Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

16327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 12:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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*.
 
Displayed 50 of 636 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report