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 636
    More: Interesting, venn diagrams, GOP, pre-existing condition, Yuval Levin  
•       •       •

16323 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 12:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.com
 
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.br

/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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
2012-09-10 12:43:27 PM
In other news, Republicans are not entirely libertarians, nor are they socialists
img1.fark.net
 
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.com

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

#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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com

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.com
 
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.com
 
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 case with respect to health care.
 
2012-09-10 01:31:42 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.


The difference is whether I have to buy into it. I'm not opposed to small scale socialism (or communism even), as long as it's voluntary.
 
2012-09-10 01:31:51 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: 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.


There'd be no question at all about the early Christian Church under the pre-Paul Apostles. Acts 2:44−45 alone is Marx's own famous summary of Marxism, practically verbatim in the KJV! Add to that Acts 4:31−37 which reinforces this and shows an example of this proto-Marxist socioeconomic system that the very early Church successfully practiced actually working, and then continue across the chapter boundary into 5:1−11 in which God Himself (through Peter) divinely (and fatally!) enforces honesty in one's participation in this proto-Marxist socioeconomic system!

So much for, "Communism / socialism has failed every time it's been tried."
 
2012-09-10 01:32:18 PM

JesseL: 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.


What's really funny is that we're more your friends and allies than the capitalist state.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:27 PM

pedrop357: 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.


a fully private health insurance market? can we please see where the free market has actually worked to solve these things?

the US healthcare system is one of the most free-market oriented systems in the world. And our system is the one with the highest costs relative to anywhere else.

even economies that are more bootstrappy than the US such as Hong Kong and Singapore have public healthcare systems open to everyone.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:45 PM

JackieRabbit: 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.


Yeah, and back in those days, people died of polio. I should know; everyone in my mom's family contracted it as a kid, and at least one of her brothers and sisters died from it.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:52 PM

PiperArrow: That's an insurance company enrichment system, not a health care system.


How might one subscribe to your newsletter, sir?
 
2012-09-10 01:33:10 PM

Citrate1007: Conservatism and the 2012 GOP are the antithesis of Christianity.


Yes, because believing in a personal saviour who shed his blood to absolve you of your sins is the antithesis of Christianity.
 
2012-09-10 01:33:11 PM

JesseL: The difference is whether I have to buy into it. I'm not opposed to small scale socialism (or communism even), as long as it's voluntary.


Define voluntary. Participating in capitalism certainly isn't voluntary.
 
2012-09-10 01:33:16 PM

JackieRabbit: 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.


Did you wear an onion on your belt too?
 
2012-09-10 01:33:52 PM

blahpers: Zeb


M E D I C A I D exists, Government M.I.A. programs exist, but if you want, we can ignore that and run with that 'the uninsured are dying in the street' argument.
 
2012-09-10 01:34:09 PM

CygnusDarius: "Jesus was a long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless, anti-war, anticapitalism, Middle Eastern Jew".


Thanks for that, my first exposure to Fugelsang. I enjoyed it. Can I have another? (now spooling the youtube clips he did)
 
2012-09-10 01:35:05 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: blahpers: Zeb

M E D I C A I D exists, Government M.I.A. programs exist, but if you want, we can ignore that and run with that 'the uninsured are dying in the street' argument.


Otherwise know as "the facts"
 
2012-09-10 01:35:12 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: blahpers: Zeb

M E D I C A I D exists, Government M.I.A. programs exist, but if you want, we can ignore that and run with that 'the uninsured are dying in the street' argument.


What fun is it to admit the problem is so much smaller than it actually is? There's a country that needs ChangedTM here!
 
2012-09-10 01:36:38 PM

qorkfiend: 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 case with respect to health care.


Yeah, also you are completely allowed to adopt your opponents' premise or source material to destroy their own claims - this is part of the process of demonstrating a failure in logic.

Or in this case, hypocrisy
 
2012-09-10 01:37:16 PM
t1.ftcdn.net

"Yes, Hi Geico, I'd like to purchase some car insurance now."


People really don't see the problem with this concept?
 
2012-09-10 01:37:18 PM

pedrop357: 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.


Those two sentences are inextricably intertwined. As you say, "people will die in the streets because of an inability to afford coverage", i.e. an inability to pay. You then go on to say that the "problem becomes an inability to pay." The problem hasn't become anything. The problem is, and always was, an inability to pay. Throwing a huge deductible on to that pile won't help anything, since if anything ever does happen, they still won't be able to pay.
 
2012-09-10 01:37:55 PM

Serious Black: 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.


Medical devices and medications have very high, and very expensive barriers before they can be used. There's a requirement of near perfection before a device can be used or medication marketed. Whether ALL of them are justified or not, this is very expensive and needs to be acknowledged.

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.

Hence our problem. Insurance companies inability to charge based on risk and thus passing the costs to everyone and having significant numbers of people unwilling to shoulder those higher costs.

-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.


Insurance companies have been required in some states to demonstrate a certificate of need before they were allowed to offer insurance. In other words, they needed to prove that there was need for competition before they could compete.
 
2012-09-10 01:38:05 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


I am going to request a citation on this whole all governmenets are backed by and put in place by god. Especially any mention of the roman ocuapational govt in judeah being god placed and backed
 
2012-09-10 01:38:43 PM

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

Damn too late.


[Citation Needed]
 
2012-09-10 01:39:41 PM

Saiga410: A Dark Evil Omen: 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.

I am going to request a citation on this whole all governmenets are backed by and put in place by god. Especially any mention of the roman ocuapational govt in judeah being god placed and backed


1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13:1-7. Learn your own religious text instead of leaving it to atheists and pagans to read it to you.
 
2012-09-10 01:40:16 PM

Serious Black: JackieRabbit: 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.

Yeah, and back in those days, people died of polio. I should know; everyone in my mom's family contracted it as a kid, and at least one of her brothers and sisters died from it.


I'd also like to add that back in the days that you're talking about, health insurance was not experience rated, nor were companies offering policies allowed to be for-profit entities. The expansion of experience rating and insurance companies being allowed to make a profit set in motion a big chunk of health care inflation.
 
2012-09-10 01:40:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: 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.

What's really funny is that we're more your friends and allies than the capitalist state.



As an anarcho-capitalist I can believe that, but I'll point out that the state isn't all that capitalist either ;-)

I'm still uneasy about people who give the appearance of wanting to throw out the notion of private property though.
 
2012-09-10 01:40:48 PM
I like how they want to wiggle out by saying that you need 'continuing coverage'. Short of universal healthcare, there is no way to guarantee that someone will always have insurance coverage, even if they have pre-existing conditions. If I were to insure my family here at work, it would be something like $600/month(Pre-Obama prices, for the record), AND have a $2,500 destructible. If it weren't for my wife's insurance, we couldn't afford to be insured, even with my ongoing back issues and GI issues. So I get a new job that finally has insurance I can afford, but it does me no good because I didn't have 'continuing coverage' on the issues? What a joke. As it stands right now, health care is totally based on luck of the draw, no two companies have the same policy and you're at the mercy of the size of your company, plus the negotiating skills of the HR rep who negotiates the contract itself.

Insurance shouldn't be a crap shoot. They manage to make auto insurance shopable, competitive, and easy to understand, why can't these assholes support doing the same with farking health insurance?
 
2012-09-10 01:41:26 PM

The Muthaship: 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.


Are you stupid? Seriously? Because hospitals don't do this for free. They either charge their costs back to the state government which pays it out of your taxes or they raise everyone else's costs, which raises your insurance premium, which is as much as calling it a tax, with the side benefit that the insurance company will bump it a little higher and skim some profit off it for *administration fees*.
 
2012-09-10 01:42:03 PM

JesseL: A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: 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.

What's really funny is that we're more your friends and allies than the capitalist state.


As an anarcho-capitalist I can believe that, but I'll point out that the state isn't all that capitalist either ;-)

I'm still uneasy about people who give the appearance of wanting to throw out the notion of private property though.


Private property that is used to exploit the working class should be seized. I think that's the premise. I don't think my comrades are going to ship you off to a gulag for you not leaving your house.
 
2012-09-10 01:42:10 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.


My sincere thanks, this was a well written and informative response.
 
2012-09-10 01:42:12 PM

Serious Black: I'd also like to add that back in the days that you're talking about, health insurance was not experience rated, nor were companies offering policies allowed to be for-profit entities. The expansion of experience rating and insurance companies being allowed to make a profit set in motion a big chunk of health care inflation.


Excuse me...Are you saying that people are more important than profit? You would make a terrible Ferengi.
 
2012-09-10 01:42:32 PM

qorkfiend: Those two sentences are inextricably intertwined. As you say, "people will die in the streets because of an inability to afford coverage", i.e. an inability to pay. You then go on to say that the "problem becomes an inability to pay." The problem hasn't become anything. The problem is, and always was, an inability to pay. Throwing a huge deductible on to that pile won't help anything, since if anything ever does happen, they still won't be able to pay.


Usually people fail to buy insurance because of the costs and their perceived need for medical care.

We hear that people need to be covered or there will be people dying in the streets because they can't afford life-or-death care and don't have insurance.

When the idea of high-deductible catastrophe only coverage is proposed, then the problem becomes the inability to afford routine care. This is the goal post move.

A person who can't/doesn't think they can afford the premiums for a comprehensive plan should be able to choose the limited plan. They will be covered and treated, but required to cover a high deductible. This is far better then having zero coverage due to an inability to choose coverage appropriate for them.
 
2012-09-10 01:43:59 PM
I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.
 
2012-09-10 01:44:05 PM

Daemonik: Are you stupid?


Yes.

Daemonik: Seriously?


Quite.

Daemonik: They either charge their costs back to the state government which pays it out of your taxes or they raise everyone else's costs, which raises your insurance premium, which is as much as calling it a tax, with the side benefit that the insurance company will bump it a little higher and skim some profit off it for *administration fees*.


It costs money, I agree. But, the person is not left to die. All medical care costs money. I agree it is too expensive, but I don't think the current efforts to fix it will work. Nor do I think they are Constitutional.
 
2012-09-10 01:44:24 PM

coeyagi: 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.


Wow, capitalism CAN exist with collective bargaining. Glad you agree.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:02 PM
Hmm, number 1, that is not Republicans' position......

Number 2, let's make that for everyone! I am tired of paying man rate for life and car insurance too. Being male should not be a pre-existing condition I have to pay more for, should it?
 
2012-09-10 01:45:12 PM

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


Know what? I get really tired of people bleating that "we don't need Obamacare, we can just fix the current system". You had years to fix the current system if you wanted to. The only change I saw was in premiums that went up 25% - 30% year after year. And now that an alternative is proposed, NOW we need to "just fix the current system".

Screw you.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:28 PM

JesseL: A Dark Evil Omen: JesseL: 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.

What's really funny is that we're more your friends and allies than the capitalist state.


As an anarcho-capitalist I can believe that, but I'll point out that the state isn't all that capitalist either ;-)

I'm still uneasy about people who give the appearance of wanting to throw out the notion of private property though.


"Anarcho-capitalism" is hilariously self-contradictory. How can you claim to be an anarchist and support a hierarchical power system? It's like claiming to anarcho-feudalism. As far as I can tell, "anarcho-capitalism" just means "the word government leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

The state is integral to capitalism; without it, how do you propose to enforce your "property" beyond what is actually yours, that is to say, what you have in possession and have put to productive use?
 
2012-09-10 01:46:41 PM

Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.


Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?
 
2012-09-10 01:46:54 PM
A chick at work got farked by "pre-existing conditions". After 7 months on the plan, she found out she was 3 weeks pregnant. Insurance wouldn't cover it. Citing "pre-existing condition" clause. I say fark the whole industry and everyone who works for them.
 
2012-09-10 01:47:10 PM

fozziewazzi: 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.


I mean, the problem is that the insurance companies only cover you if you're insured before you get sick. Which makes sense if you look at their business model, but makes zero sense if you look at the incentives.

Really the largest problem is the idea that insurance is stapled to one's employer in a time when most people don't stick with their job for very long. Neither party seems to be interested in solving that.
 
2012-09-10 01:47:10 PM

honk: Know what? I get really tired of people bleating that "we don't need Obamacare, we can just fix the current system". You had years to fix the current system if you wanted to. The only change I saw was in premiums that went up 25% - 30% year after year. And now that an alternative is proposed, NOW we need to "just fix the current system".

Screw you.


I didn't have years. Democrats and Republicans had years and they each chose to continue screwing it up rather then reform it in any meaningful way.

Fixing the current system means completely overhauling big sections, something Obamacare doesn't do and something most Democrats and Republicans don't have the courage to do.

fark you too.
 
2012-09-10 01:48:09 PM

Serious Black: 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!


I second that motion.
 
2012-09-10 01:48:13 PM

Serious Black: JackieRabbit: 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.

Yeah, and back in those days, people died of polio. I should know; everyone in my mom's family contracted it as a kid, and at least one of her brothers and sisters died from it.


No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what people didn't do back then? Run to the doctor for every little sniffle and submit to tens-of-thousands of dollars in tests in order to be misdiagnosed.
 
2012-09-10 01:50:23 PM

Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?


That, and most of the developed world doesn't have the military we do. None of the poster child countries have carrier groups in every ocean or military bases in 60+ countries. This goes a long way to explaining how they can afford universal healthcare.

I'm opposed to universal healthcare on other grounds, but think that we have to cut spending in other areas before we can take on another trillion dollar spending program. There isn't enough income or wealth to tax for it and we already borrow too much, so cutting spending is the only real solution.

We may have to do with more consolidated bases on US soil, closing bases overseas, and may have to do with only 4 carrier groups
 
2012-09-10 01:50:47 PM

JackieRabbit: No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what people didn't do back then? Run to the doctor for every little sniffle and submit to tens-of-thousands of dollars in tests in order to be misdiagnosed.


The first employer health insurance in the US predates the Civil War. It became common after WWII. Check your facts.
 
2012-09-10 01:52:19 PM
I'd like to know a good right-wing forum where I can explore how Republicans think. I don't want something too crazy, but something more representative of the conservative mainstream.
 
2012-09-10 01:53:04 PM

bifford: I'd like to know a good right-wing forum where I can explore how Republicans think. I don't want something too crazy, but something more representative of the conservative mainstream.


I wish you good luck in your endeavor.
 
2012-09-10 01:53:58 PM

pedrop357: qorkfiend: Those two sentences are inextricably intertwined. As you say, "people will die in the streets because of an inability to afford coverage", i.e. an inability to pay. You then go on to say that the "problem becomes an inability to pay." The problem hasn't become anything. The problem is, and always was, an inability to pay. Throwing a huge deductible on to that pile won't help anything, since if anything ever does happen, they still won't be able to pay.

Usually people fail to buy insurance because of the costs and their perceived need for medical care.

We hear that people need to be covered or there will be people dying in the streets because they can't afford life-or-death care and don't have insurance.

When the idea of high-deductible catastrophe only coverage is proposed, then the problem becomes the inability to afford routine care. This is the goal post move.

A person who can't/doesn't think they can afford the premiums for a comprehensive plan should be able to choose the limited plan. They will be covered and treated, but required to cover a high deductible. This is far better then having zero coverage due to an inability to choose coverage appropriate for them.


ObamaCares isn't preventing people from getting health insurance that has a high deductible. Bronze coverage, which satisfies the condition to opt out of the shared responsibility payment, will inevitably have a deductible of almost $6,000 (if not there outright).
 
2012-09-10 01:54:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The first employer health insurance in the US predates the Civil War. It became common after WWII. Check your facts.


The key phrase is "health insurance, as we know it today". Health insurance in 2012 is very, very different then anything offered in 1942, much less 1862.

It did become common after WW2, mainly in the form of employer provided benefits as a way to skirt federal laws restricting wages. (Another unintended consequence of bad government policy). So, insurance as we know it has been around about 65 years, not necessarily 40.
 
2012-09-10 01:54:49 PM

bifford: I'd like to know a good right-wing forum where I can explore how Republicans think. I don't want something too crazy, but something more representative of the conservative mainstream.


You get to pick one or the other.
 
2012-09-10 01:55:26 PM

The Muthaship: 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.


The few you speak of number in the millions. The cost hospitals now bear for the uninsured is not 'free', and is a particularly big drain when accepting people with chronic illnesses that require expensive treatments and medications. We all end of paying for this person's lack of planning and foresight, through higher taxes and health care costs.
 
2012-09-10 01:56:46 PM
Here in Missouri I get to hear people complain about how much our insurance costs, how much it costs for them to visit the doctor, AND how Obamacare will only make things worse. So they think the current system is AWFUL but any changes would definitely be WORSE. WTF?

My only comment to them is 'So people deserve to suffer/die because they are poor or unlucky?' and they say 'Yeah. It is their fault.' (FYI- it is 'your fault' when you are brown with no insurance and get breast cancer and it is 'god's test' when you are white and get breast cancer- just FYI) These people are under the delusion that if their child got cancer they would be able to pay for the treatments out of pocket without becoming poor.

They are also super-Christian. Basically my head might explode any day now.
 
2012-09-10 01:56:59 PM
You know, as a fairly conservative person, I keep harping on the concept of solving the *Actual* failings in the healthcare industry, rather than simply bandaiding them.

That being said, the more I think on it and experience healthcare in this country, the more I'd agree that at least a partially universal system is a good thing.

That is to say, general medicine and care has a set of standards that applies to everyone, and core medical treatment (and dentistry, etc.) is under one program like Medicare that everyone pays into as part of their taxes.

Non-emergency stuff, like cosmetic surgeries that are not for specific reasons (like, reconstruction of a breast following breast cancer treatment, or reconstruction for victims of burns or other disfiguring illnesses), could be applied on a sliding scale of how much is covered and not covered. Want a breast reduction surgery (heresy!)? We'll go in for about 80% of the cost because it does affect spinal health. Want a designer vajayjay? You're on your own.

I still remain torn on the whole nanny state thing...in that I really don't like the idea of having the government mandating/controlling too much stuff, but for some things, it may be the only sane way to get anything done.

Too bad the people that freak out at the idea of the government doing ANYTHING that is beyond the basic scope of legislation will hinder progress towards a legitimate discussion on where it is and isn't appropriate for the government to step in.

(Hell, I'd be willing to go so far as to suggest government mandate of core quality of care requirements that apply to all businesses and insurance companies, and simply require all health providers to comply with those mandated minimums/requirements.)
 
2012-09-10 01:57:36 PM
They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.
 
2012-09-10 01:58:01 PM

pedrop357: 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?


National defense, the police, schools, libraries, infrastructure, fire fighting, making sure there's no starvation or unnecessary poverty, provision for old people's income, and anything else that wouldn't be done or with minimum necessary effectiveness if it were left up to private industry or individuals. You might be able to get away with having some of these done by non-profit organizations / churches, etc. but ultimately, the collective will of society is going to have to be responsible.

How would you pay for it? Taxes, contributions, fees for service blah blah blah. It's not rocket science.
 
2012-09-10 01:58:37 PM

Serious Black: ObamaCares isn't preventing people from getting health insurance that has a high deductible. Bronze coverage, which satisfies the condition to opt out of the shared responsibility payment, will inevitably have a deductible of almost $6,000 (if not there outright).


If I understand it right, bronze still has a $0 copay and $5950 maximum out-of-pocket, not quite catastrophe coverage.
 
2012-09-10 01:58:38 PM

fozziewazzi: The few you speak of number in the millions.


Millions of uninsured 18-29 year olds are both uninsured and suffering from debilitating, chronic and/or otherwise costly to treat diseases? Ones that occurred after their 18th birthday? I...I had no idea.....
 
2012-09-10 01:59:24 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.


So when I made the "dumb decision" to get cancer and then made the "dumb decision" to lose my job because I couldn't work I should have planned better?

No job. Lost insurance. New insurance w/ preexisting condition = no chance

I paid in to the system for decades, and now I am out in the cold.

Please explain how your vision addresses this. (Unless you are not a Christian and think leaving the sick to die is A-OK. )

Be specific.
 
2012-09-10 01:59:31 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'm sure it's been said before using the very same words, but I wasn't quoting anyone. As for comment, I guess it boils down to what sort of person you want to see in the mirror: one who is compassionate or one who is not; one who can see his own long-term self-interest or one who can only see as far as this year's taxes.
 
2012-09-10 02:00:31 PM

The Muthaship: fozziewazzi: The few you speak of number in the millions.

Millions of uninsured 18-29 year olds are both uninsured and suffering from debilitating, chronic and/or otherwise costly to treat diseases? Ones that occurred after their 18th birthday? I...I had no idea.....


The thing is they shouldn't be uninsured. Why are they uninsured? Because there are no jobs. Why is insurance tied to employment? Fark if I know.
 
2012-09-10 02:01:35 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Also, a universal system would eliminate these fake "crises" that are referred to when Republicans and other a$$holes talk about demographics and Social Security / Medicare. Would also be politically tenable in the U.S.
 
2012-09-10 02:01:57 PM
Even as recently as the 80s you didn't really need health insurance. The average working joe could actually afford to visit a doctor.

This has all been part of the GOP long plan for some 30+ years now.

Trickle down economics enriches a few at the expense of most of us. Then they started running the government on credit and racking up a deficit, because: commies. Then they sold America the idea that your wealth level is really the amount of debt you could saddle yourself with, selling the general populace into the idea that lifelong debt from cradle to grave is how things SHOULD be. Sticking most non elites into a quiet and unspoken neo-indentured servitude. The GOP created deficit grows larger, giving them a political weapon to use against any/all undesirable government services(ie, anything that benefits anyone but the ultra-elite). Any time things look up, they foment a bullshiat proxy war to crank that deficit up again.

The end game: a real and true hereditary oligarchy. Hi guys, welcome back to 400ad, divinely selected(because they were born rich) kings and princes.
 
2012-09-10 02:02:20 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: JackieRabbit: No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what people didn't do back then? Run to the doctor for every little sniffle and submit to tens-of-thousands of dollars in tests in order to be misdiagnosed.

The first employer health insurance in the US predates the Civil War. It became common after WWII. Check your facts.


Are you blaming the "tens of thousands of dollars in tests" on consumers? If so, you're a farking retard. The reason there are so many batteries of tests is to protect doctors from malpractice suits and 20/20 hindsight second guessing "why didn't you do this or that or the other thing..."

How many people do you believe there are in this country that take their toddler to the ER because they've run a 106 fever for three days and EXPECT to have $50,000 worth of TESTS run on them. Your post is retarded.
 
2012-09-10 02:03:21 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]


And Mr. Right is done. Right this way, sir, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...including the home version of Fark, however, you don't get to own that, it owns you.
 
2012-09-10 02:03:29 PM

Mr. Carpenter: A Dark Evil Omen: JackieRabbit: No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what people didn't do back then? Run to the doctor for every little sniffle and submit to tens-of-thousands of dollars in tests in order to be misdiagnosed.

The first employer health insurance in the US predates the Civil War. It became common after WWII. Check your facts.

Are you blaming the "tens of thousands of dollars in tests" on consumers? If so, you're a farking retard. The reason there are so many batteries of tests is to protect doctors from malpractice suits and 20/20 hindsight second guessing "why didn't you do this or that or the other thing..."

How many people do you believe there are in this country that take their toddler to the ER because they've run a 106 fever for three days and EXPECT to have $50,000 worth of TESTS run on them. Your post is retarded.


This was supposed to go to JackieRabbit
 
2012-09-10 02:04:46 PM

SpectroBoy: No job. Lost insurance. New insurance w/ preexisting condition = no chance


The problem is that insurance is tied to a job. Uncouple the two and most of the preexisting condition problem goes away.

Allowing individuals to deduct the costs of COBRA the same way their employer was able to deduct premiums would also go a long way to preventing this.

What we're left with is a system slanted by the government towards employer provided health care with little room for individual payers. I could see eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusion as way a patch the problems with employer provided health care, but it's still just a patch and it's layered on all the others.

I'm surprised the new potential insurance company didn't accept a certificate of coverage from your previous insurer as a proof you were previously covered and eliminate the pre-existing condition waiting period.
 
2012-09-10 02:05:00 PM

JackieRabbit: Serious Black: JackieRabbit: 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.

Yeah, and back in those days, people died of polio. I should know; everyone in my mom's family contracted it as a kid, and at least one of her brothers and sisters died from it.

No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what p ...


You know what, looking back at the past is always nice, but it doesn't always translate well to the now. Sure, people back then did more Dr. Mom care at home, but then fewer Dr. Moms were coke addicts too. You didn't have to worry that a funny rash might be Lyme Disease, or flesh eating bacteria or the damn bubonic plague. You were all cheerfully dosing each other with DDT and building toxic waste puddles under school yards because you didn't know any better. So please, kindly take off the foggy glasses and respect that we live in a different world now, quit basing your ideas for social policy off of what Ike would have done.
 
2012-09-10 02:05:03 PM

Thunderpipes: Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.

Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?


I'm not accusing you of having claimed this but we aren't all starving under the cruel weight our taxes though. I Drive a decent car, am putting my wife through a specialized diploma program (and paying the student debt on my Engineering Degree and her BA) and still mange to feed both of us and enjoy the finer things in life.
Yeah I pay a lot of taxes but my education was heavily subsidized (as were the loans for the portion that I had to pay out of pocket) I enjoy maintained roadways, and a level of crime that is acceptable. I expect that I will have a portion of my wages covered by employment insurance if I were to lose my job, and while i am saving and planning for my retirement I know that if I really screw up that i will have access to programs that will assist me.


These are all part of living in a civilized society, healthcare is just another part of the picture.
 
2012-09-10 02:05:07 PM

fozziewazzi: The Muthaship: 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.

The few you speak of number in the millions. The cost hospitals now bear for the uninsured is not 'free', and is a particularly big drain when accepting people with chronic illnesses that require expensive treatments and medications. We all end of paying for this person's lack of planning and foresight, through higher taxes and health care costs.


Well, I'm not sure what we can do. Medicine, bed space, doctor's time, tests, etc. all cost money. I'm not ever going to suggest that we throw people who can't pay out into the street, but at the same time, the money has to come from somewhere.

So, what do you do? Place limitations on the costs of medicines? America and the few other nations that don't control the prices of medicine already foot the bill, at least partially, for the money that goes into research of new medications (although, that whole industry is pretty farked up considering that there are viable treatments for major illnesses that are out there having been discovered but never implemented since they aren't exactly profitable to sell...) and the greed that goes along with it...

Or do we change our attitudes towards how and when it is appropriate for those with terminal illnesses to move on? I know I for one will gladly seek out a way to end my life if it's a choice between going out on my own terms and living in pain or as a vegetable or whatever, despite the fact that the law takes a dim view of it.

I dunno. What do we do?
 
2012-09-10 02:05:54 PM

spidermilk: Here in Missouri I get to hear people complain about how much our insurance costs, how much it costs for them to visit the doctor, AND how Obamacare will only make things worse. So they think the current system is AWFUL but any changes would definitely be WORSE. WTF?


Oh, no... it's only bad when a Democrat does it. That's why Rmoney gets a pass for doing the exact same thing when he was governor of Mass.
 
2012-09-10 02:07:32 PM

Thunderpipes: Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.

Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?


Please don't listen to Thunderpipes. He's one of the idiots who is afraid of universal healthcare. He thinks he's some poor, put-upon soul whose money is being stolen at gun point by jack-booted government thugs and redistributed to poor people.

He also thinks that half of Americans pay no income tax. In reality it's half of all filers who pay no income tax. That includes people like Romney who hide their money in offshore accounts and people earning so little that they pay no income tax.
 
2012-09-10 02:08:22 PM

pedrop357: We hear that people need to be covered or there will be people dying in the streets because they can't afford life-or-death care and don't have insurance.


We don't just hear that - we know it. From experience.

Before the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986, hospitals could, and often did, turn people away if they had no means of payment, even if those people were seeking life saving emergency medical care.
 
2012-09-10 02:08:38 PM

Silly Jesus: [t1.ftcdn.net image 400x300]

"Yes, Hi Geico, I'd like to purchase some car insurance now."

People really don't see the problem with this concept?


9/10

Changing metal parts that are mass produced is such a similar concept to treating anatomical disorders and/or injuries.

Dumbass.
 
2012-09-10 02:08:42 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I'm sure it's been said before using the very same words, but I wasn't quoting anyone. As for comment, I guess it boils down to what sort of person you want to see in the mirror: one who is compassionate or one who is not; one who can see his own long-term self-interest or one who can only see as far as this year's taxes.


It's not simply about being compassionate or not. It's about whether you think it's right to force others to follow your version of compassion or demand that others fund your brand of compassion over theirs.

One's long term self-interest (as well as self/best interest in general) is a highly subjective concept. I hear this all the time and it always come off as liberal elitism, namely that people are voting or advocating against their own best interests. In reality, they are going against what you think are their best interests.
 
2012-09-10 02:08:43 PM

Graffito: In reality it's half of all filers who pay no income tax.


So, the ones that aren't filing ARE paying taxes?
 
2012-09-10 02:09:22 PM
Pedrop375
There isn't enough income or wealth to tax for it and we already borrow too much, so cutting spending is the only real solution.


You realize, we already spend more tax dollars in total and per capita than any other country on the planet, right? We're just psychotic in how we currently spend it (hint: not on actual care of any kind). If we stopped spending all of either public or private funds, we'd still spend more than most do public and private combined.

No, there's PLENTY enough to pay for it. There just isn't enough to pay-off five layers of Mafia bag men in between.
 
2012-09-10 02:09:38 PM

pedrop357: That, and most of the developed world doesn't have the military we do. None of the poster child countries have carrier groups in every ocean or military bases in 60+ countries. This goes a long way to explaining how they can afford universal healthcare.


That, and it's cheaper to begin with you ignorant fuk.
 
2012-09-10 02:10:34 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.


0/10 - Too simplistic. Would work better with less obvious logical fallacies and more decorative text to obscure the idiocy. Good effort, though!
 
2012-09-10 02:10:54 PM
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-10 02:10:59 PM

Silly Jesus: [t1.ftcdn.net image 400x300]

"Yes, Hi Geico, I'd like to purchase some car insurance now."

People really don't see the problem with this concept?


What if the car has a manufacturing flaw?
 
2012-09-10 02:11:44 PM
Choices always were a problem for the GOP. What they need is someone strong to guide them. They are broken now, but faith can heal them. Just do everything I tell you to do.
 
2012-09-10 02:13:11 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: We don't just hear that - we know it. From experience.

Before the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986, hospitals could, and often did, turn people away if they had no means of payment, even if those people were seeking life saving emergency medical care.


Nice cherry picking. I wasn't debating the issue of people dying in the street. I was pointing out how the goal of insurance always seems to change-from a way to mitigate serious illness and ensure coverage to a way to pay for routine coverage (and lately) as a way to ensure wellness coverage.

Initially people say that everyone should have insurance as a way to prevent dying in the streets, bankruptcy over serious illness, etc. The proposal is high deductible, catastrophe coverage. The response argues that people won't be able to afford routine care with a limited, high deductible plan. Thus, the goal posts have in this argument have just been moved.
 
2012-09-10 02:13:23 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.


That's some solid work there. I haven't seen anyone assert that Ayn Rand's childish self-indulgence was somehow too sophisticated for us commies to understand before, and the random attack on Einstein was a nice touch.
 
2012-09-10 02:13:44 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.


This is a textbook definition of irony.
 
2012-09-10 02:13:47 PM

Silly Jesus: [t1.ftcdn.net image 400x300]

"Yes, Hi Geico, I'd like to purchase some car insurance now."

People really don't see the problem with this concept?


img801.imageshack.us

People really don't see the problem with this concept?
 
2012-09-10 02:14:01 PM

pedrop357: Serious Black: ObamaCares isn't preventing people from getting health insurance that has a high deductible. Bronze coverage, which satisfies the condition to opt out of the shared responsibility payment, will inevitably have a deductible of almost $6,000 (if not there outright).

If I understand it right, bronze still has a $0 copay and $5950 maximum out-of-pocket, not quite catastrophe coverage.


$0 copay on preventive coverage, sure, but not on anything else. There's a huge host of things that don't fall into preventive coverage. And personally, I think anyone who looks at a plan that says you pay $6,000 first and then we pay the rest and doesn't automatically think it is catastrophic coverage is an entitled assclown. $6,000 is 12% of the median income. That's not even including the premium for the health insurance which, for a single person, probably runs about $4,000 I'd guess with today's MLRs and actuarial values? So that takes you up to 20% of median income for everything. That's a ton of money.
 
2012-09-10 02:14:18 PM

Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?


Don't let your campaign be dictated by fact checkers

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-10 02:15:10 PM

Egoy3k: Thunderpipes: Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.

Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

I'm not accusing you of having claimed this but we aren't all starving under the cruel weight our taxes though. I Drive a decent car, am putting my wife through a specialized diploma program (and paying the student debt on my Engineering Degree and her BA) and still mange to feed both of us and enjoy the finer things in life.
Yeah I pay a lot of taxes but my education was heavily subsidized (as were the loans for the portion that I had to pay out of pocket) I enjoy maintained roadways, and a level of crime that is acceptable. I expect that I will have a portion of my wages covered by employment insurance if I were to lose my job, and while i am saving and planning for my retirement I know that if I really screw up that i will have access to programs that will assist me.


These are all part of living in a civilized society, healthcare is just another part of the picture.


I think the issues, at least the issue for me, is that I don't expect anyone to take care of me, and I don't see why I should be expected to take care of someone else to whom I have no relationship and no obligation. I will help out my friends/neighbors/family readily, and do. However, someone who is sick because they caught a disease while using IV drugs or paying the wages of someone who screwed up on a job and got fired when they didn't bother to plan ahead and save something to cover the difference? Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's mistakes or misfortune?

But in a society, everyone looks out for each other, is that it?

I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.
 
2012-09-10 02:15:38 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.


Except when our death panels are killing your grandma.
 
2012-09-10 02:16:00 PM

The Muthaship: Graffito: In reality it's half of all filers who pay no income tax.

So, the ones that aren't filing ARE paying taxes?



The ones who aren't filing are children, disabled, retired, or welfare recipients. No they aren't paying either. That would put the percentage well over 50%, however the 50% number (it's actually 47%) refers to tax filers.

If you want to be outraged - at least know something about what you are frothing over.
 
2012-09-10 02:17:42 PM

wmoonfox: spidermilk: Here in Missouri I get to hear people complain about how much our insurance costs, how much it costs for them to visit the doctor, AND how Obamacare will only make things worse. So they think the current system is AWFUL but any changes would definitely be WORSE. WTF?

Oh, no... it's only bad when a Democrat does it. That's why Rmoney gets a pass for doing the exact same thing when he was governor of Mass.


Well, there's that whole thing where mandating a lot of changes on behalf of coverage without making equal changes to the system to lower the rates of unnecessary tests, medications, hospitalizations, and so forth that drive up costs of healthcare in the first place (including malpractice insurance costs and simple inflation due to ego) that create a circle jerk of "ZOMG INSURANCE COSTS TOO DAMN MUCH! BUT COST OF HEALTHCARE IS SO DAMN MUCH MORE! BUT NOW THEY'RE RAISING INSURANCE COSTS BECAUSE OF THE COST OF HEALTHCARE!" where everyone but people making a living from it get screwed...
 
2012-09-10 02:17:56 PM

impaler: Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

Don't let your campaign be dictated by fact checkers

[growlersoftware.com image 519x707]


So, you're agreeing with him? 80% of the people pay ~36.6% of the taxes and the other 20% pay ~63.4%. Sounds like there's a problem with the broadness of the tax base to me.
 
2012-09-10 02:18:08 PM

The Muthaship: It costs money, I agree. But, the person is not left to die. All medical care costs money. I agree it is too expensive, but I don't think the current efforts to fix it will work. Nor do I think they are Constitutional.


It is unbelievably frustrating that so many people would rather have the uninsured treated at emergency rooms, incurring huge hospital bills and driving costs up across the board, than institute public programs that would head a lot of the ER waste off at the pass for a much lower cost.

I guess it's more important to make sure that no one "gets what they don't deserve" than it is to have an efficient and humane health care system.
 
2012-09-10 02:18:09 PM
The problem with the health-insurance industry is the same as that of the mortgage-lending industry: Because they have pooled capital, they increase the amount the market is "willing to pay" for the goods and service. This drives the cost of everything up to the point that you can't buy a house or medical treatment without insurance.
 
2012-09-10 02:18:54 PM

pedrop357: honk: Know what? I get really tired of people bleating that "we don't need Obamacare, we can just fix the current system". You had years to fix the current system if you wanted to. The only change I saw was in premiums that went up 25% - 30% year after year. And now that an alternative is proposed, NOW we need to "just fix the current system".

Screw you.

I didn't have years. Democrats and Republicans had years and they each chose to continue screwing it up rather then reform it in any meaningful way.

Fixing the current system means completely overhauling big sections, something Obamacare doesn't do and something most Democrats and Republicans don't have the courage to do.

fark you too.


This
 
2012-09-10 02:19:29 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.


What is law but an extension of society?
 
2012-09-10 02:19:56 PM
I don't understand why more people don't point out that national health-insurance would HELP businesses. I ran a small, non-profit newspaper in Boston back in the day, and I wrote out a check once a month for thousands of dollars to cover 100% of our employees' health insurance. (Non-profit: Bad pay, but good benefits.)

If I didn't have to write that check, then I could have afforded to hire at least two more people. So, universal health-care seems to have a pro and a con: People would likely pay more individual taxes (like I do in Israel now), but companies would be able to hire more people in general. Seems worth it to me.
 
2012-09-10 02:20:28 PM

bifford: I'd like to know a good right-wing forum where I can explore how Republicans think. I don't want something too crazy, but something more representative of the conservative mainstream.


You don't get it - all that batshiat is the right-wing mainstream these days. 30+ years of pandering to the crazies has led to the inevitable result - the lunatics are taking over.

The only place I see reasonable right-wing discussion anymore is here, and even that gets pretty derpy once in a while, since they still carry water for the Republicans, regardless of how profoundly stupid the party gets, or how much individual contributors protest that they "aren't conservative, but libertarian"
 
2012-09-10 02:20:32 PM

Serious Black: pedrop357: Serious Black: ObamaCares isn't preventing people from getting health insurance that has a high deductible. Bronze coverage, which satisfies the condition to opt out of the shared responsibility payment, will inevitably have a deductible of almost $6,000 (if not there outright).

If I understand it right, bronze still has a $0 copay and $5950 maximum out-of-pocket, not quite catastrophe coverage.

$0 copay on preventive coverage, sure, but not on anything else. There's a huge host of things that don't fall into preventive coverage. And personally, I think anyone who looks at a plan that says you pay $6,000 first and then we pay the rest and doesn't automatically think it is catastrophic coverage is an entitled assclown. $6,000 is 12% of the median income. That's not even including the premium for the health insurance which, for a single person, probably runs about $4,000 I'd guess with today's MLRs and actuarial values? So that takes you up to 20% of median income for everything. That's a ton of money.


For reference, here's a list of things that are currently listed as preventive medicine that health insurance companies must cover with a $0 copay as of today.
 
2012-09-10 02:24:03 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.


Because EVERYTHING should be an "industry", including pooling of risk.

Insurers are parasites who could be replaced with a simple computer program.
 
2012-09-10 02:24:23 PM
There's a difference between:

"I feel an obligation to help others"
and
"I feel a need to force others to help others"

Just like there's a difference between altruism and generosity
 
2012-09-10 02:24:32 PM

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

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


Go ahead, be a whiny little biatch and complain to the mods.
 
2012-09-10 02:24:53 PM

Inchoate: The Muthaship: It costs money, I agree. But, the person is not left to die. All medical care costs money. I agree it is too expensive, but I don't think the current efforts to fix it will work. Nor do I think they are Constitutional.

It is unbelievably frustrating that so many people would rather have the uninsured treated at emergency rooms, incurring huge hospital bills and driving costs up across the board, than institute public programs that would head a lot of the ER waste off at the pass for a much lower cost.

I guess it's more important to make sure that no one "gets what they don't deserve" than it is to have an efficient and humane health care system.


Funny, I thought people that were low income and couldn't afford private healthcare coverage could apply for Medicaid?
 
2012-09-10 02:25:45 PM

pedrop357: Ctrl-Alt-Del: We don't just hear that - we know it. From experience.

Before the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986, hospitals could, and often did, turn people away if they had no means of payment, even if those people were seeking life saving emergency medical care.

Nice cherry picking. I wasn't debating the issue of people dying in the street. I was pointing out how the goal of insurance always seems to change-from a way to mitigate serious illness and ensure coverage to a way to pay for routine coverage (and lately) as a way to ensure wellness coverage.

Initially people say that everyone should have insurance as a way to prevent dying in the streets, bankruptcy over serious illness, etc. The proposal is high deductible, catastrophe coverage. The response argues that people won't be able to afford routine care with a limited, high deductible plan. Thus, the goal posts have in this argument have just been moved.


One good reason for this that didn't really apply in the "good old days": PPO network pricing. Heck, just being able to get the prices insurers get would make a lot of basic healthcare affordable to mortals. The "street price" can be 5 TIMES the price insurers pay.

Lest you think that stat is inflated, I have some CSBs along those lines. An out-of-network hospital billed us $25000 for a hysterectomy (Medicare rate: $5000). My daughter had a 5-week NICU stay at an in-network hospital, billed $60000, wrote down to $6000. (Numbers are total bills, e.g. on the NICU stay the insurer paid $5400 and we paid $600).
 
2012-09-10 02:25:56 PM

o5iiawah: There's a difference between:

"I feel an obligation to help others"
and
"I feel a need to force others to help others"

Just like there's a difference between altruism and generosity


Exactly! Someone's health (and by extension their life) should have a price. If that price is too high then, obviously, that person must die. It's a beautiful world we live in.
 
2012-09-10 02:26:02 PM

Kit Fister: I think the issues, at least the issue for me, is that I don't expect anyone to take care of me, and I don't see why I should be expected to take care of someone else to whom I have no relationship and no obligation. I will help out my friends/neighbors/family readily, and do. However, someone who is sick because they caught a disease while using IV drugs or paying the wages of someone who screwed up on a job and got fired when they didn't bother to plan ahead and save something to cover the difference? Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's mistakes or misfortune?

But in a society, everyone looks out for each other, is that it?

I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.



Only if intelligence is a cultural difference. Guess what happens when people can't afford healthcare in your nation. They don't go die quietly in a ditch, they get treatment, in an emergency room, costing thousands more, and then you will be paying for it anyway.

Sorry to bust your bubble but you are no more self reliant than I am. It's a nice little fiction that the people against social welfare have cooked up but that's all it is, fiction. You depend on the work of others every single day of your life.
 
2012-09-10 02:26:30 PM

pedrop357: Ctrl-Alt-Del: We don't just hear that - we know it. From experience.

Before the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986, hospitals could, and often did, turn people away if they had no means of payment, even if those people were seeking life saving emergency medical care.

Nice cherry picking. I wasn't debating the issue of people dying in the street. I was pointing out how the goal of insurance always seems to change-from a way to mitigate serious illness and ensure coverage to a way to pay for routine coverage (and lately) as a way to ensure wellness coverage.

Initially people say that everyone should have insurance as a way to prevent dying in the streets, bankruptcy over serious illness, etc. The proposal is high deductible, catastrophe coverage. The response argues that people won't be able to afford routine care with a limited, high deductible plan. Thus, the goal posts have in this argument have just been moved.


Moving goalposts? Some people. perhaps. But everyone i know who is in favor of universal coverage/healthcare reform wants pretty much full coverage for all necessary medical care for everyone - emergency, catastrophic, preventative, non-catastrophic injury treatment, non-life threating illness treatment, etc.

The only reason the goalposts move in actual policy discussions is because the opposition fights tooth and nail against every goddamned inch of progress, and if it looks like we might get more than a yard or two, they threaten to burn down the entire stadium
 
2012-09-10 02:27:58 PM

Kit Fister: Funny, I thought people that were low income and couldn't afford private healthcare coverage could apply for Medicaid?


There is a significant gap between "eligible for Medicaid" and "able to afford private healthcare coverage", especially in the case of those with pre-existing conditions.
 
2012-09-10 02:29:13 PM

o5iiawah: There's a difference between:

"I feel an obligation to help others"
and
"I feel a need to force others to help others"

Just like there's a difference between altruism and generosity



Just like there's a difference between "in this society we provide for the basic needs of everyone, and if you wish to participate in this society you may have to make some minor sacrifices to keep that going" versus "I've got mine, fark you"

I can see which team you're on
 
2012-09-10 02:29:33 PM

o5iiawah: There's a difference between:

"I feel an obligation to help others"
and
"I feel a need to force others to help others"

Just like there's a difference between altruism and generosity


Forcing people to pay into a mutually-beneficial system through either goods, money, or labor, has been a cornerstone of governance for five thousand years.
 
2012-09-10 02:29:41 PM

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

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

Go ahead, be a whiny little biatch and complain to the mods.


Does that happen to you a lot, or something?

If something you say bothers me, I'll let you know. WTF are the mods going to do? Ban you for an hour?

The horror.
 
2012-09-10 02:30:11 PM

impaler: Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

Don't let your campaign be dictated by fact checkers

[growlersoftware.com image 519x707]


And why don't you get local taxes out of there, which have nothing to do with income taxes, dumbass?
 
2012-09-10 02:30:56 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 conservatives, who range from farking morons who think, despite all available evidence, that the President was born in Kenya, to the campaign that has to decry fact-checkers to avoid the fact that they straight-out lied multiple times, 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.


FTFY.
 
2012-09-10 02:31:12 PM

wmoonfox: Forcing people to pay into a mutually-beneficial system through either goods, money, or labor, has been a cornerstone of governance for five thousand years.


Real Conservatives are not afraid to look back that far to see where we went wrong.
 
2012-09-10 02:31:19 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.


I take it you have never argued with a creationist. Google Kirk Cameron and "crocoduck".
 
2012-09-10 02:31:33 PM

FarkedOver: Exactly! Someone's health (and by extension their life) should have a price. If that price is too high then, obviously, that person must die. It's a beautiful world we live in.


Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.
 
2012-09-10 02:31:36 PM

Kit Fister: Inchoate: The Muthaship: It costs money, I agree. But, the person is not left to die. All medical care costs money. I agree it is too expensive, but I don't think the current efforts to fix it will work. Nor do I think they are Constitutional.

It is unbelievably frustrating that so many people would rather have the uninsured treated at emergency rooms, incurring huge hospital bills and driving costs up across the board, than institute public programs that would head a lot of the ER waste off at the pass for a much lower cost.

I guess it's more important to make sure that no one "gets what they don't deserve" than it is to have an efficient and humane health care system.

Funny, I thought people that were low income and couldn't afford private healthcare coverage could apply for Medicaid?


They can apply. But they may not get it.

According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."
 
2012-09-10 02:31:54 PM

Kit Fister: Funny, I thought people that were low income and couldn't afford private healthcare coverage could apply for Medicaid?


Depends. In almost every State, if you are a childless non-disabled adult, you cannot get Medicaid at all, no matter how poor you are. Even if you meet one of those criteria, the eligibility cutoffs can be brutally low, e.g. a few thousand dollars a year of income.

This problem will be somewhat resolved by PPACA, and/or made worse by Romney/Ryan, depending.
 
2012-09-10 02:31:59 PM

pedrop357: So, you're agreeing with him? 80% of the people pay ~36.6% of the taxes and the other 20% pay ~63.4%. Sounds like there's a problem with the broadness of the tax base to me.


Sounds to me like you're a fuking moron.

Share of income and share of taxes are pretty close. How is this different from Europe, and how would that in any way make their healthcare more affordable?

It's like you guys have shiat for brains.l
 
2012-09-10 02:32:02 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: 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.


So true...that's why whenever I meet someone claiming to be Christian and a Conservative I am immediately skeptical. Most "mainline" protestants actually understand this. It is these "fundamentalist, neo-con, theocracy, end of days" types that mess it up.
 
2012-09-10 02:32:37 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: One good reason for this that didn't really apply in the "good old days": PPO network pricing. Heck, just being able to get the prices insurers get would make a lot of basic healthcare affordable to mortals. The "street price" can be 5 TIMES the price insurers pay.

Lest you think that stat is inflated, I have some CSBs along those lines. An out-of-network hospital billed us $25000 for a hysterectomy (Medicare rate: $5000). My daughter had a 5-week NICU stay at an in-network hospital, billed $60000, wrote down to $6000. (Numbers are total bills, e.g. on the NICU stay the insurer paid $5400 and we paid $600).


Why don't they just argue for that then? In the span of a few minutes, insurance goes from being a necessity for life-and-death coverage to being a necessity for routine coverage. My criticism is the honesty and integrity of arguments (and by extension, the arguer) surrounding health care and health insurance.

Hysterectomy and anything that results in/requires a 5 week NICU do not sound routine and sound precisely like the kinds of things I'm talking about for catastrophe coverage.

I'm criticizing the idea that catastrophic high deductible insurance is unacceptable because it doesn't cover/make affordable routine medical visits.
 
2012-09-10 02:33:06 PM

impaler: [growlersoftware.com image 850x562]


Now overlay that with Cancer Survival Rates please.

USA, USA, USA, We win.
 
2012-09-10 02:33:20 PM

o5iiawah: Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.


Lonely, harsh, selfish world you've created.
 
2012-09-10 02:33:59 PM

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Exactly! Someone's health (and by extension their life) should have a price. If that price is too high then, obviously, that person must die. It's a beautiful world we live in.

Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.


So when your house catches fire, you have no intention of dialing 911?
 
2012-09-10 02:34:26 PM

o5iiawah: Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.


AKA "the world".
 
2012-09-10 02:34:40 PM
I'm pretty sure as long as they're "My type of people", the GOP would help them.
 
2012-09-10 02:35:10 PM

pedrop357: I'm criticizing the idea that catastrophic high deductible insurance is unacceptable because it doesn't cover/make affordable routine medical visits.


Routine medical visits and preventive care can often fix an incipient medical "catastrophe" before it happens. It's a better deal for everyone.
 
2012-09-10 02:35:12 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The only reason the goalposts move in actual policy discussions is because the opposition fights tooth and nail against every goddamned inch of progress, and if it looks like we might get more than a yard or two, they threaten to burn down the entire stadium


In other words, the ends justify the means.
 
2012-09-10 02:35:27 PM

Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.


You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.
 
2012-09-10 02:35:54 PM

Parthenogenetic: 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!"


Well, one could argue that most healthy young men need healthy, not-pregnant women; think of their contributions to "women-only" health care as insurance against sex scarcity or child support. One could also argue that experts on health care have a better idea of what a healthy young man is likely to need in the way of health care than he does; again, it's a question of taking the lifelong view vs. "I don't need it today... I hope."

As for government paying only for unprofitable health care, that's simply insurance for insurers and their shareholders.
 
2012-09-10 02:36:08 PM

pedrop357: I'm criticizing the idea that catastrophic high deductible insurance is unacceptable because it doesn't cover/make affordable routine medical visits.


There is a direct connection between the affordability of routine medical visits and the incidence of catastrophic health problems.
 
2012-09-10 02:36:27 PM

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Exactly! Someone's health (and by extension their life) should have a price. If that price is too high then, obviously, that person must die. It's a beautiful world we live in.

Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.


I was agreeing with you. If you don't have money FARK YOU.
 
2012-09-10 02:36:40 PM

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Exactly! Someone's health (and by extension their life) should have a price. If that price is too high then, obviously, that person must die. It's a beautiful world we live in.

Interesting world you've created where a stranger owes his life and labor to the needs of someone he doesn't even know.


That's the world we live in now.
 
2012-09-10 02:37:41 PM

Inchoate: Routine medical visits and preventive care can often fix an incipient medical "catastrophe" before it happens. It's a better deal for everyone.


Why does it need to be forced then? One recurring theme here is that insurance companies are profit obsessed, yet deliberately turn away the chance to cut costs and boost profits. I would think they would jump all over routing and preventative coverage.
 
2012-09-10 02:38:06 PM
Here's what i REALLY want:

1:
I want family doctor's and practitioners to stop charging $150 for 15 minutes of their time.

That comes down to $600/hr.

I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a physical
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a prescription for $5 worth penicillin when i get a respiratory infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Flu shot
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for removing an ingrown toenail
I want them to stop charging $600/hr to treat a staph infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Vaccine

I would GLADLY pay the doctor between $25-$50 per visit for the above treatments (and $75-$100 for a specialist).
By doing that, an office is still making between 100 and 200 an hour. They won't have to accept insurance, so they can literally cut out their entire billing department. Go back to having a receptionist, a nurse, and a book keeper. Everyone gets paid a decent living wage including the doctor.

There's no need for a family MD to be a "prestigious" career that warrants 300K+ a year.

None.

2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


If they did this, this country would be healthier, happier, and wealthier. Insurance companies would be there to insure against accidents and unforeseen problems.
There wouldn't be the problem of "pre-existing condition" because all diagnosis would be affordable enough to get it when it happens. Employers wouldn't HAVE to pick up benefits, though they could if they wanted to.

But tell a doctor to lower his prices so he doesn't NEED the insurance companies, and he would probably throw up in his mouth at the idea.
 
2012-09-10 02:38:14 PM

Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.


Yeah, that lazy farker who was born with spina bifida is getting what he deserves!
 
2012-09-10 02:38:47 PM

pedrop357: I would think they would jump all over routing and preventative coverage.


Many already do.
 
2012-09-10 02:38:50 PM
This is so stupid.
Simply GIVE every American Citizen the SAME FARKING INSURNACE COVERAGE CONGRESS AND MITT FARKING ROMNEY GAVE TO THEMSELVES>

It must be good, they did it.

/html sucks
 
2012-09-10 02:39:36 PM

CeroX: Here's what i REALLY want:

1:
I want family doctor's and practitioners to stop charging $150 for 15 minutes of their time.

That comes down to $600/hr.

I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a physical
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a prescription for $5 worth penicillin when i get a respiratory infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Flu shot
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for removing an ingrown toenail
I want them to stop charging $600/hr to treat a staph infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Vaccine

I would GLADLY pay the doctor between $25-$50 per visit for the above treatments (and $75-$100 for a specialist).
By doing that, an office is still making between 100 and 200 an hour. They won't have to accept insurance, so they can literally cut out their entire billing department. Go back to having a receptionist, a nurse, and a book keeper. Everyone gets paid a decent living wage including the doctor.

There's no need for a family MD to be a "prestigious" career that warrants 300K+ a year.

None.

2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


If they did this, this country would be healthier, happier, and wealthier. Insurance companies would be there to insure against accidents and unforeseen problems.
There wouldn't be the problem of "pre-existing condition" because all diagnosis would be affordable enough to get it when it happens. Employers wouldn't HAVE to pick up benefits, though they could if they wanted to.

But tell a doctor to lower his prices so he doesn't NEED the insurance companies, and he would probably throw up in his mouth at the idea.


You need to add a 1a.) we need to heavily subsidize people genuinely interested in the field of medicine. Loans for doctors are astronomical and one way to offset the cost is to make medical schools more accessible and more affordable.
 
2012-09-10 02:40:06 PM

clevershark: Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.

Yeah, that lazy farker who was born with spina bifida is getting what he deserves!


They are covered under their parents insurance until they are 26.
 
2012-09-10 02:40:27 PM

CeroX: 2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


And if you handed out antibiotics like candy, we would almost certainly increase the number of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics because, news flash, bacteria can evolve! Thanks for killing millions of people with incurable strep throat, asshole.
 
2012-09-10 02:40:56 PM

The Muthaship: clevershark: Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.

Yeah, that lazy farker who was born with spina bifida is getting what he deserves!

They are covered under their parents insurance until they are 26.


Well hopefully they die on their 27 birthday so they are not a burden to society.
 
2012-09-10 02:41:06 PM

pedrop357: Inchoate: Routine medical visits and preventive care can often fix an incipient medical "catastrophe" before it happens. It's a better deal for everyone.

Why does it need to be forced then? One recurring theme here is that insurance companies are profit obsessed, yet deliberately turn away the chance to cut costs and boost profits. I would think they would jump all over routing and preventative coverage.


So you believe the catastrophic coverage plans that you are strenuously arguing for are illogical?
 
2012-09-10 02:41:24 PM

Thunderpipes: impaler: Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

Don't let your campaign be dictated by fact checkers

[growlersoftware.com image 519x707]

And why don't you get local taxes out of there, which have nothing to do with income taxes, dumbass?



Cry me a river you lying sack of shat. Here was the exchange:
Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.

Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?


You didn't say the rest of the world has a broader "income" tax base.

You then selected one specific tax in the US (on one specific year), to deliberately distort your red herring - tax base has nothing to do with healthcare costs. You have to lie to support your logical fallacy. Even your logical fallacies can't stand on their own merit.

In other words, the facts prove you wrong, so you just lie like a Republican. Scum.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:02 PM

FarkedOver: Well hopefully they die on their 27 birthday so they are not a burden to society.


They probably do because we have no programs in place to see to their medical care.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:16 PM

pedrop357: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The only reason the goalposts move in actual policy discussions is because the opposition fights tooth and nail against every goddamned inch of progress, and if it looks like we might get more than a yard or two, they threaten to burn down the entire stadium

In other words, the ends justify the means.


What is this I don't even

/now i remember why you're marked the way you are in my favorites. Because you don't think nearly as well as you like to think you think.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:39 PM

Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.


Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here
 
2012-09-10 02:42:49 PM

The Muthaship: clevershark: Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.

Yeah, that lazy farker who was born with spina bifida is getting what he deserves!

They are covered under their parents insurance until they are 26.


Lazy farker should've known better than to be born to parents without insurance and/or live past the age of 26.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:54 PM

CeroX: Here's what i REALLY want:

1:
I want family doctor's and practitioners to stop charging $150 for 15 minutes of their time.

That comes down to $600/hr.

I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a physical
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a prescription for $5 worth penicillin when i get a respiratory infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Flu shot
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for removing an ingrown toenail
I want them to stop charging $600/hr to treat a staph infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Vaccine

I would GLADLY pay the doctor between $25-$50 per visit for the above treatments (and $75-$100 for a specialist).
By doing that, an office is still making between 100 and 200 an hour. They won't have to accept insurance, so they can literally cut out their entire billing department. Go back to having a receptionist, a nurse, and a book keeper. Everyone gets paid a decent living wage including the doctor.

There's no need for a family MD to be a "prestigious" career that warrants 300K+ a year.

None.

2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


If they did this, this country would be healthier, happier, and wealthier. Insurance companies would be there to insure against accidents and unforeseen problems.
There wouldn't be the problem of "pre-existing condition" because all diagnosis would be affordable enough to get it when it happens. Employers wouldn't HAVE to pick up benefits, though they could if they wanted to.

But tell a doctor to lower his prices so he doesn't NEED the insurance companies, and he would probably throw up in his mouth at the idea.


I bet you want your doctor to accept a jar of pickled eggs for payment too.
 
2012-09-10 02:43:08 PM

The Muthaship: FarkedOver: Well hopefully they die on their 27 birthday so they are not a burden to society.

They probably do because we have no programs in place to see to their medical care.


I don't want a bunch of 27 year old hipsters clogging up the ER when mommy and daddy's insurance runs out. farking freeloading assholes.
 
2012-09-10 02:43:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


Hmmm, interesting numbers. What about the number of people killed by overdoses, interactions, and complications from surgery that they probably didn't need?
 
2012-09-10 02:44:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: There is a direct connection between the affordability of routine medical visits and the incidence of catastrophic health problems.


Then they should simply argue that. Every argument and proposal always seems to focus intently on emergencies and catastrophes. When a proposal to mitigate that is laid out, it's attacked as not fulfilling a new goal.

A sample argument follows:
Universal health insurance is necessary not just to keep people from dying because they can't afford life and death treatment (dying in the streets), but also to help prevent illnesses from getting to the point of being life and death. Proposals for catastrophe only coverage miss the point in that it would be cheaper and more effective to cover more routine/preventative care in order to reduce the number of illnesses that become so severe as to be life or death.
----
Instead we get singularly focused arguments about dying in the streets and bankruptcy for accidents and serious non-illness related care. Healthy young people would probably benefit enormously from catastrophe only coverage , but that's criticized for not covering the routine visits that even insured young people are notorious for not getting.
 
2012-09-10 02:44:43 PM

wildcardjack: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Hmmm, interesting numbers. What about the number of people killed by overdoses, interactions, and complications from surgery that they probably didn't need?


So denying people access to healthcare is actually a benefit to them in your sage opinion?
 
2012-09-10 02:45:01 PM

FarkedOver: I don't want a bunch of 27 year old hipsters clogging up the ER when mommy and daddy's insurance runs out. farking freeloading assholes.


SSD has your back.
 
2012-09-10 02:45:21 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Parthenogenetic: 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!"

Well, one could argue that most healthy young men need healthy, not-pregnant women; think of their contributions to "women-only" health care as insurance against sex scarcity or child support. One could also argue that experts on health care have a better idea of what a healthy young man is likely to need in the way of health care than he does; again, it's a question of taking the lifelong view vs. "I don't need it today... I hope."

As for government paying only for unprofitable health care, that's simply insurance for insurers and their shareholders.


We the Public are the shareholders of Medicare/caid and Obamacare. We are seeing massive, massive losses. Time to fire the CEO and Chairman of the Board I would say?

Eventually, you run out of rich people to tax (and that won't contribute that much any way in the overall scheme of things) and you just get more and more people each year reliant on the government. Growth will never rebound, revenue will fall, costs increase, like is happening now. I am sorry, but simply throwing money at poor people by taking it from successful people, at best, can solve short term issues.

We need growth. Can't tax your way into growth, (no, Clinton tax increases had nothing to do with growth) we have no looming giant tech booms.
 
2012-09-10 02:45:56 PM

CeroX: Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


cdn.styleforum.net
You know how I know that you are not a doctor, pharmacist, or epidemiologist?!?

 
2012-09-10 02:46:05 PM

pedrop357: Why does it need to be forced then? One recurring theme here is that insurance companies are profit obsessed, yet deliberately turn away the chance to cut costs and boost profits. I would think they would jump all over routing and preventative coverage.


Short-term vs. long-term, combined with insurance being largely tied to one's employment.

The conventional wisdom used to indeed be that insurers would love to cover preventive services to save money on someone in the long run.

However, since people change jobs every few years, and companies change insurers regularly, the insurer is betting you'll be Someone Else's Problem before the lack of preventive care kicks in. So then we're back to a classic coordination problem. If every insurer covered prevention they would all save money, but it's not in any individual insurer's best interest to do so.
 
2012-09-10 02:46:07 PM
And, Rand was areligious, anti-religious, and most likely atheist.
 
2012-09-10 02:46:22 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: impaler: [growlersoftware.com image 850x562]

Now overlay that with Cancer Survival Rates please.

USA, USA, USA, We win.


I think you mean Cuba and France...

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-09-10 02:46:25 PM

The Muthaship: FarkedOver: I don't want a bunch of 27 year old hipsters clogging up the ER when mommy and daddy's insurance runs out. farking freeloading assholes.

SSD has your back.


ohhh nice, the Boston Hardcore scene has my back!

www.xclaim.com
 
2012-09-10 02:48:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe the catastrophic coverage plans that you are strenuously arguing for are illogical?


For some, yes.

For others, it's a perfect fit. Young people, even those with insurance from their employer or their parent's employer, are well known for not seeking preventative care. You can cover their routine and preventative visits all you want, but if they don't seek them out, it's a waste. They can't be given a true discount for not seeking those coverages either (there are limits on age differentiated premiums).

Healthier young people would be better off seeking catastrophe coverage to cover accidents and several illness and non-illness care. The same way a good driver in an area with lower accident rate may choose a higher deductible auto insurance plan.
 
2012-09-10 02:48:28 PM

FarkedOver: ohhh nice, the Boston Hardcore scene has my back!


Is the guy with the Cromwell haircut playing a keyboard?

If so, no hardcore card.
 
2012-09-10 02:48:31 PM

Serious Black: CeroX: 2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.

And if you handed out antibiotics like candy, we would almost certainly increase the number of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics because, news flash, bacteria can evolve! Thanks for killing millions of people with incurable strep throat, asshole.


That's exactly how MRSA came about, and drug-resistant TB.
 
2012-09-10 02:48:38 PM
Why are you politics tab idiots so obsessed with Ayn Rand? I see more references to her here than any libertarian site I've ever been to.
 
2012-09-10 02:48:46 PM

Thunderpipes: (no, Clinton tax increases had nothing to do with growth)


They didn't prevent growth either.
 
2012-09-10 02:49:09 PM

pedrop357: Philip Francis Queeg: There is a direct connection between the affordability of routine medical visits and the incidence of catastrophic health problems.

Then they should simply argue that. Every argument and proposal always seems to focus intently on emergencies and catastrophes. When a proposal to mitigate that is laid out, it's attacked as not fulfilling a new goal.

A sample argument follows:
Universal health insurance is necessary not just to keep people from dying because they can't afford life and death treatment (dying in the streets), but also to help prevent illnesses from getting to the point of being life and death. Proposals for catastrophe only coverage miss the point in that it would be cheaper and more effective to cover more routine/preventative care in order to reduce the number of illnesses that become so severe as to be life or death.
----
Instead we get singularly focused arguments about dying in the streets and bankruptcy for accidents and serious non-illness related care. Healthy young people would probably benefit enormously from catastrophe only coverage , but that's criticized for not covering the routine visits that even insured young people are notorious for not getting.


It's not an either or argument, as much as you would like to make it one. Access to routine and catastrophic coverage are both vitally important.

Even more importantly, it's an artificial divide. People should have access to the entire spectrum of healthcare. The argument you are making is as fallacious as any in that it based on that false division.
 
2012-09-10 02:49:13 PM

impaler: Zeb Hesselgresser: impaler: [growlersoftware.com image 850x562]

Now overlay that with Cancer Survival Rates please.

USA, USA, USA, We win.

I think you mean Cuba and France...

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 296x512]


Cuba? I question the validity of your results.

Cuba. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2012-09-10 02:49:26 PM

The Muthaship: FarkedOver: ohhh nice, the Boston Hardcore scene has my back!

Is the guy with the Cromwell haircut playing a keyboard?

If so, no hardcore card.


SSD had no keyboards! He looks like a biatchy roadie.
 
2012-09-10 02:51:27 PM

FarkedOver: SSD had no keyboards! He looks like a biatchy roadie.


Well then, carry on.
 
2012-09-10 02:51:30 PM

Graffito: CeroX: Here's what i REALLY want:

1:
I want family doctor's and practitioners to stop charging $150 for 15 minutes of their time.

That comes down to $600/hr.

I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a physical
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a prescription for $5 worth penicillin when i get a respiratory infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Flu shot
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for removing an ingrown toenail
I want them to stop charging $600/hr to treat a staph infection
I want them to stop charging $600/hr for a Vaccine

I would GLADLY pay the doctor between $25-$50 per visit for the above treatments (and $75-$100 for a specialist).
By doing that, an office is still making between 100 and 200 an hour. They won't have to accept insurance, so they can literally cut out their entire billing department. Go back to having a receptionist, a nurse, and a book keeper. Everyone gets paid a decent living wage including the doctor.

There's no need for a family MD to be a "prestigious" career that warrants 300K+ a year.

None.

2:
Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.


If they did this, this country would be healthier, happier, and wealthier. Insurance companies would be there to insure against accidents and unforeseen problems.
There wouldn't be the problem of "pre-existing condition" because all diagnosis would be affordable enough to get it when it happens. Employers wouldn't HAVE to pick up benefits, though they could if they wanted to.

But tell a doctor to lower his prices so he doesn't NEED the insurance companies, and he would probably throw up in his mouth at the idea.

I bet you want your doctor to accept a jar of pickled eggs for payment too.


"or a chicken"

chattahbox.com
 
2012-09-10 02:51:55 PM

FarkedOver: The Muthaship: FarkedOver: Well hopefully they die on their 27 birthday so they are not a burden to society.

They probably do because we have no programs in place to see to their medical care.

I don't want a bunch of 27 year old hipsters clogging up the ER when mommy and daddy's insurance runs out. farking freeloading assholes.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-10 02:52:02 PM

SpectroBoy: CeroX: Antibiotics like penicillin and amoxicillin need to be Over-the-Counter. They are cheaper than most cold and flu OTC meds and may actually CURE YOU.

[cdn.styleforum.net image 477x316]
You know how I know that you are not a doctor, pharmacist, or epidemiologist?!?


It's like he's never encountered MRSA or another antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection in his life.
 
2012-09-10 02:52:03 PM
The only actual pre-existing condition we need to deal with is GOP and DFL infection.
 
2012-09-10 02:52:37 PM
I like to picture Jesus as a figure skater. He wears like a white outfit, and He does interpretive ice dances of my life's journey.

media.screened.com
 
2012-09-10 02:52:41 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: However, since people change jobs every few years, and companies change insurers regularly, the insurer is betting you'll be Someone Else's Problem before the lack of preventive care kicks in. So then we're back to a classic coordination problem. If every insurer covered prevention they would all save money, but it's not in any individual insurer's best interest to do so.


Thank you for this response. I understand and agree with this problem of insurers basically kicking the can.

This is another problem I think can be mitigated or almost eliminated by decoupling insurance from employers.
 
2012-09-10 02:52:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


What you are missing is that poor people are put on this earth by God so that middle class people can give a couple of old cans of fruit and baked beans every year and earn they way into heaven. If liberal economic policies could eradicate poor people, everyone would be doomed to go to hell.
 
2012-09-10 02:53:19 PM
If one cares to set aside ideology and emotion in favour of rational analysis it becomes quite clear that some of the products, services and infrastructure we want is most efficiently run by private enterprise and some by collectives like the state.

Industries which benefit significatly from monopolies or universal service have been found to work well when run collectively (by the state for example, or by a private enterprise which is given a monopoly through legislation typically in exchange for providing a public benefit).

The clearest examples include:
- transport infrastructure (municipal roads, bridges and national highway systems)
- sewage and stormwater management systems
- levees and dykes
- national defense (and offense)
- electrical distribution grids
- healthcare
- education
- telecom rights of way
- policing and the judiciary

Deciding which industries we will run collectively and which we will leave to free enterprise is an important part of our civic life. If we want our country to prosper (in terms of $, quality of life and freedom) we need to be able to discuss these things rationally.

Ranting and raving about "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" and capitalism and socialism is beyond unhelpful, it is actively counter-productive. The next person to scream *socialism* or mockingly ask "what would republican Jesus do?" should punch themselves in the cock.
I'm serious. Punch yourself in the farking cock you idiot.

On the subject of healthcare; The USA has done fairly well with a mixed private/public system. You have a largely private system with public support for the poor and elderly.
It is a reasonable system which excels in some areas and leaves some gaps. Other rich western nations have opted for a larger public system, or even an entirely public system. Some of them, like Canada for instance have experienced extremely positive results.

Yet Canadians are no less Free than Americans, and Americans are not "heartless bastards leaving poor people to die outside hospitals". There are significant advantages to a universal, public system. There are significant advantages to a free-wheeling private system.
For the love of all that is holy, try a little calm, rational debate before you ruin your country by constantly obstructing and undermining each other. 


ohgod :words:
I'm sorry.
 
2012-09-10 02:55:15 PM

Egoy3k: Kit Fister: I think the issues, at least the issue for me, is that I don't expect anyone to take care of me, and I don't see why I should be expected to take care of someone else to whom I have no relationship and no obligation. I will help out my friends/neighbors/family readily, and do. However, someone who is sick because they caught a disease while using IV drugs or paying the wages of someone who screwed up on a job and got fired when they didn't bother to plan ahead and save something to cover the difference? Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's mistakes or misfortune?

But in a society, everyone looks out for each other, is that it?

I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.


Only if intelligence is a cultural difference. Guess what happens when people can't afford healthcare in your nation. They don't go die quietly in a ditch, they get treatment, in an emergency room, costing thousands more, and then you will be paying for it anyway.

Sorry to bust your bubble but you are no more self reliant than I am. It's a nice little fiction that the people against social welfare have cooked up but that's all it is, fiction. You depend on the work of others every single day of your life.


Yep, I do. The people who built my truck got paid to do it out of funds received for selling other products (and i paid for the product so that they could be paid for the next item they build). The people that harvested/baked/butchered the food I bought at the store were paid by the stores purchasing their goods.

In the case of hospitals, hospitals treat the uninsured, who can't pay. They then charge everyone else more for the same services in order to write off the costs of the patient who couldn't pay.

I think the biggest gap here is that those of us who believe in self reliance believe in the fact that we go out, we work hard, we earn money for our labors for others that we in turn use to pay for others to labor on our behalf (or we do the work ourselves not for money but for the product directly, I grow my own food and do a lot of my own work otherwise on other projects), see things in a way that suggests you're trading the compensation for your hard work to someone else in compensation for THEIR hard work.

Why is it preferable to create a system where people are rewarded with a lot of subsidization without also having them earn it? I can see helping those who have no choice because of disability, ailment, or whatever. But supporting someone who chooses not to work or seek out a bettering of their situation?
 
2012-09-10 02:55:17 PM

Old Smokie: Why are you politics tab idiots so obsessed with Ayn Rand? I see more references to her here than any libertarian site I've ever been to.


Because much like the Objectivist Society, the politics tab of Fark is chock full of selfish, angry, barely post-adolescent boys, and the man-children they sometimes turn into
 
2012-09-10 02:55:51 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: -- Romney Shell v99.25.1562.lachawana.351.beta
Select position where votes(position) > votes(opposing_position) - derp(herp);
-- Data Shimmering Detected --
0 Rows Returned


You need to make a hash join to the independent table to make that run faster.
 
2012-09-10 02:56:30 PM

pedrop357: Gaseous Anomaly: However, since people change jobs every few years, and companies change insurers regularly, the insurer is betting you'll be Someone Else's Problem before the lack of preventive care kicks in. So then we're back to a classic coordination problem. If every insurer covered prevention they would all save money, but it's not in any individual insurer's best interest to do so.

Thank you for this response. I understand and agree with this problem of insurers basically kicking the can.

This is another problem I think can be mitigated or almost eliminated by decoupling insurance from employers.


Agreed. As I said before, ObamaCares does some of this, but I would have preferred a bigger approach like the one taken in the Wyden-Bennett Act (which had several Republican co-sponsors).
 
2012-09-10 02:56:34 PM

impaler: Thunderpipes: impaler: Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

Don't let your campaign be dictated by fact checkers

[growlersoftware.com image 519x707]

And why don't you get local taxes out of there, which have nothing to do with income taxes, dumbass?


Cry me a river you lying sack of shat. Here was the exchange:
Egoy3k: I love how mysterious and scary universal healthcare is to Americans. It's as if the rest of the developed world hasn't already figured this shiat out. Basically it seems like every time you guys try something new you pretend to be brave pioneers into unknown territory.

Thunderpipes: Rest of the developed world has a much broader tax base. Might want to think about that. In what developed country to half of all people pay no income taxes towards their benefits?

You didn't say the rest of the world has a broader "income" tax base.

You then selected one specific tax in the US (on one specific year), to deliberately distort your red herring - tax base has nothing to do with healthcare costs. You have to lie to support your logical fallacy. Even your logical fallacies can't stand on their own merit.

In other words, the facts prove you wrong, so you just lie like a Republican. Scum.


Tax base most certainly does have to do with healthcare costs, when the government is running health care and providing it for a huge chunk of the population. That money comes from Federal income taxes.

You are wrong, and pretty dumb. This thread is about universal health care. This means taking money from the rich, giving it only to the poor. The poor are growing as a percentage of the population. They don't pay income taxes. Eventually this system breaks. It is already broken, but we keep borrowing.
 
2012-09-10 02:57:45 PM

Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.


Smug? How so? Because I make maybe $50k a year and spend about half that to support my aging mom and dad where their medical coverage doesn't cover it, while still paying for my own living expenses?

Or because I found ways to pay for my own schooling, grow or hunt a portion of my own food, hold down a job, work hard to better myself with education, and take care to actually bother to try and live a healthy life?

I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?
 
2012-09-10 03:00:26 PM

pedrop357: This is another problem I think can be mitigated or almost eliminated by decoupling insurance from employers.


Then what? If consumer loyalty improves service, but competition regulates prices, what's the answer? You cannot have both at any meaningful level.
 
2012-09-10 03:01:08 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here


Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.
 
2012-09-10 03:01:50 PM

Kit Fister: Smug? How so? Because I make maybe $50k a year and spend about half that to support my aging mom and dad where their medical coverage doesn't cover it, while still paying for my own living expenses?


Your parents sound lazy. They should get a job and get their own damn insurance instead of leeching of you.
 
2012-09-10 03:02:06 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.


soul-amen.com
 
2012-09-10 03:03:02 PM

Kit Fister: Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here

Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.


So if you were unable to assist your parents for their care, should others step in to help, or should they be left to fend for themselves?
 
2012-09-10 03:04:00 PM

Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.


Honestly? Your schtick hasn't been amusing in a long time. You may be old school, but you're a goddamned bore when it comes to trolling.
upurs.us
 
2012-09-10 03:04:42 PM

wmoonfox: pedrop357: This is another problem I think can be mitigated or almost eliminated by decoupling insurance from employers.

Then what? If consumer loyalty improves service, but competition regulates prices, what's the answer? You cannot have both at any meaningful level.


Actually, I think consumer loyalty hurts service in the end. If you know or believe customers will stick with you no matter what, then it becomes OK to cut corners and have reduced levels of service. The only way service improves is if it offers an incentive to people to buy it over the competition. THis is one of the reasons why cable TV companies suck the big one: they lobby hard to maintain monopolies of their markets so that consumers don't HAVE choices, thus forcing them to go with the lesser evil, if they even get that choice.

Customer loyalty is a good thing, but in business, I've found it more often leads to abusive relationships rather than a company that wants to do right by its customers in order to retain those customers.
 
2012-09-10 03:05:28 PM
"During these hard days and hard weeks, everybody always
has it bad once in a while. You know, you have a bad time of
it, and you always have a friend who says "Hey man, you
ain't got it that bad. Look at that guy." And you at that
guy, and he's got it worse than you. And it makes you feel
better that there's somebody that's got it worse than you.

But think of the last guy. For one minute, think of the last
guy. Nobody's got it worse than that guy. Nobody in the
whole world. That guy...he's so alone in the world that he
doesn't even have a street to lay in for a truck to run him over.
He's out there with nothin'. Nothin's happenin' for that cat."
 
2012-09-10 03:06:43 PM
I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

For a lot of people, much harder than you realize.

The world is not divided into lazy people and hard working people.

There are also disabled people, people with cancer, people living where unemployment is insanely high, but they can't move because they are the sole care providers for aforementioned disabled and sick people, etc.......
 
2012-09-10 03:07:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here

Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.

So if you were unable to assist your parents for their care, should others step in to help, or should they be left to fend for themselves?


If I were unable to assist my parents for their care, then we would do the best that we could. If others wanted to voluntarily step in and help we would accept that if it were truly necessary, but it is not the obligation of anyone else to provide for their care.

In this case, my parents stepped in and helped me when I was hospitalized and had major issues that cost a LOT of money, which wiped out their savings. I am now paying them back in the only way I can: contributing to the household in order to try and help them in order to save them some money and prevent major issues.
 
2012-09-10 03:08:06 PM

Kit Fister: Yep, I do. The people who built my truck got paid to do it out of funds received for selling other products (and i paid for the product so that they could be paid for the next item they build). The people that harvested/baked/butchered the food I bought at the store were paid by the stores purchasing their goods.


Their factory bought steel shipped in on publicly funded railroads and the truck was shipped on a publicly funded road. Their manufacturing and distribution centers have reduced costs of physical security because the system of crime and punishment that exists in a modern society seeks to reduce crime (weather it works or not is a separate issue). The natural resources that go into that truck are defended from foreign aggression by a standing military and countless legal treaties of mutual defense which were all brokered and administered by the federal government.

In the case of hospitals, hospitals treat the uninsured, who can't pay. They then charge everyone else more for the same services in order to write off the costs of the patient who couldn't pay.

So why not reduce the costs that are passed along by insuring everyone and making sure they can visit a GP instead of an emergency room?

I think the biggest gap here is that those of us who believe in self reliance believe in the fact that we go out, we work hard, we earn money for our labors for others that we in turn use to pay for others to labor on our behalf (or we do the work ourselves not for money but for the product directly, I grow my own food and do a lot of my own work otherwise on other projects), see things in a way that suggests you're trading the compensation for your hard work to someone else in compensation for THEIR hard work.

The difference is that you believe several popular fictions about the nature of modern society and your independence within it.

Why is it preferable to create a system where people are rewarded with a lot of subsidization without also having them earn it? I can see helping those who have no choice because of disability, ailment, or whatever. But supporting someone who chooses not to work or seek out a bettering of their situation?

Because people without stuff seek to acquire it, I'd rather pay the tax man a little more than have it taken at knife or gunpoint or stolen out of my car. The disadvantaged won't go away. Instead of punishing them for being poor and kicking them back to the gutter until they decide to fight back lets help them move up the ladder of society instead.
 
2012-09-10 03:10:58 PM

Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here

Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.

So if you were unable to assist your parents for their care, should others step in to help, or should they be left to fend for themselves?

If I were unable to assist my parents for their care, then we would do the best that we could. If others wanted to voluntarily step in and help we would accept that if it were truly necessary, but it is not the obligation of anyone else to provide for their care.

In this case, my parents stepped in and helped me when I was hospitalized and had major issues that cost a LOT of money, which wiped out their savings. I am now paying them back in the only way I can: contributing to the household in order to try and help them in order to save them some money and prevent major issues.


So what should have happened if your parents could not have helped you? Should you have been left to suffer?
 
2012-09-10 03:11:45 PM

Egoy3k: Instead of punishing them for being poor and kicking them back to the gutter until they decide to fight back lets help them move up the ladder of society instead.


And the GOP doesn't realize they're sitting on a goldmine of bootstrappy people lifting themselves out of poverty by using these programs (assuming the GOP leaves them in a workable state) going on to become successful Republican leaders. People like Ronald Reagan, who didn't grow up in the lap of luxury.

If we framed it as "investing in the next generation of workers/innovators", would we get more GOP buy-in?
 
2012-09-10 03:12:43 PM

Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here

Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.

So if you were unable to assist your parents for their care, should others step in to help, or should they be left to fend for themselves?

If I were unable to assist my parents for their care, then we would do the best that we could. If others wanted to voluntarily step in and help we would accept that if it were truly necessary, but it is not the obligation of anyone else to provide for their care.

In this case, my parents stepped in and helped me when I was hospitalized and had major issues that cost a LOT of money, which wiped out their savings. I am now paying them back in the only way I can: contributing to the household in order to try and help them in order to save them some money and prevent major issues.


If one of your parents was having a heart attack and you knew that you could not pay for the treatment, would you call 911, or would you stand by your principles and let them die?
 
2012-09-10 03:13:15 PM

ddelorm: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

For a lot of people, much harder than you realize.

The world is not divided into lazy people and hard working people.

There are also disabled people, people with cancer, people living where unemployment is insanely high, but they can't move because they are the sole care providers for aforementioned disabled and sick people, etc.......


There are always these cases, and in these cases, I fully agree with finding ways to help them because for them it is not their fault they are forced to be in such a position.

However, that is a voluntary position (finding ways to help them, not being stuck in that position), not something I think should be forced on others who have their own burdens to carry.

I admit I don't have the answer. I don't know how we get from here to there, because there has to be a point at which those who are able take responsibility for themselves do so and give back rather than just live off the system.
 
2012-09-10 03:13:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: JackieRabbit: No one was dying of polio in 1967 -- not in the US, anyway. Health insurance, as we know it today, is only about 40 years old. You know what people didn't do back then? Run to the doctor for every little sniffle and submit to tens-of-thousands of dollars in tests in order to be misdiagnosed.

The first employer health insurance in the US predates the Civil War. It became common after WWII. Check your facts.


I have. The first private health insurance came about in the 1920s, but it was nothing like it is today. The 19 century "insurance" to mention was not insurance at all. Some employers would cover the cost of care for injuries on the job, but not many did this. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations have their origins back in the 1920s, but they didn't start out selling health insurance as we understand it today; that came much later. The health insurance you state became common after WWII is the hospitalization insurance I mentioned. Very few working people had any insurance. When I was a kid, no one had it -- it was something rich kids parents had. Health insurance, as we know it today, is modeled on Medicare, which came into existence in 1965. All health insurers start with the Medicare medical policy and tweak it as needed.
 
2012-09-10 03:15:08 PM

Kit Fister: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?


Are you under the impression that there is no ratio of income-to-medical-expenses that falls very far outside of your own?
 
2012-09-10 03:15:58 PM

deadplant: Yet Canadians are no less Free than Americans, and Americans are not "heartless bastards leaving poor people to die outside hospitals".


Canada is actually ranked higher than the US in terms of economic freedom.
 
2012-09-10 03:17:33 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: Zeb Hesselgresser: Graffito: Kit Fister: I don't understand that way. I only understand being self-relient and self-sufficient. I work at a job I hate to provide for my family. I work hard to try and stay healthy so I don't end up back in the hospital with lots of bills. I refuse to take every new test and medication because frankly all that does is feed into the idea that you're sick with SOMETHING and end up leaving you paying a LOT of money to cover what amounts to being psycho-somatic.

I suppose it's really a cultural difference.

You sound smug.  Please go live on an island somewhere so us mere mortals don't infringe on your boot-strappitude.

Allow me translate: Personal Responsibility don't go 'round here

Ah, okay. I was wondering. I genuinely don't get how I sound smug...I just farking take care of myself because I refuse to ask other people to do it for me. I'd rather do it myself. Makes me feel useful.

So if you were unable to assist your parents for their care, should others step in to help, or should they be left to fend for themselves?

If I were unable to assist my parents for their care, then we would do the best that we could. If others wanted to voluntarily step in and help we would accept that if it were truly necessary, but it is not the obligation of anyone else to provide for their care.

In this case, my parents stepped in and helped me when I was hospitalized and had major issues that cost a LOT of money, which wiped out their savings. I am now paying them back in the only way I can: contributing to the household in order to try and help them in order to save them some money and prevent major issues.

If one of your parents was having a heart attack and you knew that you could not pay for the treatment, would you call 911, or would you stand by your principles and let them die?


I'd call 9-1-1 knowing that we pay for insurance coverage that will pick up part of the tab, and also knowing that the hospital will set up a payment plan to pay off the bill should a catastrophic emergency like that occur, then pay it off over time as we can afford to. I still would refuse to ask anyone else to pay the bill for me, I'd work as long as I had to to pay off the bill, as I'm doing now with some of my OWN bills.

However, since you bring it up, I've got about $5k in outstanding medical bills. Since it sounds like you're offering to pay them for me, what's your address so I can have them forwarded to you for payment? EIP.
 
2012-09-10 03:17:36 PM

Kit Fister: ddelorm: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

For a lot of people, much harder than you realize.

The world is not divided into lazy people and hard working people.

There are also disabled people, people with cancer, people living where unemployment is insanely high, but they can't move because they are the sole care providers for aforementioned disabled and sick people, etc.......

There are always these cases, and in these cases, I fully agree with finding ways to help them because for them it is not their fault they are forced to be in such a position.

However, that is a voluntary position (finding ways to help them, not being stuck in that position), not something I think should be forced on others who have their own burdens to carry.

I admit I don't have the answer. I don't know how we get from here to there, because there has to be a point at which those who are able take responsibility for themselves do so and give back rather than just live off the system.


I think that's hat people are trying to say here.

The government has the ability to maximize the alleviation of suffering.

It does so for the benefit of the entire nation, but at the cost of the entire nation.

That's what civilized counties and leaders do.

A percentage will abuse this help, but I consider that the small cost of helping those who really need it.

My humanity won't let me let people suffer, but I cannot help everyone myself, so I allow our government help people with some of my earnings.

Because someday, I may need that help myself.
 
2012-09-10 03:18:16 PM

Kit Fister: Smug? How so? Because I make maybe $50k a year and spend about half that to support my aging mom and dad where their medical coverage doesn't cover it, while still paying for my own living expenses?


Because you think that making $50K a year and helping out your parents while paying for your own living expenses is special. Because you think that other people are lazier than you.
Because you are so sure other people's health care needs are self-inflicted. Most sick people aren't IV drug users or hypochondriacs. As you point out, it's not hard to get a job and pay your bills until...that serious diagnosis comes down. Just when you need your job for its insurance coverage, you may find yourself unable to work as hard as when you were healthy. And then come the layoffs.

You sound like a self-righteous asshole whose smugness would get wiped off his face during his first chemotherapy treatment.
 
2012-09-10 03:19:29 PM

someonelse: Kit Fister: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

Are you under the impression that there is no ratio of income-to-medical-expenses that falls very far outside of your own?


No, I'm under no illusions about that. I make $50k/year NOW (made barely 38k then), and had about $210k worth of medical bills in one year.

My parents helped me pay off those bills, and there are still some I'm paying off incrementally after negotiating a monthly payment (with interest) to the hospital.
 
2012-09-10 03:20:35 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?


A final solution?

img2-1.timeinc.net
 
2012-09-10 03:21:03 PM

CeroX: There's no need for a family MD to be a "prestigious" career that warrants 300K+ a year.


I don't know where you live, but around here, family practice doctors make around $150k.
 
2012-09-10 03:22:11 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Old Smokie: Why are you politics tab idiots so obsessed with Ayn Rand? I see more references to her here than any libertarian site I've ever been to.

Because much like the Objectivist Society, the politics tab of Fark is chock full of selfish, angry, barely post-adolescent boys, and the man-children they sometimes turn into


Or because it's funny that so many republicans worship the terrible writing of a Russian atheist who called people who act like Mitt Romney "looters?"
 
2012-09-10 03:22:57 PM

Kit Fister: I'd call 9-1-1 knowing that we pay for insurance coverage that will pick up part of the tab, and also knowing that the hospital will set up a payment plan to pay off the bill should a catastrophic emergency like that occur, then pay it off over time as we can afford to. I still would refuse to ask anyone else to pay the bill for me, I'd work as long as I had to to pay off the bill, as I'm doing now with some of my OWN bills.

However, since you bring it up, I've got about $5k in outstanding medical bills. Since it sounds like you're offering to pay them for me, what's your address so I can have them forwarded to you for payment? EIP.


Oh, so you expect the hospital and all of the other healthcare providers to cover your costs for years or decades, if you can repay them at all. Perhaps they should demand cash up front to avoid irresponsible people who expect them to assume such burdens.
 
2012-09-10 03:23:24 PM

Graffito: Kit Fister: Smug? How so? Because I make maybe $50k a year and spend about half that to support my aging mom and dad where their medical coverage doesn't cover it, while still paying for my own living expenses?

Because you think that making $50K a year and helping out your parents while paying for your own living expenses is special. Because you think that other people are lazier than you.
Because you are so sure other people's health care needs are self-inflicted. Most sick people aren't IV drug users or hypochondriacs. As you point out, it's not hard to get a job and pay your bills until...that serious diagnosis comes down. Just when you need your job for its insurance coverage, you may find yourself unable to work as hard as when you were healthy. And then come the layoffs.

You sound like a self-righteous asshole whose smugness would get wiped off his face during his first chemotherapy treatment.


I never said it was special, nor did I say or think anyone else is lazier than me. Hell, I know that there are a LOT Of people that have medical issues they are born with, or are inflicted on them without their input.

Having BEEN in the hospital facing just the same situation that you describe, I know what it's like. I know what needing help feels like. But I, me, myself, refused to ask for help from the government or anyone else, because I alone am responsible. I accepted help from my family because I had no other choice. Until they stepped in and offered, I was paying roughly 60% of my salary a month to pay off those bills, and associated credit cards that were used to pay for up front costs.

I simply made a statement that I didn't believe in social programs because I grew up believing in taking care of myself and not expecting others to pay my bills for me.

So fark you and your assumptions about self-righteousness.
 
2012-09-10 03:24:22 PM
steps to address this

1) fix the ICD9 codes and set real prices on the cost of them not some wet dream billing clerks idea
2) require every provider too use this list.
3) NO exclusions, if you pay you are covered.
4) set a staderd perperson per month rate. $100. per adult ad $25 per each child per month
5) percriptions fix FDA approcval proccess and have and independant boarrd of PHD's to look ad all current and new drug prices.
6) set most RX' prices at $15.00
 
2012-09-10 03:25:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: I'd call 9-1-1 knowing that we pay for insurance coverage that will pick up part of the tab, and also knowing that the hospital will set up a payment plan to pay off the bill should a catastrophic emergency like that occur, then pay it off over time as we can afford to. I still would refuse to ask anyone else to pay the bill for me, I'd work as long as I had to to pay off the bill, as I'm doing now with some of my OWN bills.

However, since you bring it up, I've got about $5k in outstanding medical bills. Since it sounds like you're offering to pay them for me, what's your address so I can have them forwarded to you for payment? EIP.

Oh, so you expect the hospital and all of the other healthcare providers to cover your costs for years or decades, if you can repay them at all. Perhaps they should demand cash up front to avoid irresponsible people who expect them to assume such burdens.


Uhm, every time I've negotiated a pay-off plan, there's interest involved, and it's a pay-off-in-x-time deal. If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage, and other ways of getting help that doesn't provide me expecting anyone to do anything for me.
 
2012-09-10 03:28:35 PM

Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,


The American Dream!
 
2012-09-10 03:31:23 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.


No, it's more like having insurance, then crashing your car because the brakes fail.

And then it turns out that your brake line had a leak last year - a month before you got this insurance policy.

PREEXISTING CONDITION - SUCK IT.

Seriously - my wife's new insurance tried to deny a prescription since it's for something that she must have had prior to being insured. Luckily, we had proof that she has had insurance uninterrupted from the time of her original diagnosis 5 years ago.

There are enough cases of "You've had insurance for 2 years, but you were just diagnosed with stage 4 cancer? You must have had that cancer prior to being insured, so tough shiat" that you can't pretend it's all just people waiting until the last minute to get insurance.
 
2012-09-10 03:31:29 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,

The American Dream!


Look, catastrophic things can and do happen. Most of the times, we have savings to cover this stuff. I'm slowly building a health savings account and a standard savings account pooled with my parents to cover the eventual necessities of care.

That doesn't mean that should something horrible happen that requires me to pay for something unexpected like a heart attack or a stroke, I wouldn't do whatever was necessary MYSELF to pay off the bill rather than expecting someone ELSE to pay it for me.

Again, there's this whole concept of expectation. I don't EXPECT it to happen. I will accept it if offered, but I won't seek it out.
 
2012-09-10 03:31:30 PM

Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: I'd call 9-1-1 knowing that we pay for insurance coverage that will pick up part of the tab, and also knowing that the hospital will set up a payment plan to pay off the bill should a catastrophic emergency like that occur, then pay it off over time as we can afford to. I still would refuse to ask anyone else to pay the bill for me, I'd work as long as I had to to pay off the bill, as I'm doing now with some of my OWN bills.

However, since you bring it up, I've got about $5k in outstanding medical bills. Since it sounds like you're offering to pay them for me, what's your address so I can have them forwarded to you for payment? EIP.

Oh, so you expect the hospital and all of the other healthcare providers to cover your costs for years or decades, if you can repay them at all. Perhaps they should demand cash up front to avoid irresponsible people who expect them to assume such burdens.

Uhm, every time I've negotiated a pay-off plan, there's interest involved, and it's a pay-off-in-x-time deal. If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage, and other ways of getting help that doesn't provide me expecting anyone to do anything for me.


What interest rate are you paying? Is it enough to cover the risk that you will default on the loan? What collateral did you put up? Could they have made more investing the money rather than supporting your irresponsible decision to accept services you could not pay for? Why haven't you sold your house so that you are not burdening the hospital and other providers with the cost of paying for your irresponsible decisions? I would think someone like you would be deeply ashamed of the burden you have forced others to accept merely so that you could get healthcare.

It sounds like you are as bad as those terrible people you criticize who accept help from the government.
 
2012-09-10 03:32:34 PM

The Muthaship: clevershark: Noam Chimpsky: They should have bought insurance before their pre existing condition happened. Instead, they partied on crack.

Yeah, that lazy farker who was born with spina bifida is getting what he deserves!

They are covered under their parents insurance until they are 26.


But if the kid wasn't covered under insurance at birth, he's permanently farked.
 
2012-09-10 03:36:46 PM

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


Are you one of those idiotic "taxation is theft" farkwits?

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
- Mark 12:17
 
2012-09-10 03:37:27 PM

Kit Fister: Dusk-You-n-Me: Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,

The American Dream!

Look, catastrophic things can and do happen. Most of the times, we have savings to cover this stuff. I'm slowly building a health savings account and a standard savings account pooled with my parents to cover the eventual necessities of care.

That doesn't mean that should something horrible happen that requires me to pay for something unexpected like a heart attack or a stroke, I wouldn't do whatever was necessary MYSELF to pay off the bill rather than expecting someone ELSE to pay it for me.

Again, there's this whole concept of expectation. I don't EXPECT it to happen. I will accept it if offered, but I won't seek it out.


Young, I see.
30 years ago, my daughter was born w/ heart defects.
She burned 2 MILLION DOLLARS in 2 years in insurance.
We still went bankrupt.

How much can you mortgage that house for?
How about after you lose your income?
Qualify for financing?

Keep dreaming, you don't want to face any reality.
 
2012-09-10 03:37:55 PM

Kit Fister: there's always a house I own that I can mortgage, and other ways of getting help that doesn't provide me expecting anyone to do anything for me.


Except for all the regulations imposed upon the mortgage industry (enacted and enforced on the government dime) and the fact that the value of your house is directly related to many factors which were payed for by others tax dollars such as schools and roads. No you wouldn't have been asking anything of anybody but you sure as hell would have been using the assistance of many others in the form of benefiting from their tax expenditures.
 
Ant
2012-09-10 03:40:37 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.


Good riddance

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 (by which I mean the tax payers) to pay for my (and everyone else's) health care. They will save money if they do it correctly.

www.kff.org
 
2012-09-10 03:41:05 PM
Well, there's your problem. The GOP only pimps Jesus, they don't pay attention to what he actually said. The shiat he actually said is total pussy-assed socialism.
 
2012-09-10 03:41:42 PM
Philip Francis Queeg:
What interest rate are you paying? Is it enough to cover the risk that you will default on the loan? What collateral did you put up? Could they have made more investing the money rather than supporting your irresponsible decision to accept services you could not pay for? Why haven't you sold your house so that you are not burdening the hospital and other providers with the cost of paying for your irresponsible decisions? I would think someone like you would be deeply ashamed of the burden you have forced others to accept merely so that you could get healthcare.

It sounds like you are as bad as those terrible people you criticize who accept help from the government.

About 12%, it's a wage garnishment so collateral was future holdings along with legal action, they probably could have, I've sold everything but my house that I can live without to pay it down as quickly as possible, and at the time was preparing to get a loan on my house to pay it down that way when they offered me this other option, And I am deeply ashamed of being in debt to the hospital, let alone anything or anyone else.

However, I think we need to differentiate something here, and this is my fault for not clarifying: I criticize those who are perfectly able to provide for themselves and save money to cover their costs, and do not. I criticize those who scam government assistance willfully rather than work when they can get jobs and are offered jobs but refuse to take them. I won't begrudge someone who NEEDS help from asking for it. I'll help someone when I can.

However, when someone suggests that they should be given something they didn't earn and have other means at their disposal and refuse to use them, then I get kinda pissed.

does that make sense?
 
2012-09-10 03:42:57 PM

deadplant: On the subject of healthcare; The USA has done fairly well with a mixed private/public system. You have a largely private system with public support for the poor and elderly.It is a reasonable system which excels in some areas and leaves some gaps. Other rich western nations have opted for a larger public system, or even an entirely public system. Some of them, like Canada for instance have experienced extremely positive results.


Err, the USA comes about 37th in healthcare outcomes while spending more (as a % of GDP) than any other nation. All nations that have well funded modern health systems that are largely public have better healthcare outcomes than the US. US Healthcare is about three to four times as expensive as the outcomes provided suggest it should be, if it wasn't for the counterproductive private parts of the system. So no, the US hasn't done "fairly well" with it's current system, it has done abysmally - it seems fairly shocking that health charities created to go to third world countries have to visit the US.
 
2012-09-10 03:43:42 PM

snocone: Kit Fister: Dusk-You-n-Me: Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,

The American Dream!

Look, catastrophic things can and do happen. Most of the times, we have savings to cover this stuff. I'm slowly building a health savings account and a standard savings account pooled with my parents to cover the eventual necessities of care.

That doesn't mean that should something horrible happen that requires me to pay for something unexpected like a heart attack or a stroke, I wouldn't do whatever was necessary MYSELF to pay off the bill rather than expecting someone ELSE to pay it for me.

Again, there's this whole concept of expectation. I don't EXPECT it to happen. I will accept it if offered, but I won't seek it out.

Young, I see.
30 years ago, my daughter was born w/ heart defects.
She burned 2 MILLION DOLLARS in 2 years in insurance.
We still went bankrupt.

How much can you mortgage that house for?
How about after you lose your income?
Qualify for financing?

Keep dreaming, you don't want to face any reality.


Really? What part of being in a similar situation sans going bankrupt did you miss?

But whatever. I give up. I guess i'm just an entitled snot because I refuse to live my life expecting someone else to bail me out should the worst happen.
 
2012-09-10 03:44:23 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


The individual mandate was ruled constitutional under the premise of the penalty being a tax. If you have insurance you get a tax credit/discount/whatever.

If that is unconstitutional, so is the mortgage discount, so is the child tax credit.

Also, the constitution states SCOTUS has final say on what is constitutional. Think it was wrong, start an ammendment.
 
2012-09-10 03:44:28 PM

Egoy3k: Kit Fister: there's always a house I own that I can mortgage, and other ways of getting help that doesn't provide me expecting anyone to do anything for me.

Except for all the regulations imposed upon the mortgage industry (enacted and enforced on the government dime) and the fact that the value of your house is directly related to many factors which were payed for by others tax dollars such as schools and roads. No you wouldn't have been asking anything of anybody but you sure as hell would have been using the assistance of many others in the form of benefiting from their tax expenditures.


Fine, I quit. I'm a hypocrite. Your way is better.
 
2012-09-10 03:47:03 PM

Kit Fister: However, I think we need to differentiate something here, and this is my fault for not clarifying: I criticize those who are perfectly able to provide for themselves and save money to cover their costs, and do not. I criticize those who scam government assistance willfully rather than work when they can get jobs and are offered jobs but refuse to take them. I won't begrudge someone who NEEDS help from asking for it. I'll help someone when I can.

However, when someone suggests that they should be given something they didn't earn and have other means at their disposal and refuse to use them, then I get kinda pissed.

does that make sense?


You have the means at your disposal to pay your debt. You refuse to use those means.You did not earn the medical services that you accepted without the ability to pay for them. You asked for assistance in payment when you set up a payment plan rather than selling your home to pay for the services.

So tell us, how are you some ideal of self sufficiency that can preach about the irresponsibility of others?

Do you suppose that there are doctors and others who are pissed at your non-payment? Do you suppose they look down on you with the same contempt with which you look down on others?
 
2012-09-10 03:48:57 PM
As opposed to DemObama's, who's diagram is one BIG circle labeled "People Who We Want To Tell What To Do"

\\Hoping for a Regime change this time
 
2012-09-10 03:48:58 PM
href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7318636/79281933#c79281933" target="_blank">bifford: I'd like to know a good right-wing forum where I can explore how Republicans think. I don't want something too crazy, but something more representative of the conservative mainstream.

Not exactly what you're looking for because it has all sides generally, but it's pretty civil and serious conservatives are well-represented:
AmericasDebate

And there goes the rest of your day. :)
 
2012-09-10 03:49:29 PM

blahpers: 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.


I knew you were. I just chose to invoke it a little more explicitly.

/Apologies for calling you out.
 
2012-09-10 03:49:45 PM

Alonjar: 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


Not always. The free market used to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions even if they had maintained continuous coverage up to that point. As in, a new insurer could refuse to pick you up, or exempt anything related to your prexisting condition (and they would make sure everything was related to your pre-existing condition) when you changed plans. Leading to, "Do I dare see a doctor about this? I might get laid off this year and have to find another job. So long as no doctor has seen it yet, it can't be a pre-existing condition. If I can just hold out until I get a new job, and for the probationary period after that, then I can go see a doctor." Nowadays, your new employer's plan has to take you if you've avoided a gap in coverage, whether they want to or not. Private insurance that you have to buy yourself after the COBRA runs out may not be subject to the same restrictions, I'm not sure.
 
2012-09-10 03:50:26 PM
It amazes me there are people out there, who think going broke or into massive debt to pay for health care is, somehow, the way it should be in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
 
2012-09-10 03:50:46 PM
The Heritage Foundation lists nine countries that have more economic freedom than the USA, and all nine of them have some form of public health coverage: Link
 
2012-09-10 03:52:16 PM

Kit Fister: snocone: Kit Fister: Dusk-You-n-Me: Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,

The American Dream!

Look, catastrophic things can and do happen. Most of the times, we have savings to cover this stuff. I'm slowly building a health savings account and a standard savings account pooled with my parents to cover the eventual necessities of care.

That doesn't mean that should something horrible happen that requires me to pay for something unexpected like a heart attack or a stroke, I wouldn't do whatever was necessary MYSELF to pay off the bill rather than expecting someone ELSE to pay it for me.

Again, there's this whole concept of expectation. I don't EXPECT it to happen. I will accept it if offered, but I won't seek it out.

Young, I see.
30 years ago, my daughter was born w/ heart defects.
She burned 2 MILLION DOLLARS in 2 years in insurance.
We still went bankrupt.

How much can you mortgage that house for?
How about after you lose your income?
Qualify for financing?

Keep dreaming, you don't want to face any reality.

Really? What part of being in a similar situation sans going bankrupt did you miss?

But whatever. I give up. I guess i'm just an entitled snot because I refuse to live my life expecting someone else to bail me out should the worst happen.


What part of $2M 30 years ago do you miss. Spent in two years.
Today world, maybe $10-12Mil. Only Congress No Limit Health Insurance For Life would cover that and you can't have any.
So you think you can handle that bill for someone else you self-centered self-absorbed obtuse falatus?
 
2012-09-10 03:52:50 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: However, I think we need to differentiate something here, and this is my fault for not clarifying: I criticize those who are perfectly able to provide for themselves and save money to cover their costs, and do not. I criticize those who scam government assistance willfully rather than work when they can get jobs and are offered jobs but refuse to take them. I won't begrudge someone who NEEDS help from asking for it. I'll help someone when I can.

However, when someone suggests that they should be given something they didn't earn and have other means at their disposal and refuse to use them, then I get kinda pissed.

does that make sense?

You have the means at your disposal to pay your debt. You refuse to use those means.You did not earn the medical services that you accepted without the ability to pay for them. You asked for assistance in payment when you set up a payment plan rather than selling your home to pay for the services.

So tell us, how are you some ideal of self sufficiency that can preach about the irresponsibility of others?

Do you suppose that there are doctors and others who are pissed at your non-payment? Do you suppose they look down on you with the same contempt with which you look down on others?


well, no, I didn't ask for assistance, it was offered.

but you're absolutely right.
 
2012-09-10 03:53:32 PM

andrewagill: I was invoking the "implicit 'This!" meme. I agree wholeheartedly.

I knew you were. I just chose to invoke it a little more explicitly.


I think the explicit "This" is a better affirmation than simply quoting something without comment. And on that note,

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

THIS.
 
2012-09-10 03:53:56 PM

BomberPilot: As opposed to DemObama's, who's diagram is one BIG circle labeled "People Who We Want To Tell What To Do"

\\Hoping for a Regime change this time


Heh... It's one of those "Low Info Voters" I'm always reading about.
 
2012-09-10 03:54:13 PM

Kit Fister: Philip Francis Queeg: Kit Fister: However, I think we need to differentiate something here, and this is my fault for not clarifying: I criticize those who are perfectly able to provide for themselves and save money to cover their costs, and do not. I criticize those who scam government assistance willfully rather than work when they can get jobs and are offered jobs but refuse to take them. I won't begrudge someone who NEEDS help from asking for it. I'll help someone when I can.

However, when someone suggests that they should be given something they didn't earn and have other means at their disposal and refuse to use them, then I get kinda pissed.

does that make sense?

You have the means at your disposal to pay your debt. You refuse to use those means.You did not earn the medical services that you accepted without the ability to pay for them. You asked for assistance in payment when you set up a payment plan rather than selling your home to pay for the services.

So tell us, how are you some ideal of self sufficiency that can preach about the irresponsibility of others?

Do you suppose that there are doctors and others who are pissed at your non-payment? Do you suppose they look down on you with the same contempt with which you look down on others?

well, no, I didn't ask for assistance, it was offered.

but you're absolutely right.


Really, you handed them a check for the full amount of your bill and they countered with an offer of a payment plan?
 
2012-09-10 03:54:24 PM

xria: deadplant: On the subject of healthcare; The USA has done fairly well with a mixed private/public system. You have a largely private system with public support for the poor and elderly.It is a reasonable system which excels in some areas and leaves some gaps. Other rich western nations have opted for a larger public system, or even an entirely public system. Some of them, like Canada for instance have experienced extremely positive results.

Err, the USA comes about 37th in healthcare outcomes while spending more (as a % of GDP) than any other nation. All nations that have well funded modern health systems that are largely public have better healthcare outcomes than the US. US Healthcare is about three to four times as expensive as the outcomes provided suggest it should be, if it wasn't for the counterproductive private parts of the system. So no, the US hasn't done "fairly well" with it's current system, it has done abysmally - it seems fairly shocking that health charities created to go to third world countries have to visit the US.


37th is pretty poor considering how rich the country is over all.
But there *are* 180+ countries out there. If 37th is abysmal we're going to run out of negative adjectives long before we get to the bottom of the list.

My point was, let's tone down the hyperbole and consider our options on their merits instead of just attacking each other.
 
2012-09-10 03:55:01 PM

Kit Fister: Graffito: Kit Fister: Smug? How so? Because I make maybe $50k a year and spend about half that to support my aging mom and dad where their medical coverage doesn't cover it, while still paying for my own living expenses?

Because you think that making $50K a year and helping out your parents while paying for your own living expenses is special. Because you think that other people are lazier than you.
Because you are so sure other people's health care needs are self-inflicted. Most sick people aren't IV drug users or hypochondriacs. As you point out, it's not hard to get a job and pay your bills until...that serious diagnosis comes down. Just when you need your job for its insurance coverage, you may find yourself unable to work as hard as when you were healthy. And then come the layoffs.

You sound like a self-righteous asshole whose smugness would get wiped off his face during his first chemotherapy treatment.

I never said it was special, nor did I say or think anyone else is lazier than me. Hell, I know that there are a LOT Of people that have medical issues they are born with, or are inflicted on them without their input.

Having BEEN in the hospital facing just the same situation that you describe, I know what it's like. I know what needing help feels like. But I, me, myself, refused to ask for help from the government or anyone else, because I alone am responsible. I accepted help from my family because I had no other choice. Until they stepped in and offered, I was paying roughly 60% of my salary a month to pay off those bills, and associated credit cards that were used to pay for up front costs.

I simply made a statement that I didn't believe in social programs because I grew up believing in taking care of myself and not expecting others to pay my bills for me.

So fark you and your assumptions about self-righteousness.

My parents helped me pay off those bills


The attitude is the easy part... but when it comes down to actually doing, better hope your parents are still alive!
 
2012-09-10 03:55:33 PM

deadplant: If one cares to set aside ideology and emotion in favour of rational analysis it becomes quite clear that some of the products, services and infrastructure we want is most efficiently run by private enterprise and some by collectives like the state.

Industries which benefit significatly from monopolies or universal service have been found to work well when run collectively (by the state for example, or by a private enterprise which is given a monopoly through legislation typically in exchange for providing a public benefit).

The clearest examples include:
- transport infrastructure (municipal roads, bridges and national highway systems)
- sewage and stormwater management systems
- levees and dykes
- national defense (and offense)
- electrical distribution grids
- healthcare
- education
- telecom rights of way
- policing and the judiciary

Deciding which industries we will run collectively and which we will leave to free enterprise is an important part of our civic life. If we want our country to prosper (in terms of $, quality of life and freedom) we need to be able to discuss these things rationally.

Ranting and raving about "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" and capitalism and socialism is beyond unhelpful, it is actively counter-productive. The next person to scream *socialism* or mockingly ask "what would republican Jesus do?" should punch themselves in the cock.
I'm serious. Punch yourself in the farking cock you idiot.

On the subject of healthcare; The USA has done fairly well with a mixed private/public system. You have a largely private system with public support for the poor and elderly.
It is a reasonable system which excels in some areas and leaves some gaps. Other rich western nations have opted for a larger public system, or even an entirely public system. Some of them, like Canada for instance have experienced extremely positive results.

Yet Canadians are no less Free than Americans, and Americans are not "heartless bastards leaving poor people to die outside hospitals". There are significant advantages to a universal, public system. There are significant advantages to a free-wheeling private system.
For the love of all that is holy, try a little calm, rational debate before you ruin your country by constantly obstructing and undermining each other. 


ohgod :words:
I'm sorry.


It's nice you've found a way to feel superior to everyone else.
 
2012-09-10 03:55:53 PM

Kit Fister: someonelse: Kit Fister: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

Are you under the impression that there is no ratio of income-to-medical-expenses that falls very far outside of your own?

No, I'm under no illusions about that. I make $50k/year NOW (made barely 38k then), and had about $210k worth of medical bills in one year.

My parents helped me pay off those bills, and there are still some I'm paying off incrementally after negotiating a monthly payment (with interest) to the hospital.


So, when you asked, "How hard is it to get a job and pay your bills and look out for yourself," You kind of really meant, "How hard it is to get a job and pay some of your bills and have parents who will help you pay off the rest?"
 
2012-09-10 03:57:30 PM

Kit Fister: However, I think we need to differentiate something here, and this is my fault for not clarifying: I criticize those who are perfectly able to provide for themselves and save money to cover their costs, and do not. I criticize those who scam government assistance willfully rather than work when they can get jobs and are offered jobs but refuse to take them. I won't begrudge someone who NEEDS help from asking for it. I'll help someone when I can.

However, when someone suggests that they should be given something they didn't earn and have other means at their disposal and refuse to use them, then I get kinda pissed.

does that make sense?


Are you a qualified arbiter of who deserves help and who doesn't? Do you really believe that a majority of people struggling to find healthcare are just lazy? Do lazy people deserve illness, disability or death?

It's fine that your own actions re: healthcare reflect your personal moral code. I still don't think 60% of your salary, crushing debt, etc. is a reasonable burden that should be expected of anyone who becomes seriously ill. We are not a serfdom and never should be.
 
2012-09-10 03:57:34 PM

xria: deadplant: On the subject of healthcare; The USA has done fairly well with a mixed private/public system. You have a largely private system with public support for the poor and elderly.It is a reasonable system which excels in some areas and leaves some gaps. Other rich western nations have opted for a larger public system, or even an entirely public system. Some of them, like Canada for instance have experienced extremely positive results.

Err, the USA comes about 37th in healthcare outcomes while spending more (as a % of GDP) than any other nation. All nations that have well funded modern health systems that are largely public have better healthcare outcomes than the US. US Healthcare is about three to four times as expensive as the outcomes provided suggest it should be, if it wasn't for the counterproductive private parts of the system. So no, the US hasn't done "fairly well" with it's current system, it has done abysmally - it seems fairly shocking that health charities created to go to third world countries have to visit the US.


Did you read past the graph on that ranking??? Here, let me help you.
The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[4]
Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
Glen Whitman claims, "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
 
2012-09-10 03:57:41 PM

snocone: Kit Fister: snocone: Kit Fister: Dusk-You-n-Me: Kit Fister: If i couldn't do that with the hospital, there's always a house I own that I can mortgage,

The American Dream!

Look, catastrophic things can and do happen. Most of the times, we have savings to cover this stuff. I'm slowly building a health savings account and a standard savings account pooled with my parents to cover the eventual necessities of care.

That doesn't mean that should something horrible happen that requires me to pay for something unexpected like a heart attack or a stroke, I wouldn't do whatever was necessary MYSELF to pay off the bill rather than expecting someone ELSE to pay it for me.

Again, there's this whole concept of expectation. I don't EXPECT it to happen. I will accept it if offered, but I won't seek it out.

Young, I see.
30 years ago, my daughter was born w/ heart defects.
She burned 2 MILLION DOLLARS in 2 years in insurance.
We still went bankrupt.

How much can you mortgage that house for?
How about after you lose your income?
Qualify for financing?

Keep dreaming, you don't want to face any reality.

Really? What part of being in a similar situation sans going bankrupt did you miss?

But whatever. I give up. I guess i'm just an entitled snot because I refuse to live my life expecting someone else to bail me out should the worst happen.

What part of $2M 30 years ago do you miss. Spent in two years.
Today world, maybe $10-12Mil. Only Congress No Limit Health Insurance For Life would cover that and you can't have any.
So you think you can handle that bill for someone else you self-centered self-absorbed obtuse falatus?


Nope, I can't handle that bill for someone else. I can barely handle my own bills. So, what's your point, you self-important, self-righteous, entitled windbag?
 
2012-09-10 03:58:32 PM

someonelse: Kit Fister: someonelse: Kit Fister: I mean, seriously, how the fark hard is it to get a damn job and be willing to pay for your own bills and look out for yourself?

Are you under the impression that there is no ratio of income-to-medical-expenses that falls very far outside of your own?

No, I'm under no illusions about that. I make $50k/year NOW (made barely 38k then), and had about $210k worth of medical bills in one year.

My parents helped me pay off those bills, and there are still some I'm paying off incrementally after negotiating a monthly payment (with interest) to the hospital.

So, when you asked, "How hard is it to get a job and pay your bills and look out for yourself," You kind of really meant, "How hard it is to get a job and pay some of your bills and have parents who will help you pay off the rest?"


No, what he meant was "How hard it is to get a job and have the hospital graciously allow you to pay some of your bills over time and have parents who will help you pay off the rest."
 
2012-09-10 04:02:59 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.


Wow, do you not understand evolution.
  <