


This is something that I've argued for many times, but I'd like to point out that ObamaCares does much of this by capping the employer tax exclusion and offering tax credits to individuals purchasing on the exchanges.

-Allow insurance companies to offer high deductible, catastrophe only plans

They're already allowed to do that. As an example, there are insurance companies in Maine that provide policies with a $30,000 deductible currently. Those will certainly go away when the exchanges boot up, but companies will still be allowed to sell policies with a $6,000 deductible. If you think insurance with a $6,000 deductible isn't catastrophic, you're more entitled than people who collect food stamps and Medicaid.

-Allow insurance companies to charge different rates based on risk the same way they do with automobile insurance. (that would mean that companies could charge women, old people, etc. more the same car insurance companies charge men and young people more)

Individual insurance companies were already allowed to do this in the past, and most people hated this because the people that have the highest medical costs could never afford insurance in the first place.

-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines

ObamaCares does this. Check out Sections 1331 and 1332 of HR 3590. Or were you talking about making the health insurance market like the credit card market and allowing companies to coalesce in states that are willing to eliminate all of their consumer protections?

-Eliminate laws that require insurance companies need to show need before offering insurance in a certain market

Not sure what you mean by this to be honest.

-Despite the fact that it will be difficult, painful, inconvenient, and imperfectt - engage in serious reforms in the entire medical industry to address the numerous inputs that make medical care costly-everything from device certification, malpractice tort reform, pharmaceutical certification, doctor qualification, etc.

Let's make the health care world like The Jungle in other words. And ObamaCares contains almost every cost containment proposal that health policy wonks have developed in the past. Some of them will work. Some of them probably won't.
 
2012-09-10 01:26:19 PM  

impaler: hdhale: Dear Left wing:

The day you can lecture about what Jesus said while booing the inclusion of God in the Democratic Party platform, it will time to be quiet and think about where you went wrong in life.

Dear Republican scum,

Read the Bible sometime.

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.


They don't read the red text parts. They only read the Pauline, politically added by emperor Constantine, gay hating, schizophrenic Paul parts. It's pretty sad when most atheists understand the core message of Christianity better than 99.99999% of the actual followers.
 
2012-09-10 01:26:44 PM  

Serious Black: Bullseyed: Lost Thought 00: The Muthaship: If you require private insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their health at the time of enrollment, you have by definition destroyed the industry. Just say you want the government (by which you mean tax payers) to pay the bill for your health care, and be done with it.

You have a better solution?

Well, one better solution would be the teachings of Jesus: private charity. He was kind of against theft, which is what Obamacare is.

The best solution would be to get rid of insurance entirely.

Yes, that'll go over like gangbusters. I mean, I know millions of people that could just, at the drop of a hat, spend over $100,000 on their chemotherapy or $200,000 on their physical therapy.


I remember the days when one didn't buy "health insurance." One bought hospitalization insurance and/or catastrophic care insurance. We paid for a doctor's visit out-of-pocket. Until that time, the inflation rate in health care had remained stable for decades. Doctors were very conservative and hospitals were, by and large, not-for-profit entities. People negotiated what they would pay a heath care provider and a doctor who charged too much didn't last very long. Enter health insurance, wherein a third party pays the health care provider and the health care inflation rate began to climb steadily. Insurance is inflationary, plain and simple. We can see this right now with the growing popularity of vision insurance. Five years ago, I could get an eye exam for $60 and buy a pair of glasses for around $200. Today, that exam runs $300 and the glasses nearly $600.
 
2012-09-10 01:27:24 PM  

JesseL: Well I'll tell you, I'm not Christian and I don't want to be told that I should be forced into socialized medicine because Jesus said_ any more than I want to be told who I can't marry because the Bible says_.


You do realize that the very concept of insurance is socialism don't you? A group of people pooling their money together to cover each other in case of a health crisis? It might look like capitalism, with the board of directors & profiteering, but in it's heart and bones it's socialism.
 
2012-09-10 01:27:25 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The flaw in Romney's thinking is that no one is in a "unique circumstance" when it comes to health care. We're all going to get sick or injured, and die. There is absolutely no need for multiple health insurance "options." Providing them is like adding more slots and colors to a roulette wheel; it benefits only the house.


I wasn't directly quoting Romney. I was portraying how one would try to justify a for-profit voucherized system to feed gubmint money to private entities, while retaining a government-funded system to serve as a relief valve for the unprofitable cases.

But the empty-chair hypothetical retort to your point would be, "Why should a healthy young man be forced by government regulations to buy insurance that covers Pap smears, mammograms, birth control pills, and abortions? He should be free to choose a plan that covers his own, individual, freedom-loving circumstances, not what some Washington bureaucrat says he needs!"
 
2012-09-10 01:27:54 PM  

fozziewazzi: The Muthaship: gimmegimme: Those young people are going to use health care at some point in their lives.

And they would should be within their rights, and pragmatically wise to wait until it makes financial sense for them.

This always boils down to the same question.

If someone decided not to buy insurance because it didn't make "financial sense" to him at the time, but then develops a debilitating, potentially fatal and expensive-to-treat medical condition, what then? Because I only see two options :

1) Treat them off the taxpayers dime
2) Insist they suffer and die in silence and out of sight

Which one are you proposing?


Neither. In that case, they could walk into a hospital and receive treatment. It may cause them great financial hardship, but they won't be denied treatment. ER's nationwide are filled with people with no insurance there about their runny nose.

The slight risk of personal financial hardship for a few isn't enough to remove freedom from the many.
 
2012-09-10 01:28:40 PM  

qorkfiend: Insurance companies already charge different rates based on risk; this is why old people, with the global pre-existing condition of old, aren't expected to find affordable insurance in the private market and are instead covered by the public.


Not really. There are limits on how much more older people can be charged relative to younger people, as well as rules forbidding charging more by gender.

People who can't afford insurance now aren't going to be able to pay out-of-pocket with a high-deductible plan.

This is a goal post move.

First we hear that people will die in the streets because of expensive illness and the inability to afford coverage and a lack of insurance. When the concept of high deductible, catastrophe insurance is proposed, then the "problem" becomes an inability to pay out-of-pocket. I'm assuming you're talking about more affording more routine care. If that's the case, then the goal has moved from inability to afford coverage serious illness to inability to afford routine care.

The fact that insurance has to cover the most routine coverage to the most severe illness with a mild to moderate deductible is why insurance is so expensive. It's the car equivalent of requiring insurance companies to provide only full coverage and 500CSL liability limits. This would make it expensive for everyone and some would choose to forgo insurance altogether.
 
2012-09-10 01:28:47 PM  

Serious Black: imontheinternet: Jesus said to help everybody and not worry about yourself, while Ayn Rand said get yours and screw everybody else. They're diametrically opposed to each other. She's like Jesus's evil twin. Of course, there's actual proof that Ayn Rand existed, so she's got that going for her.

There's also actual proof that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, existed. And do you know what he said about taking care of other people?

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."

That's the very first farking sentence to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.


Smith told Hume that one must read Theory before Wealth but, as we know, he just meant the title.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:15 PM  

FarkedOver: JesseL: FarkedOver: JesseL: I'd just as soon keep the religious views separate from politics. You can make an argument for socialism, but leave religion out of it.

Religious virtue comes from choices like choosing to make sacrifices and help the needy. Where is the virtue when the choice is coerced by the state?

If you think that kind of coercion is a good idea, that's fine. Using religion as a justification though, that opens some ugly doors.

Socialism is a workers revolution. It is when workers seize control of the means of production, not when the state does.

You know, when workers decide to rise up and actually declare we are more power and valuable than our employers.

And if I'm self employed will you just leave me the fark alone?

I don't think socialists are gunning for the mom and pop businesses. They aren't exactly the root of all evil.


Sorry, when people start getting excited about "seizing the means of production" I get a bit uneasy about how far I can trust their discretion in what they try to seize.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Just like any insurer who doesn't price based on risk


If they actually priced based on risk for individual health coverage, they wouldn't all flat-out refuse to even give me a quote for my wife. ADD and an episode of major depression 15 years ago after being assaulted? No individual coverage for you.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:34 PM  

The Muthaship: Serious Black: Here's a question: how do you know when it makes financial sense to buy health insurance?

On an individual basis there's no way to know, because we can't see the future. Actuarially, it would be around 30. So, I suppose you feel that's sufficient basis to remove the person's choice in the matter?


But if we do what you've previously suggested in this thread and let health insurance companies use experience rating to underwrite their policies, the cost of insurance when you reach 30 is going to go up by a decent amount. That means that you still have to balance the premium of health insurance against your expected health care costs. At each new age bracket, it'll go up.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:47 PM  

Daemonik: JesseL: Well I'll tell you, I'm not Christian and I don't want to be told that I should be forced into socialized medicine because Jesus said_ any more than I want to be told who I can't marry because the Bible says_.

You do realize that the very concept of insurance is socialism don't you? A group of people pooling their money together to cover each other in case of a health crisis? It might look like capitalism, with the board of directors & profiteering, but in it's heart and bones it's socialism.


I disagree. It's pure capitalism, the idea being that you're buying a discounted product which is discounted by virtue of the number of consumers. Insurance is the original Groupon.

And now, the number of consumers will explode and the insurance companies will f*ck around with premiums. January 1, 2014: Buy stock in Aetna.
 
2012-09-10 01:31:13 PM  

pedrop357:

Then don't use insurance companies.

Insurance companies won't operate if they can't make a profit. The only reason that it's difficult to change insurance companies is that the government has heavily slanted the market towards the current system of employer provided health care.

Get rid of the perks for companies that offer health insurance OR extend those perks to individuals, and the resulting competition will take care of many of the current problems.


Do you think the "government" is this big magic box that policies and laws come out of nowhere from and into our lives? Those laws slanting for the insurance industry were bought and paid for by the insurance industry to ensure their profits, that you are so eager to protect.
 
2012-09-10 01:31:34 PM  

JesseL: qorkfiend: JesseL: FarkedOver: Dear Mr. Right Winger:

The left can lecture to what Jesus taught and said because it's a matter of record. It's written down in a book called the Bible. You may have heard of it, not sure? The fact that the right invokes Jesus at nearly every turn yet fails to practice the actual teachings of this messiah is just a shinning example of hypocrisy. I know you probably don't like being called out on it and that it probably makes you angry. In short, we on the left, apologize for pointing out your hypocrisy.

Best regards,

A friendly socialist.

Dear Mr. Left Winger,

Are you seriously trying to call out the Right Wingers for failing to implement a theocratic doctrine, when in this particular instance it would align with your own ideals?

Argue for socialized medicine all you want, but please don't try to argue it should be done based on particular religious teachings simply because it's convenient.

Why not? It's called "framing the debate". The right wing argues that things should be done based on particular religions teachings all the farking time.

And do you normally argue against it, except in this particular case? If so, you are just as much a hypocrite.


I argue against religious beliefs being the sole justification for policy proposals. That's not the ca