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.

(Talking Points Memo)   By opposing Obamacare twenty-six GOP states ceded control of their health care system to Washington instead. "The national government will now be setting the framework for at least half of the country"   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 192
    More: Ironic, GOP, obamacare, health care system, insurance exchange, Just Seventeen, software framework, United States, health cares  
•       •       •

3768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-19 04:10:14 PM
Theda Skocpol, a professor at Harvard University and expert on health care politics and policy, said in an email Tuesday. "State-level experiments and variants will often have a more progressive flavor - in the states doing their own exchanges - and of course those may create models that could later spread. Meanwhile, the feds will at least create some consistency."

I didn't even think of this.  Not only is the Federal government taking over basically all of the red states' health care exchanges, but it also means that none of the red states are going to be implementing competing models.  The only one of the red states that might actually try something clever is Utah, but that is vs 20 or something blue states.  So if an alternative model comes out, it will almost certainly be based on a plan started by Democrats.
 
2013-02-19 04:14:57 PM
s18.postimage.org

No compromise? No say.
 
2013-02-19 04:18:46 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-19 04:25:37 PM
Where is snark?
 
2013-02-19 04:29:15 PM
Naw, the insurance industry and the medical industry will be setting the rules for a very long time, as they have been for a very long time.
 
2013-02-19 04:38:39 PM
Health insurance ≠ health care
 
2013-02-19 04:51:21 PM
Which will also lead to large scale industry adjustments.  They'll like a sure thing, and more than half of the country using the same standards will lead to gradual adjustments.
 
2013-02-19 04:59:43 PM
I'm just glad to Christ Arizona won't be doing its own thing.
 
2013-02-19 05:13:35 PM
The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented
 
2013-02-19 05:31:09 PM

This About That: Naw, the insurance industry and the medical industry will be setting the rules for a very long time, as they have been for a very long time.


Subject to the minimum requirements that the federal program will be using.

Basically, it's a public option for 26 states.

// trollface
 
2013-02-19 05:38:42 PM
Shiatty Medicaid is better than nothing.

But I imagine that these states are going to have some sort of shiatty medicaid.
 
2013-02-19 05:40:17 PM
Sort of further exposes the fact that the GOP has no ideas when it comes to the issue. Here is their big chance to show those big gubbermint spend-o-crats how it's done, and they've got nothing.
 
2013-02-19 05:42:40 PM
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-19 05:43:32 PM

Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]


I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.
 
2013-02-19 05:43:49 PM
but how can they spin this to make blame President Obama?
 
2013-02-19 05:43:58 PM

cman: Where is snark?


Snark? In my Politics tab?
 
2013-02-19 05:45:25 PM
oh my answer is in TFA

The immediate political upshot for leaders of the Republican states that stonewalled the exchanges is that they'll avoid the wrath of their conservative flanks. And in the long-run, this decision allows them to more easily blame the federal government if things go wrong.
 
2013-02-19 05:45:50 PM
derp.
 
2013-02-19 05:46:05 PM

snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!

HOW ABOUT NOhttp://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-cong ress/
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented
 
2013-02-19 05:46:20 PM
cunningplan.jpg
obamatrollface.jpg
lulz.jpg
roflmao.jpg
whyuno.jpg
likeasir.jpg
seewhatyoudidthere.jpg
roflcopter.gif
greatsuccess.jpg
everybodypanicturtle.jpg
boypickup.jpg
scumbagstacey.jpg
badluckbrian.jpg
 
2013-02-19 05:47:22 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Health insurance ≠ health care


Except when you don't have health insurance then you often can't afford health care.
 
2013-02-19 05:48:20 PM
When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.
 
2013-02-19 05:49:24 PM
The fact that these folks have a huge portion of the country adhering to their agenda is......bewildering.
 
2013-02-19 05:49:45 PM
And once again the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement is proved.
 
2013-02-19 05:53:23 PM
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
 
2013-02-19 05:53:38 PM

Isitoveryet: oh my answer is in TFA

The immediate political upshot for leaders of the Republican states that stonewalled the exchanges is that they'll avoid the wrath of their conservative flanks. And in the long-run, this decision allows them to more easily blame the federal government if things go wrong.


Yep, and there it is. And it's ultimately worth remembering: This is a plan that has been championed by such progressive luminaries as Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. The Republicans want Fartfartfartfartfartbongofartcare to succeed, and rather badly, because they know that it's the only way to keep the private health insurance gravy train rolling. They also want their sucker voting base to keep voting for them. This way, they get everything they want.
 
2013-02-19 05:54:15 PM
It wasn't their opposition to Obamacare that caused them to cede control. It was their inaction in planning for how their state would implement Obamacare that resulted in Washington setting up their health care exchange.

Oh, and the obstinate, tantrum throwing babies (the red states) can still take control of their exchange after it is set up by the feds.

But please continue your poutrage.
 
2013-02-19 05:55:04 PM

Isitoveryet: but how can they spin this to make blame President Obama?


Unnecessary enbiggening of the Federal government will be their battle cry as they use their gerrymandered control of the US House and the state legislatures to try to dismantle Obamacare via de-funding the exchanges.
 
2013-02-19 05:56:29 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Sort of further exposes the fact that the GOP has no ideas when it comes to the issue. Here is their big chance to show those big gubbermint spend-o-crats how it's done, and they've got nothing.


I don't know. Much of Obamacare stems from Republican suggestions. I think they didn't create alternative models because they're ultimately getting the very plans they once championed. They will also reap the benefits because people are largely confused about how the health care plan will benefit them.
 
2013-02-19 05:56:55 PM
Local Government is Best Government.
 
2013-02-19 05:57:18 PM
Good. Let the Federal government put its money were its mouth is.
 
2013-02-19 05:57:36 PM
Good.  Let's just call this "Reconstruction 2.0"
 
2013-02-19 05:58:20 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I'm just glad to Christ Arizona won't be doing its own thing.


Amen to that.
 
2013-02-19 05:59:03 PM
What's really stupid is that in Mississippi, the Republican Insurance Commissioner started to set up an Exchange because his thought is, if we're going to have it, lets have some say in it.

The Republican Governor almost took him out back and shot him for going along with the Fed plan.
 
zez
2013-02-19 06:00:31 PM
In Missouri they worded the bill so much in doublespeak that I'm pretty sure I voted differently than I wanted and I knew about it going in!
 
2013-02-19 06:01:47 PM

Isitoveryet: oh my answer is in TFA

The immediate political upshot for leaders of the Republican states that stonewalled the exchanges is that they'll avoid the wrath of their conservative flanks. And in the long-run, this decision allows them to more easily blame the federal government if things go wrong.


Let's not forget that allocating money to fund the program is largely left up to the state. There are some few states who are refusing to expand Medicaid because they claim they're unable to afford it. It also looks like a few states are intentionally trying to secure financial penalties that further strip the program of money (Texas appeared to be trying this).
 
2013-02-19 06:02:07 PM

BizarreMan: What's really stupid is that in Mississippi, the Republican Insurance Commissioner started to set up an Exchange because his thought is, if we're going to have it, lets have some say in it.

The Republican Governor almost took him out back and shot him for going along with the Fed plan.


Thereby ensuring that his state will be part of the Federal plan. Brilliant!
 
2013-02-19 06:02:18 PM

Isitoveryet: oh my answer is in TFA

The immediate political upshot for leaders of the Republican states that stonewalled the exchanges is that they'll avoid the wrath of their conservative flanks. And in the long-run, this decision allows them to more easily blame the federal government if things go wrong.


The flipside is that if it becomes wildly popular over time, as Social Security and Medicaid have, they've forever attatched it to Obama's legacy by branding it "Obamacare" for here to eternity.    It's like if you had to take emergency family medical leave and went to your boss and said "I need to take some Clinton Leave".
 
2013-02-19 06:02:58 PM
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,173150 4 .story


Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama's healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself. Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?
 
2013-02-19 06:03:13 PM

BizarreMan: What's really stupid is that in Mississippi, the Republican Insurance Commissioner started to set up an Exchange because his thought is, if we're going to have it, lets have some say in it.

The Republican Governor almost took him out back and shot him for going along with the Fed plan.


The Aristocrats!
 
2013-02-19 06:04:21 PM

sdd2000: snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free! HOW ABOUT NOhttp://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-cong ress/
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented


I'm going to guess that inserting facts into this discussion isn't going to change anyone's mind.
 
2013-02-19 06:09:25 PM
To be clear, Republicans didn't oppose universal coverage.

They opposed creating a level, competitive marketplace where health insurance companies have to compete with one another in order to acquire new customers.

You know, Communism.
 
2013-02-19 06:09:27 PM

jigger: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,173150 4 .story


Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama's healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself. Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?


Yeah rates never went up before, what gives?


Thanks Obama.
 
2013-02-19 06:09:32 PM
I'm confused. What does this have to do with Benghazi?
 
2013-02-19 06:11:10 PM

HotWingConspiracy: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

Yeah rates never went up before, what gives?


Short term inconvenience > Long term solutions

Remember that when dealing with the GOP.
 
2013-02-19 06:11:33 PM

jigger: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,173150 4 .story


Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama's healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself. Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?


Obamacare is the reason health insurance premiums go up?  Damn him and that time machine!

Face it, as long as for-profit insurance companies are involved in health care.  They know they can get away with this because what are you going to do - tell them NOT to pay for your chemo?
 
2013-02-19 06:11:59 PM
I wanna know who taught Obama judo. That guy must be a beast.
 
2013-02-19 06:15:13 PM

DeathBySmiley: To be clear, Republicans didn't oppose universal coverage.

They opposed creating a level, competitive marketplace where health insurance companies have to compete with one another in order to acquire new customers Obama

You know, Communism that blah president.

 
2013-02-19 06:18:26 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Health insurance ≠ health care


I applaud you for using the unequal sign instead of the commonly-used "equals divided by equals"
 
2013-02-19 06:18:34 PM

DeathBySmiley: To be clear, Republicans didn't oppose universal coverage.

They opposed creating a level, competitive marketplace where health insurance companies have to compete with one another in order to acquire new customers.

You know, Communism.


So communism is a system in which for-profit companies must compete for customers?  As opposed to the cartel system we have now?
 
2013-02-19 06:24:58 PM
These are staggeringly unintelligent people.  Remind me again why anyone would do ANYTHING these troglodytes suggest?
 
2013-02-19 06:28:43 PM

Hollie Maea: These are staggeringly unintelligent people.  Remind me again why anyone would do ANYTHING these troglodytes suggest?


Because somebody lower on the socioeconomic ladder might get a handout, and that's socialism.
 
2013-02-19 06:29:41 PM

jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?


It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.
 
2013-02-19 06:30:31 PM
When you dance with the tail you've sown, you reap the devil's bed.
 
2013-02-19 06:31:03 PM

karmaceutical: DeathBySmiley: To be clear, Republicans didn't oppose universal coverage.

They opposed creating a level, competitive marketplace where health insurance companies have to compete with one another in order to acquire new customers.

You know, Communism.

So communism is a system in which for-profit companies must compete for customers?  As opposed to the cartel system we have now?


What YOU have is a broken Sarcasm-O-Meter.
 
2013-02-19 06:31:16 PM

Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.


You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?
 
2013-02-19 06:34:32 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


I hope so. One of the biggest problems with working for a small company are really crappy health insurance options available at most of them.  It makes it really difficult for small companies to attract talented employees.
 
2013-02-19 06:34:36 PM

Hetfield: I'm confused. What does this have to do with Benghazi?


Libyan Extremists are going to run the Death Panels, and they could come up to you at any time.  Keep an eye out for Obama dithering. If he's  seen dithering, gird your loins.
 
2013-02-19 06:34:54 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


As long as the exchanges don't suck I don't really have a problem with that.  However the GOP will do everything it can to destroy them and make them useless so they can point their fingers at the ACA and scream at the top of their redneck lungs:
"See! Dint I tells you! I tol' you it was shoshulist bullshiat! I done tol' you!"
 
2013-02-19 06:37:22 PM
They sound concerned.
 
2013-02-19 06:37:28 PM
As the article points out, this means that Republicans can now whine and complain every time there is a problem with the federal system. Of course this tactic will require that the GOP and its supporters conveniently forget that they once had the opportunity to mold the system as they pleased, which let's be honest, is almost guaranteed.
 
2013-02-19 06:37:43 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


This is for the best.  Your ability to seek medical attention shouldn't be tied to your employment.  Of course if you lose your job in this system you lose you ability to pay for insurance so it's the same result.  Single payer is really the only reasonable solution to ensure everyone is insured and no one has to lapse their coverage due to unemployment.
 
2013-02-19 06:37:46 PM

Karac: jigger: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,173150 4 .story


Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama's healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself. Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

Obamacare is the reason health insurance premiums go up?  Damn him and that time machine!

Face it, as long as for-profit insurance companies are involved in health care.  They know they can get away with this because what are you going to do - tell them NOT to pay for your chemo?


Part of the law actually limits how much is for overhead, profit and the like.

There will be blood
 
2013-02-19 06:40:01 PM

Karac: Obamacare is the reason health insurance premiums go up?  Damn him and that time machine!


Yeah, didn't RTFA. It's ok.

It's the reason they'll jump and have been jumping despite the purported aim of the "Affordable" Care Act.
 
2013-02-19 06:41:15 PM

insano: As the article points out, this means that Republicans can now whine and complain every time there is a problem with the federal system. Of course this tactic will require that the GOP and its supporters conveniently forget that they once had the opportunity to mold the system as they pleased, which let's be honest, is almost guaranteed.


With all the coverage mandates, how much "molding of the system" is there?
 
2013-02-19 06:42:03 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


Why do these companies you speak of (or any company for that matter) provide health insurance now?

They haven't been required to do so up to this point, right?

So why have they been throwing all of that money away all of these years?
 
2013-02-19 06:42:11 PM

Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.


They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.
 
2013-02-19 06:45:48 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


Crazy. I'm under thirty and my wife is too. Our premiums increased by almost 3 whole percents!!!
 
2013-02-19 06:46:47 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


Think of it as a tax for being a disingenuous twat.
 
2013-02-19 06:46:57 PM

dehehn: This is for the best.  Your ability to seek medical attention shouldn't be tied to your employment.  Of course if you lose your job in this system you lose you ability to pay for insurance so it's the same result.  Single payer is really the only reasonable solution to ensure everyone is insured and no one has to lapse their coverage due to unemployment.


Republican Jesus told me that people only ever become unemployed because they're lazy and don't work hard and don't believe in America hard enough.  So why the hell would we pay for insurance for lazy, unamerican swine!

/If you're not rich you don't work hard.  True story.
 
2013-02-19 06:47:05 PM
They'd just completely f*ck the whole thing up anyway.
 
2013-02-19 06:47:33 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


I suggest you find another provider.  If there were only a place that you could go to where different providers could compete for your business.

Wouldn't that be grand?
 
2013-02-19 06:48:16 PM

Eshman: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Think of it as a tax for being a disingenuous twat.


What's disingenuous about naming the law the Affordable Care Act? It's what the law is doing, making health care affordable.
 
2013-02-19 06:48:56 PM
As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!
 
2013-02-19 06:49:14 PM

Tor_Eckman: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

I suggest you find another provider.  If there were only a place that you could go to where different providers could compete for your business.

Wouldn't that be grand?


I've got the cheapest right now. The cheapest. It's good though and a non-profit.
 
2013-02-19 06:49:23 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


Yes, there is absolutely no way having wide spread access to preventative care would save insurance companies money in the long run.
 
2013-02-19 06:49:26 PM

qorkfiend: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.


2.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-19 06:49:32 PM

jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


Pretty sure that's due to violent video games, but you go ahead and blame the President if it makes you feel better.
 
2013-02-19 06:50:13 PM

illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!


The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.
 
2013-02-19 06:50:48 PM

illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!


you earned it. thanks for your service.
 
2013-02-19 06:51:33 PM

jigger: illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!

The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.


The difference being?
 
2013-02-19 06:53:07 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: jigger: illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!

The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.

The difference being?


In single-payer the doctors are private.  In the UK, the doctors are government employees.
 
2013-02-19 06:53:11 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Yes, there is absolutely no way having wide spread access to preventative care would save insurance companies money in the long run.


http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-p er sistent-myth/
Prevention Will Reduce Medical Costs: A Persistent Myth
 
2013-02-19 06:54:09 PM

vernonFL: Shiatty Medicaid is better than nothing.

But I imagine that these states are going to have some sort of shiatty medicaid.


a lot of them aren't expanding medicaid like Obama wanted. so they won't get those federal dollars nor the federal dollars for running their own exchanges, nor control of how it's administered and which companies get the contracts.
 
2013-02-19 06:54:21 PM

Soup4Bonnie: jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Pretty sure that's due to violent video games, but you go ahead and blame the President if it makes you feel better.


Don't forget the 111th Congress.
 
2013-02-19 06:55:11 PM
Too Much Paperwork!
 
2013-02-19 06:55:31 PM

illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!


That's fair.  And I'm jealous.

Got kicked off of my last individual insurance plan for being a day late on payment (I had been late one other time, pretty much because my premiums jumped up every goddamn month so I couldn't write a check until I got the statement, and I got it late).

However, they did take a full 6 weeks to refund my money.  F--king assholes.  Have it through work now at least.
 
2013-02-19 06:56:45 PM

GAT_00: Doktor_Zhivago: jigger: illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!

The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.

The difference being?

In single-payer the doctors are private.  In the UK, the doctors are government employees.


Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.
 
2013-02-19 06:57:26 PM

qorkfiend: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.


These people have to be related to the guy who was holding the " Remember descent. The highest form of patriotic" sign at a Tea Party rally....
 
2013-02-19 06:58:22 PM

Whiskey Pete: The fact that these folks have a huge portion of the country adhering to their agenda is......bewildering.


i14.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-19 06:59:26 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Pretty sure that's due to violent video games, but you go ahead and blame the President if it makes you feel better.

Don't forget the 111th Congress.


Not to mention ACORN and Michelle Obama's vegetable garden.

Also, Benghazi.
 
2013-02-19 07:01:53 PM

The Larch: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Pretty sure that's due to violent video games, but you go ahead and blame the President if it makes you feel better.

Don't forget the 111th Congress.

Not to mention ACORN and Michelle Obama's vegetable garden.

Also, Benghazi.


I'll bet your mom thinks you're a very clever boy.
 
2013-02-19 07:02:36 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.


It makes a huge difference in who runs the death panels.
 
2013-02-19 07:03:59 PM

jigger: Doktor_Zhivago: Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.

It makes a huge difference in who runs the death panels.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-02-19 07:04:00 PM

jigger: I'll bet your mom thinks you're a very clever boy


Your mom does too.
 
2013-02-19 07:04:28 PM

jigger: Doktor_Zhivago: Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.

It makes a huge difference in who runs the death panels.


Palin like typing detected.
 
2013-02-19 07:04:33 PM
Makes sense if you think about it. The Republicans voted against the stimulus, then lined up for the credit. Now the bush league Republicans looking to run for Congress can stand in front of hospitals and crow about how so many more people are insured in their states, no thanks to that Obama (also, they will fight to keep the feds hands out of Obamacare and Social Security)
 
2013-02-19 07:04:37 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: insano: As the article points out, this means that Republicans can now whine and complain every time there is a problem with the federal system. Of course this tactic will require that the GOP and its supporters conveniently forget that they once had the opportunity to mold the system as they pleased, which let's be honest, is almost guaranteed.

With all the coverage mandates, how much "molding of the system" is there?


Well, half of the states are creating their owns systems, so we will see how much better or worse those do than the federal model. Coverage mandates do not dictate how an insurance exchange is set up or how well it is administered.
 
2013-02-19 07:06:20 PM

jigger: StreetlightInTheGhetto: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Yes, there is absolutely no way having wide spread access to preventative care would save insurance companies money in the long run.

http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-p er sistent-myth/
Prevention Will Reduce Medical Costs: A Persistent Myth


Now that's interesting.  Their Wikipedia page nearly exclusively cites the the Hastings Center for its article, and a shocking amount of Google results again just go back to their own website (or their social media sites).  It's quite impressive.  Hell, even the Wiki for their journal references back to their own website for 2/3 cites.

Curious and curiouser...

Here, have a http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558  real journal cite.  Which does mention that some procedures financially don't necessarily make sense as far as preventative care cost vs benefit goes.

However, "preventative care" is a very all encompassing term.  Simply having medical access for people who don't have it boosts productivity. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120912/NEWS08/120919959
 
2013-02-19 07:08:39 PM
Paging unintended consequences to the white courtesy phone.
 
2013-02-19 07:08:51 PM

jigger: What's disingenuous about naming the law the Affordable Care Act? It's what the law is doing, making health care affordable.


**WHOOOSH**
 
2013-02-19 07:09:30 PM
they did so that, should they ever decide to run for president, they can say they opposed that darn pinko socialist nazi commie muslim unamerican obabacare.

"unlike my opponent, who implemented obamacare in his state, I sent it back to those fat cats in washington"
 
2013-02-19 07:14:07 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: GAT_00: Doktor_Zhivago: jigger: illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!

The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.

The difference being?

In single-payer the doctors are private.  In the UK, the doctors are government employees.

Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.


well that and you don't have docs who actually work 20 hours a week and make millions a year.
 
2013-02-19 07:17:31 PM

Hobodeluxe: well that and you don't have docs who actually work 20 hours a week and make millions a year.


well those golf balls aren't going to hit themselves!
 
2013-02-19 07:17:38 PM

Hobodeluxe: well that and you don't have docs who actually work 20 hours a week and make millions a year.


Why do you hate America?
media.tumblr.com

/my point was more that a single payer/government controlled healthcare system would be huge improvement regardless of whether it's private or public. I don't think I articulated that well.  Apologies.
 
2013-02-19 07:19:17 PM

ParallelUniverseParking: karmaceutical: DeathBySmiley: To be clear, Republicans didn't oppose universal coverage.

They opposed creating a level, competitive marketplace where health insurance companies have to compete with one another in order to acquire new customers.

You know, Communism.

So communism is a system in which for-profit companies must compete for customers?  As opposed to the cartel system we have now?

What YOU have is a broken Sarcasm-O-Meter.


Dangit.  I want to get it fixed but I can't get insurance because I'm self employed and had a hangnail once in junior high.  Cigna take my money please!
 
2013-02-19 07:20:13 PM

snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented


Health care is never 'Free'

You just want someone else to pay for yours
 
2013-02-19 07:25:19 PM
Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.
 
2013-02-19 07:28:56 PM

CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?


no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.
 
2013-02-19 07:29:47 PM
So now it's just Where is Waldo's Money (and how do we take it from him).
That's the only way to fund the HHS in order to pay for this farking boondogle.
 
2013-02-19 07:32:59 PM

CujoQuarrel: snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented

Health care is never 'Free'

You just want someone else to pay for yours


No, we all pay.  And as a country we would get better return on our f--king investment, that's for sure.

cdn.theatlantic.com

I would be fine with paying more in taxes for a single payer or government run system.  The three insurers I've had in my life have all f--ked up in a variety of innovative ways that ends up with them getting more money, and myself/my doctor/my pharmacist/my nurse/the financial folks at work wasting time and energy because they're refusing to cover another goddamn thing even though it damn well should be covered (medication because I was "over 18", routine office visits - have to get handwritten scripts for one med - hell, they refused to cover a X-Ray *in my doctor's office* and claimed it was outside lab work last f--king month, took a year and a doctor's somewhat threatning phone call to get the sleep study that diagnosed me with narcolepsy covered).

Bring it on.  At least I get to f--king vote for the people in charge of the kit and kaboodle then (or in charge of hiring them at any rate).  Better than what I have now.
 
2013-02-19 07:36:59 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


There's that. But my understanding is small businesses will have the exchange option for their plans, assuming they are still providing their employees coverage. Presumably, this option will make the employer-provider plans less expensive and more predictable. But I may be wrong on that.
 
2013-02-19 07:40:24 PM

Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.


Enrollment is supposed to start in October (of this year) for coverage beginning 1 January 2014.
 
2013-02-19 07:40:28 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: It wasn't their opposition to Obamacare that caused them to cede control. It was their inaction in planning for how their state would implement Obamacare that resulted in Washington setting up their health care exchange.

Oh, and the obstinate, tantrum throwing babies (the red states) can still take control of their exchange after it is set up by the feds.

But please continue your poutrage.


Their plan was a simple one: Win all elections in 2012. Easy peasy.
 
2013-02-19 07:40:59 PM

cman: Where is snark?


Every freaking thread nowadays..... Sorry pal, you aren't adding anything to the discussion. You are now on ignore, which is a shame. You almost added something to fark politics discussions once upon a time.
 
2013-02-19 07:41:27 PM

Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.


As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.
 
2013-02-19 07:42:10 PM

CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.


Except that while insurance companies can no longer reject you for a "preexisting condition" they can choose to charge you more for one.  In addition, someone who already has insurance can get their non-emergency care a lot faster than someone who has to sign up for insurance first.  But you should totally go with your plan, I'm sure it will work out great for you.
 
2013-02-19 07:45:21 PM

CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.


You remind me of those folks who think they can get "free stuff" by buying stuff on a credit card, transferring the balance to a different card, transferring that balance back to the original card (or a third card), then transferring that balance...etc.

Despite all those times that mommy told you that you're "very special", you're not actually smarter than the insurance companies.
 
2013-02-19 07:51:27 PM
CujoQuarrel:

You just want someone else to pay for yours

I don't want health care. I just want to make sure you can't have any.
 
2013-02-19 07:53:58 PM

CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.


Isn't all of capitalism dependent on people making decisions with the intention of taking out more than they put in? Just as you wouldn't expect insurance companies to act magnanimously, why should consumers act magnanimously? It can often result in the tragedy of the commons, but ultimately all economics rely on actors pursuing transactions that they believe will leave them with more than they gave up from their point of view.

Maybe we should just take the economic element out of the patient/doctor relationship, and all the middlement involved.
 
2013-02-19 08:02:21 PM

Bloody William: Maybe we should just take the economic element out of the patient/doctor relationship, and all the middlement involved.


exactly. there's no reason why a rich investor should profit off the illness or injury of another person. it's immoral. and insurance companies are only middlemen who take their cut too. they serve no real purpose but to take money from one to give to another minus their cut. they provide no benefit. the govt could handle administration of this industry. just as they have in other countries.
 
2013-02-19 08:02:32 PM

Bloody William: Isn't all of capitalism dependent on people making decisions with the intention of taking out more than they put in? Just as you wouldn't expect insurance companies to act magnanimously, why should consumers act magnanimously? It can often result in the tragedy of the commons, but ultimately all economics rely on actors pursuing transactions that they believe will leave them with more than they gave up from their point of view.

Maybe we should just take the economic element out of the patient/doctor relationship, and all the middlement involved.


Then why would any idiot go into teaching?

A truly capitalistic life, is for horrible, horrible people.
 
2013-02-19 08:04:33 PM

PapaChester: Bloody William: Isn't all of capitalism dependent on people making decisions with the intention of taking out more than they put in? Just as you wouldn't expect insurance companies to act magnanimously, why should consumers act magnanimously? It can often result in the tragedy of the commons, but ultimately all economics rely on actors pursuing transactions that they believe will leave them with more than they gave up from their point of view.

Maybe we should just take the economic element out of the patient/doctor relationship, and all the middlement involved.

Then why would any idiot go into teaching?

A truly capitalistic life, is for horrible, horrible people.


[thatsthejoke.jpg]

Some middle ground between the choice and freedom offered by a market economy and the stability offered my public services is necessary.
 
2013-02-19 08:07:53 PM

CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.


That makes sense only if you're a single 22-year-old with no assets and no prospects of long-term financial growth. If you're a 45-year-old married parent halfway through a mortgage, one or two kids within sight of college, your health, financial, and moral obligations are a lot more complex.

Those of us who do pay into health insurance, and have done so for decades, get a little tired of the increasing burden tossed on us by both irresponsible individuals who show up at the ER with a nice case of Honda Rash, and "employers" who 1099 everyone, and leave the local county/state/city to pick up the tab when one of the "independent contractors" gets sick or injured.

I realize those are only two small parts of why our health care system is horribly broken, but that's the point here: we realize it's broken, we do what we can to fix it, realizing that it's not going to happen overnight, and we also understand that a lot of leeches will suck more out of the system than they put in; this is hardly news, but the GOP has basically sat in the corner like a tantrum-prone toddler for the last six years on the matter, threatening "second-amendment remedies" and now indignantly complains the meal we've cooked while dodging flung poo and bullets tastes like a sh*t sandwich. It might have something to do with having to change their diapers every 15 minutes.
 
2013-02-19 08:08:16 PM
isn't it nice how insurance companies are always building themselves newer and better headquarters buildings all the time. Here's the new blue cross/blue shield of nebraska hq

isn't that pretty? I'm so glad I helped contribute to it with the money I keep giving them, week after week, in the off chance I get hit by a drunk driver or catch the clap. so so pretty....

www.tetradcorp.com
 
2013-02-19 08:14:27 PM

insano: As the article points out, this means that Republicans can now whine and complain every time there is a problem with the federal system.


How new and shocking.  Surely this is a game-changer.
 
2013-02-19 08:19:09 PM

CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.


If I had to guess, the folks bright enough to plan and execute this gaming of the system you propose probably make enough money so that the cost-benefit analysis won't play out. A bronze plan will cost an individual $6,000/year, and so, once the tax is ramped up to its full level in three years, that will be equivalent to what one would have to pay if they make $130,000. So people below that will see that it's absolutely in their interest not to have health insurance if they're absolutely sure that they're not going to use it.

So there you have it: Up to a maximum out-of-pocket $6,000 in exchange for some health insurance that you may or may not use, or a guaranteed 4.5% of your income in exchange for diddly. Totally up to you, but I prefer to get something for my money.
 
2013-02-19 08:25:11 PM

MontanaDave: I'm going to guess that inserting facts into this discussion isn't going to change anyone's mind.


Well, at the very least, it does mean that the next time they trot out that "fact", you can call them a liar.

/You can give incorrect information once and merely be mistaken.
//If you give incorrect information after you've been corrected on that information, you're a liar.
 
2013-02-19 08:32:51 PM

ib_thinkin: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.

If I had to guess, the folks bright enough to plan and execute this gaming of the system you propose probably make enough money so that the cost-benefit analysis won't play out. A bronze plan will cost an individual $6,000/year, and so, once the tax is ramped up to its full level in three years, that will be equivalent to what one would have to pay if they make $130,000. So people below that will see that it's absolutely in their interest not to have health insurance if they're absolutely sure that they're not going to use it.

So there you have it: Up to a maximum out-of-pocket $6,000 in exchange for some health insurance that you may or may not use, or a guaranteed 4.5% of your income in exchange for diddly. Totally up to you, but I prefer to get something for my money.


What you get back is the money not paid instead of diddly. So if you make less than 130k (130,000 * 0.045 = 5850) you come out ahead.

If you are making 50k a year you can either
1) Pay the 6k for health care (estimated)
2) Pay 50k * 0.045 = 2250 per year for no care with the option of at any time if you get sick being able to pick up the health care for major bills.

If you make less than 50K you'll save even more.

Using option #2 you save $3750 per year which is a lot more than reasonably health person spends each year on trips to a doc-in-the-box .
 
2013-02-19 08:33:51 PM

Isitoveryet: but how can they spin this to make blame President Obama?


"He made us let him take over!"
 
2013-02-19 08:34:24 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Part of the law actually limits how much is for overhead, profit and the like.


And has yielded refunds already. Some of which were quite sizeable in terms of overall intake. It's kinda astounding how bad the profit margins were in that industry before some regulation got involved. Like people prioritise living really high or something.
 
2013-02-19 08:37:55 PM

CujoQuarrel: What you get back is the money not paid instead of diddly. So if you make less than 130k (130,000 * 0.045 = 5850) you come out ahead.

If you are making 50k a year you can either
1) Pay the 6k for health care (estimated)
2) Pay 50k * 0.045 = 2250 per year for no care with the option of at any time if you get sick being able to pick up the health care for major bills.

If you make less than 50K you'll save even more.

Using option #2 you save $3750 per year which is a lot more than reasonably health person spends each year on trips to a doc-in-the-box .


That's <i>up to</i> $6,000. And how is it you think you won't be hit for both in a year in which you get sick?
 
2013-02-19 08:42:18 PM

CujoQuarrel: What you get back is the money not paid instead of diddly. So if you make less than 130k (130,000 * 0.045 = 5850) you come out ahead.

If you are making 50k a year you can either
1) Pay the 6k for health care (estimated)
2) Pay 50k * 0.045 = 2250 per year for no care with the option of at any time if you get sick being able to pick up the health care for major bills.

If you make less than 50K you'll save even more.

Using option #2 you save $3750 per year which is a lot more than reasonably health person spends each year on trips to a doc-in-the-box .


You can buy really cheap and crappy catastrophic health insurance for $50/month if you're not already sick. It won't cover your day to day stuff, but it'll cover 3 or 4 visits to a GP per year, and it'll cover you if you get in a serious accident or get cancer. And you'd also avoid the fine. So your plan would cost at least $2250 per year with no coverage for preventative care and no coverage if you get into an accident (it's not like insurance companies will decide to cover you while you're being wheeled into the emergency room) and expensive coverage if you sign up in mid-illness. Or, you could spend $600 a year and get covered for all major contingencies. Your plan seems legit, dude.
 
2013-02-19 08:49:29 PM

CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.


You cracked it and have outsmarted the thousands of actuaries, statisticians, lawyers and executives who have made billions for the insurance companies.

Well done.

They are sure going to be surprised when this happens.
 
2013-02-19 08:50:42 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Cletus C.: When smaller companies have a chance to buy into these exchanges, state or federal, the real value (or not) of the act will be known. That happens in a couple years, I believe.

You mean when small business dump their employees on the exchanges because it's cheaper to pay the capped federal penalty (after the first 30 employees who are excluded) than pay for a health plan on your employees?


I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that all these years that companies have been offering health insurance for employees have been for altruistic reasons, but now that it's mandated that they offer it or face a fine, they're going to dump it wholesale and just pay the fine instead?

Offering health insurance to employees isn't a purely economic decision, and while employers will always try to minimize costs, this benefit has never been about profit or the bottom line beyond attracting quality workers who will improve the company. If they can save a buck, sure, they will, but cutting off their nose to spite their face simply because health insurance is mandatory now? I think not.
 
2013-02-19 08:53:47 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: jigger: StreetlightInTheGhetto: jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.

Yes, there is absolutely no way having wide spread access to preventative care would save insurance companies money in the long run.

http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-p er sistent-myth/
Prevention Will Reduce Medical Costs: A Persistent Myth

Now that's interesting.  Their Wikipedia page nearly exclusively cites the the Hastings Center for its article, and a shocking amount of Google results again just go back to their own website (or their social media sites).  It's quite impressive.  Hell, even the Wiki for their journal references back to their own website for 2/3 cites.

Curious and curiouser...

Here, have a http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558  real journal cite.  Which does mention that some procedures financially don't necessarily make sense as far as preventative care cost vs benefit goes.

However, "preventative care" is a very all encompassing term.  Simply having medical access for people who don't have it boosts productivity. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120912/NEWS08/120919959


It seems kind of common sense that on the whole preventative care would be less expensive than emergency care. The whole an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure bit. Then again, I can also remember most people are all too willing to have expensive medical procedures that will only marginally help them or not at all.

Anyway, providing people an avenue to using something other than an emergency room for routine care is a good thing. Controlling the profit incentive for unnecessary procedures would be another.
 
2013-02-19 08:57:52 PM

Isitoveryet: oh my answer is in TFA

The immediate political upshot for leaders of the Republican states that stonewalled the exchanges is that they'll avoid the wrath of their conservative flanks. And in the long-run, this decision allows them to more easily blame the federal government if things go wrong.


Give it a bit of a spin from a Machiavellian conservative challenger, and it could as easily read "Governor X allowed for a Healthcare take over by the Federal Government, blocking the State from exercising its Rights. Governor X, Friendly with the Feds, enemy of States Rights"
 
2013-02-19 09:07:49 PM

Tigger: CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.

You cracked it and have outsmarted the thousands of actuaries, statisticians, lawyers and executives who have made billions for the insurance companies.

Well done.

They are sure going to be surprised when this happens.


OK, now tell me why anyone would not want to have insurance all the time anyway. For real, no snark. I've been without insurance for three years and it's been a living hell. Why do you NOT want to carry health insurance?
 
2013-02-19 09:08:44 PM

CujoQuarrel: ib_thinkin: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

If you are reasonably health DO  NOT GET THE INSURANCE. Pay the 'fine/tax'

If you do get sick go immediately and sign up, they can't reject you. If you get well, drop the insurance.

So we are going  have an 'insurance' system where we have only people taking out and no one putting in.

Yep. That's going to work. Yessirree Bob it's brilliant.

If I had to guess, the folks bright enough to plan and execute this gaming of the system you propose probably make enough money so that the cost-benefit analysis won't play out. A bronze plan will cost an individual $6,000/year, and so, once the tax is ramped up to its full level in three years, that will be equivalent to what one would have to pay if they make $130,000. So people below that will see that it's absolutely in their interest not to have health insurance if they're absolutely sure that they're not going to use it.

So there you have it: Up to a maximum out-of-pocket $6,000 in exchange for some health insurance that you may or may not use, or a guaranteed 4.5% of your income in exchange for diddly. Totally up to you, but I prefer to get something for my money.

What you get back is the money not paid instead of diddly. So if you make less than 130k (130,000 * 0.045 = 5850) you come out ahead.

If you are making 50k a year you can either
1) Pay the 6k for health care (estimated)
2) Pay 50k * 0.045 = 2250 per year for no care with the option of at any time if you get sick being able to pick up the health care for major bills.

If you make less than 50K you'll save even more.

Using option #2 you save $3750 per year which is a lot more than reasonably health person spends each year on trips to a doc-in-the-box .


It's my understanding that you can't be turned down for health insurance - not that the insurance company has to retroactively pay for bills.
So option 2) is really this:
Pay 50K * 2250 per year with no care, and hope that if you DO get hurt or sick, that you can get the paperwork filled out, filed, and accepted before you run up $3750 in costs and stop breaking even.

The last time I had to go to the doc with was to drive myself to his office and get 6 stiches on a finger, a tetanus shot, and some antibiotics.  That ran me (or rather it would have if not for worker's comp) around $500.  I imagine there's a lot of stuff you can get in an ER that'll make a $3750 bill in less than a business day.
 
2013-02-19 09:13:16 PM

Gyrfalcon: OK, now tell me why anyone would not want to have insurance all the time anyway. For real, no snark. I've been without insurance for three years and it's been a living hell. Why do you NOT want to carry health insurance?


Because trying to show the world how Obamacare is the worstest thing ever in the history of everything is way more important.
 
2013-02-19 09:15:01 PM

Karac: I imagine there's a lot of stuff you can get in an ER that'll make a $3750 bill in less than a business day.


a lot of things. an MRI for one.
 
2013-02-19 09:18:26 PM
Well, the idiots in Cheyenne, here in Wyoming, sat around with their thumbs up their butts believing it would get overturned.  When it didn't, they all started crying, "there isn't enough time, whoa, whoa, whoa..."

No, you stupid, knuckle dragging morons, you should have proceeded with making plans for BOTH contingencies.  Instead you sat around and did nothing.  Too farking bad, now you don't get a say in the matter.  Oh, and they voted against additional medicaid coverage, so more poor people go without medical care.

Assholes.
 
2013-02-19 09:26:21 PM
If only we actually had socialized healthcare in this country. We could avoid all this politicking nonsense and move on.
 
2013-02-19 09:34:29 PM
My state Ga is so deep in derp that they would rather do the wrong thing than agree with a Democrat.    I hope the state legislature does not create some painful reaction because they did not get their way.
 
2013-02-19 09:38:23 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: GAT_00: Doktor_Zhivago: jigger: illannoyin: As someone who is exempt from "Obamacare" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I suggest they model the inevitable single payer 100% federally run healthcare system on the VA. I've been very happy with the care I've received from them.

/Disabled veteran
//Free health care for life
///Thanks taxpayers!

The VA isn't single payer insurance, it's full-on government health care like the NHS in the UK.

The difference being?

In single-payer the doctors are private.  In the UK, the doctors are government employees.

Oh that's huge.  I can see the tremendous differences in that everyone gets healthcare but different people might sign the doc's paycheck.


The perceived difference is that an employee doctor provides care within parameters set by his employer, some faceless executive bureaucrat who is "interfering in the doctor-patient relationship."  Patients like to think that their doctors are accountable only to patients and make decisions based entirely on the patient's best interests.
 
2013-02-19 09:40:44 PM

Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.


Why not?
 
2013-02-19 09:49:23 PM

Teufelaffe: Gyrfalcon: OK, now tell me why anyone would not want to have insurance all the time anyway. For real, no snark. I've been without insurance for three years and it's been a living hell. Why do you NOT want to carry health insurance?

Because trying to show the world how Obamacare is the worstest thing ever in the history of everything is way more important.


I guess that's the only reason. There cannot possibly be another one.
 
2013-02-19 10:22:15 PM
Mister Tweak  - That makes sense only if you're a single 22-year-old with no assets and no prospects of long-term financial growth. If you're a 45-year-old married parent halfway through a mortgage, one or two kids within sight of college, your health, financial, and moral obligations are a lot more complex.
Those of us who do pay into health insurance, and have done so for decades, get a little tired of the increasing burden tossed on us by both irresponsible individuals who show up at the ER with a nice case of Honda Rash, and "employers" who 1099 everyone, and leave the local county/state/city to pick up the tab when one of the "independent contractors" gets sick or injured.
I realize those are only two small parts of why our health care system is horribly broken, but that's the point here: we realize it's broken, we do what we can to fix it, realizing that it's not going to happen overnight, and we also understand that a lot of leeches will suck more out of the system than they put in;

Cujo -

Your plan to sigh up for insurance when you need it wont work - see above

As someone who has "complex moral obligations" and works on a 1099 basis I can tell you you can't just opt to get insurance when you are in the ER - the last go around I had there was 7k on my dime

I don't see you talking at ALL about health care COST - and why drug costs are so high - and DONT give me that "R and D" bull, either.

What I read in your post was "I can game the system" and that is what is wrong in the first place.
 
2013-02-19 10:22:57 PM

Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]


Gotta love it when libs go to protests with their misspellings and pretend to be conservatives.
 
2013-02-19 10:25:11 PM
I think that actually, a good number of folks DID think their clever plan through.

The State governments don't have to take heat about how the exchanges are run now. They don't have to come up with their own plans, and they can complain bitterly about how things will be run, how the GU'B'MINT! is ROOONT'IN' EVERYTHING! And the insurance companies are happy, because they still get what they want, and essentially, this is a win-win for those state governments. The exchanges are run from Washington, their people still get covered, the insurance companies get clients, and best of all, they TOOK A STAND and the TRICKSY GOVERNMENT TOOK IT OVER and they can bellow about it all night and day, and still their people will be covered, and they can campaign about their strong stand.

This was the plan. It will put dollars in campaign funds, it will give folks capital with the Idiot Brigade for being strong minded, and best of all, they didn't have to compromise, and they still get what they want: insurance companies getting cash in pocket, without having any of the risk of having come up with anything themselves, since essentially, the Obama plan is dang close to what Romney already wanted to do anyhow, so really, this is a double victory. They've delivered a lot of contracts to the exchanges with their obstinacy, and will take zero heat if there are problems, and will be able to point at even the good things as THE GU'B'MINT GOT OUR HEALTHCARES AND THEY GO'INT ROOOONT IT!
 
2013-02-19 10:33:04 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-19 10:36:47 PM
So, they had a choice between ceding control to the federal govt. through insurance exchanges or ceding control of the exchanges to the federal govt.

Got it.

This is veiled attempt to eliminate health insurance while further eroding the states' power; they were right to refuse to participate in this little farce.
 
2013-02-19 10:42:26 PM

Animatronik: So, they had a choice between ceding control to the federal govt. through insurance exchanges or ceding control of the exchanges to the federal govt.

Got it.

This is veiled attempt to eliminate health insurance while further eroding the states' power; they were right to refuse to participate in this little farce.


Out of curiosity, what value do you think healthcare insurance companies bring to the the delivery of healthcare?
 
2013-02-19 10:47:19 PM

Animatronik: So, they had a choice between ceding control to the federal govt. through insurance exchanges or ceding control of the exchanges to the federal govt.
Got it.
This is veiled attempt to eliminate health insurance while further eroding the states' power; they were right to refuse to participate in this little farce.


I wish. Instead it is an attempt to bolster the insurance model already in place. On it's own, the insurance model was failing to provide healthcare without bankrupting the nation. Obamacare shores up the plan by patching it piecemeal so that it has a chance to work. It is essentially a "fix old, no new" policy. That is also why, in part, it is complicated legislature. It would be much more streamlined and efficient to eliminate health insurance altogether and rid the sales model from our health.
 
2013-02-19 10:51:49 PM

Ablejack: Animatronik: So, they had a choice between ceding control to the federal govt. through insurance exchanges or ceding control of the exchanges to the federal govt.
Got it.
This is veiled attempt to eliminate health insurance while further eroding the states' power; they were right to refuse to participate in this little farce.

I wish. Instead it is an attempt to bolster the insurance model already in place. On it's own, the insurance model was failing to provide healthcare without bankrupting the nation. Obamacare shores up the plan by patching it piecemeal so that it has a chance to work. It is essentially a "fix old, no new" policy. That is also why, in part, it is complicated legislature. It would be much more streamlined and efficient to eliminate health insurance altogether and rid the sales model from our health.

Sadly, this is still the most relevant image from the health care debate.




lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-02-19 10:53:24 PM

Herman Borrach: Out of curiosity, what value do you think healthcare insurance companies bring to the the delivery of healthcare?


They stand as gatekeepers to health care, insuring that only proper care is dispensed, and that useless care is denied.  They form committees of actuaries, accountants, and clerks, who act together to make sure that doctors' decisions that do not sufficiently increase shareholder value are not allowed to propagate down to those (often elderly and terminal) patients who seek to unconscionably steal from the sweat of the health insurer's brow.
 
2013-02-19 11:04:10 PM
Hooray for the Heritage Foundation conservative think tank health FARTBONGOcare plan!

It's all the ebil Kenyan neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekeri's fault!
 
2013-02-19 11:21:19 PM

jigger: Soup4Bonnie: jigger: What? The Affordable Care Act will cause rates to rise? Who saw that coming, huh?

It is entirely possible that the health insurance companies that had to cut refund checks last year enjoyed it so much that they are raising their rates in order to do so again.

They have to get permission from the feds and the states to raise rates more than 10%. Some companies now have that permission and for some people (read young people) their rates are going to go up 30% or more. I know for a fact that mine are about to go up more than 30%.


I'm fine with the cost of doing business includes spending money to help the citizens of our country stay healthy.
 
2013-02-19 11:32:21 PM

CujoQuarrel: snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented

Health care is never 'Free'

You just want someone else to pay for yours


Newsflash: YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Where do you think the money comes from when someone with no insurance goes to the ER and can't pay?
 
2013-02-20 12:00:48 AM

Hobodeluxe: Karac: I imagine there's a lot of stuff you can get in an ER that'll make a $3750 bill in less than a business day.

a lot of things. an MRI for one.


Pretty damn close, yeah.  I have a bill right here from when I went to the ER for a kidney stone last June...
Billed charges to date: 3402.00
Receipts to date: 1196.61 (how much the insurance company paid them)
Adjustments to date: 1563.89 (how much they cut the price by, for the insurance company*)
Balance forward: 641.50 (what I have to pay)

*If I hadn't had insurance, they would't have cut the price by that much for me... though from the days when my wife didn't have insurance, I think they usually cut it 40-60% if you're uninsured but willing to pay  something.  The same is not true for prescription medicines - when I was college-age, my dad and I had the same bronchitis, got the same prescription, and what his insurance paid for it, plus his co-pay, was half of the "cash" price for me as an uninsured person.
 
2013-02-20 12:16:03 AM

parasol: Mister Tweak  - That makes sense only if you're a single 22-year-old with no assets and no prospects of long-term financial growth. If you're a 45-year-old married parent halfway through a mortgage, one or two kids within sight of college, your health, financial, and moral obligations are a lot more complex.
Those of us who do pay into health insurance, and have done so for decades, get a little tired of the increasing burden tossed on us by both irresponsible individuals who show up at the ER with a nice case of Honda Rash, and "employers" who 1099 everyone, and leave the local county/state/city to pick up the tab when one of the "independent contractors" gets sick or injured.
I realize those are only two small parts of why our health care system is horribly broken, but that's the point here: we realize it's broken, we do what we can to fix it, realizing that it's not going to happen overnight, and we also understand that a lot of leeches will suck more out of the system than they put in;

Cujo -

Your plan to sigh up for insurance when you need it wont work - see above

As someone who has "complex moral obligations" and works on a 1099 basis I can tell you you can't just opt to get insurance when you are in the ER - the last go around I had there was 7k on my dime

I don't see you talking at ALL about health care COST - and why drug costs are so high - and DONT give me that "R and D" bull, either.

What I read in your post was "I can game the system" and that is what is wrong in the first place.


I'm definitely going to have health insurance. I have it now. I pay for it. High deductible at about 650 a month.

But if you think people won't game the system you are very naive
 
2013-02-20 12:17:46 AM

fusillade762: CujoQuarrel: snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented

Health care is never 'Free'

You just want someone else to pay for yours

Newsflash: YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Where do you think the money comes from when someone with no insurance goes to the ER and can't pay?


That's what I said. It's not free.
But Ocare ain't going to help.
Single payer would have spread the cost around more. This hacked up new system is donkey balls.
 
2013-02-20 12:34:53 AM

CujoQuarrel: fusillade762: CujoQuarrel: snocone: The best health insurance Money will buy you.
Congress gets real health insurance. Free!
Why not you?

/'cause when it is for everybody, it is not/cannot be free
//USA home of the most PROFIT on human misery ever invented

Health care is never 'Free'

You just want someone else to pay for yours

Newsflash: YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Where do you think the money comes from when someone with no insurance goes to the ER and can't pay?

That's what I said. It's not free.
But Ocare ain't going to help.
Single payer would have spread the cost around more. This hacked up new system is donkey balls.


Ah. Well on that point we agree.
 
2013-02-20 12:38:14 AM
Republicans:

i38.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 12:39:00 AM

fusillade762: qorkfiend: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x370]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x287]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 355x420]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 720x582]


What's up with all these losers 35 years away from Medicare eligibility holding signs about "My" Medicare....What's the going rate for a paid protest shill anyway?
 
2013-02-20 12:40:49 AM
I still haven't gotten a real answer as to why anyone wouldn't actually want health insurance. I've seen ominous references to people "gaming the system" (paying the taxes instead of buying insurance) for some unstated reason, and the usual conservitard point of people wanting "free healthcare" and getting someone else to pay...what I HAVEN'T seen is anyone telling me why for the love of God anyone who could get it wouldn't have it.

I  know those of us who don't have it desperately want it and are hoping to survive until next year when we can no longer be turned down for our "pre-existing conditions" and will be delighted to pay the certain to be hyperinflated price the insurance companies will charge...but still: Can't someone give me a good reason why someone would voluntarily decide they'd prefer to roll the dice and not have insurance?
 
2013-02-20 12:43:47 AM

CujoQuarrel: Single payer would have spread the cost around more. This hacked up new system is donkey balls.


Why would government-run universal health insurance have "spread the cost around more" while mandatory universal private insurance would not?
 
2013-02-20 12:54:09 AM
Communism!!!!!
 
2013-02-20 12:55:56 AM
At what point do the Republicans take credit for Romneycare?
 
2013-02-20 01:31:52 AM

Raging Whore Moans: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Health insurance ≠ health care

I applaud you for using the unequal sign instead of the commonly-used "equals divided by equals"


Are you trying to say that =/=  ≠ ≠?
 
2013-02-20 01:46:04 AM

CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.


Don't let these other guys let you down. I think this is a great plan. You should definitely do it.
 
2013-02-20 01:48:46 AM

Biological Ali: CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.

Don't let these other guys let you down. I think this is a great plan. You should definitely do it.


Hehehe, I am hoping he does.  And then he gets cancer...
 
2013-02-20 01:55:07 AM

Sabyen91: Biological Ali: CujoQuarrel: Isitoveryet: CujoQuarrel: Everyone does know how to game the system by now right?

no.

and i don't think you'd get very far with your plan either.

As it stands right now

1) You can pay a smallish fine to get out of having to buy the insurance
2) You can not be turned down. If you get cancer today you can buy the insurance tomorrow and be covered.

So as a rational financial decision people should only buy the insurance if they are going to have more medical bills than the premium.

Don't let these other guys let you down. I think this is a great plan. You should definitely do it.

Hehehe, I am hoping he does.  And then he gets cancer...


Because he clearly doesn't understand the law.  Dude is going to die fast and it will be because he is such a right-wing moron.
 
2013-02-20 02:51:57 AM

Gyrfalcon: I still haven't gotten a real answer as to why anyone wouldn't actually want health insurance. I've seen ominous references to people "gaming the system" (paying the taxes instead of buying insurance) for some unstated reason, and the usual conservitard point of people wanting "free healthcare" and getting someone else to pay...what I HAVEN'T seen is anyone telling me why for the love of God anyone who could get it wouldn't have it.

I  know those of us who don't have it desperately want it and are hoping to survive until next year when we can no longer be turned down for our "pre-existing conditions" and will be delighted to pay the certain to be hyperinflated price the insurance companies will charge...but still: Can't someone give me a good reason why someone would voluntarily decide they'd prefer to roll the dice and not have insurance?


Because socialism. And the president is near.
 
2013-02-20 02:55:26 AM

fusillade762: Gyrfalcon: I still haven't gotten a real answer as to why anyone wouldn't actually want health insurance. I've seen ominous references to people "gaming the system" (paying the taxes instead of buying insurance) for some unstated reason, and the usual conservitard point of people wanting "free healthcare" and getting someone else to pay...what I HAVEN'T seen is anyone telling me why for the love of God anyone who could get it wouldn't have it.

I  know those of us who don't have it desperately want it and are hoping to survive until next year when we can no longer be turned down for our "pre-existing conditions" and will be delighted to pay the certain to be hyperinflated price the insurance companies will charge...but still: Can't someone give me a good reason why someone would voluntarily decide they'd prefer to roll the dice and not have insurance?

Because socialism. And the president is near.


Socialnig...I am pretty sure I can't finish that without being banned.  Only idiots think Socialism isn't part of our mixed economy, which we have had since about 1920.  Pure capitalism has been tried and we told it to go the fark away.  Even Adam Smith thought it was a shiat idea.
 
2013-02-20 04:09:46 AM

Harry_Seldon: At what point do the Republicans take credit for Romneycare?


hahahhahahahahhahahaha

Never.
 
2013-02-20 06:02:29 AM

shotglasss: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

Gotta love it when libs go to protests with their misspellings and pretend to be conservatives.


I'm just curious, are you literally sniffling right now? Your post certainly makes it sound like you are.
 
2013-02-20 06:08:45 AM

zez: In Missouri they worded the bill so much in doublespeak that I'm pretty sure I voted differently than I wanted and I knew about it going in!



"Do you not want to not elect person X or not?"
 
2013-02-20 06:24:11 AM

Gyrfalcon: I still haven't gotten a real answer as to why anyone wouldn't actually want health insurance. I've seen ominous references to people "gaming the system" (paying the taxes instead of buying insurance) for some unstated reason, and the usual conservitard point of people wanting "free healthcare" and getting someone else to pay...what I HAVEN'T seen is anyone telling me why for the love of God anyone who could get it wouldn't have it.

I  know those of us who don't have it desperately want it and are hoping to survive until next year when we can no longer be turned down for our "pre-existing conditions" and will be delighted to pay the certain to be hyperinflated price the insurance companies will charge...but still: Can't someone give me a good reason why someone would voluntarily decide they'd prefer to roll the dice and not have insurance?


I think a lot of people consider themselves invincible, or nearly invincible and figure they'll never need anything more than an ER visit to take care of a minor injury or illness. Then they look at the reality of health care costs and see how having insurance has done little to prevent people with major medical issues from going bankrupt and figure there's no point. If they never have to deal with anything major (surgeries, long term care, etc) then they might even be right.
It seems like most people have the idea that insurance is only needed for major stuff, but using it for major stuff will still leave you destitute, so why pay premiums for years and years just to go broke when you file a claim.

/insured through employer
//costs a bunch
///glad to have it, will still keep paying
////slashies!
 
2013-02-20 07:01:15 AM
I was in the hospital the other day after my niece had medium-level accident. Was there for for three hours, lots of xrays, different specialists, lovely nurses, special "play coordinators" in the playroom for the kids as we moved between different specialists. Everything was fine in the end.

Didn't have to fill out a single form
Didn't have to phone a single insurance company
Didn't have to get out my wallet
No doctor to ask permission to do anything they deemed medically necessary
Got tea and biscuits

/Mmmmmmm, the UK is made of rainbows and unicorn fur..
 
2013-02-20 07:55:04 AM

BizarreMan: What's really stupid is that in Mississippi, the Republican Insurance Commissioner started to set up an Exchange because his thought is, if we're going to have it, lets have some say in it.

The Republican Governor almost took him out back and shot him for going along with the Fed plan.


Heh; that happened here in NC too. The Democratic lame-duck governor agreed to participate in setting up the exchange with the Federal government, but when the Republicans got in power they nixed that deal right away. Then the new Republican governor said "hey, wait a minute, there may be advantages in working with the Fed to set up the exchanges". A few days later, after his corporate masters explained to him certain political realities, he came out and said "we don't want to set up our own exchanges, let the Federal government do it for us!".
 
2013-02-20 07:55:53 AM

iaazathot: Well, the idiots in Cheyenne, here in Wyoming, sat around with their thumbs up their butts believing it would get overturned.  When it didn't, they all started crying, "there isn't enough time, whoa, whoa, whoa..."
No, you stupid, knuckle dragging morons, you should have proceeded with making plans for BOTH contingencies.  Instead you sat around and did nothing.  Too farking bad, now you don't get a say in the matter.  Oh, and they voted against additional medicaid coverage, so more poor people go without medical care.
Assholes.


That's not as bad as Montana.  We passed a law this  last election that the feds can't enforce Obamacare in our state.  Yessir, that should  do it.  Go away now, Obamacare.
 
2013-02-20 08:35:09 AM

CujoQuarrel: But if you think people won't game the system you are very naive


But you seem to think that your method of gaming the system would actually accomplish something positive for the person trying it.  Is that naivete, or just plain dumb on your part?
 
2013-02-20 08:45:22 AM

Forbidden Doughnut: qorkfiend: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.

These people have to be related to the guy who was holding the " Remember descent. The highest form of patriotic" sign at a Tea Party rally....


Yeah, and this chick too.  WTF is her problem?

i80.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 09:22:54 AM

shotglasss: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

Gotta love it when libs go to protests with their misspellings and pretend to be conservatives.


Gotta love it when conservatives are so insecure that they blame everything they don't like on "libs."

Reality: "Hey look, a stupid conservative doing something stupid."
Conservative: "OMG, FALSE FLAG, RINO, LIBS, LIBS, LIBS, LIIIIIIIIIIBSSSSSSS!!!!!"
 
2013-02-20 10:48:17 AM

Bungles: I was in the hospital the other day after my niece had medium-level accident. Was there for for three hours, lots of xrays, different specialists, lovely nurses, special "play coordinators" in the playroom for the kids as we moved between different specialists. Everything was fine in the end.

Didn't have to fill out a single form
Didn't have to phone a single insurance company
Didn't have to get out my wallet
No doctor to ask permission to do anything they deemed medically necessary
Got tea and biscuits

/Mmmmmmm, the UK is made of rainbows and unicorn fur..


I'm so jealous...  Even with paying for everything, having courteous and knowledgeable docs and nurses... that would be awesome.  Instead the last time I went, I was left sitting in a near empty waiting room for four hours feeling like my appendix was going to burst inside me - wasn't even triaged.
 
2013-02-20 10:55:25 AM

Darke: Bungles: I was in the hospital the other day after my niece had medium-level accident. Was there for for three hours, lots of xrays, different specialists, lovely nurses, special "play coordinators" in the playroom for the kids as we moved between different specialists. Everything was fine in the end.

Didn't have to fill out a single form
Didn't have to phone a single insurance company
Didn't have to get out my wallet
No doctor to ask permission to do anything they deemed medically necessary
Got tea and biscuits

/Mmmmmmm, the UK is made of rainbows and unicorn fur..

I'm so jealous...  Even with paying for everything, having courteous and knowledgeable docs and nurses... that would be awesome.  Instead the last time I went, I was left sitting in a near empty waiting room for four hours feeling like my appendix was going to burst inside me - wasn't even triaged.



Even if you hit a decrepit old London A&E on a busy Saturday night, I'd hope you'd get at least triaged within the hour (obviously instantly if you're clearly in the process of dying, but I suspect that would be the case anywhere in the West).

Fark has told me that if you have insurance, then the US health system is like Hotel Paradiso.
 
2013-02-20 11:24:15 AM

Bungles: Darke: Bungles: I was in the hospital the other day after my niece had medium-level accident. Was there for for three hours, lots of xrays, different specialists, lovely nurses, special "play coordinators" in the playroom for the kids as we moved between different specialists. Everything was fine in the end.

Didn't have to fill out a single form
Didn't have to phone a single insurance company
Didn't have to get out my wallet
No doctor to ask permission to do anything they deemed medically necessary
Got tea and biscuits

/Mmmmmmm, the UK is made of rainbows and unicorn fur..

I'm so jealous...  Even with paying for everything, having courteous and knowledgeable docs and nurses... that would be awesome.  Instead the last time I went, I was left sitting in a near empty waiting room for four hours feeling like my appendix was going to burst inside me - wasn't even triaged.


Even if you hit a decrepit old London A&E on a busy Saturday night, I'd hope you'd get at least triaged within the hour (obviously instantly if you're clearly in the process of dying, but I suspect that would be the case anywhere in the West).

Fark has told me that if you have insurance, then the US health system is like Hotel Paradiso.


In reality, it's more like the Hotel New Hampshire.
 
2013-02-20 11:41:42 AM

Ablejack: Animatronik: So, they had a choice between ceding control to the federal govt. through insurance exchanges or ceding control of the exchanges to the federal govt.
Got it.
This is veiled attempt to eliminate health insurance while further eroding the states' power; they were right to refuse to participate in this little farce.

I wish. Instead it is an attempt to bolster the insurance model already in place. On it's own, the insurance model was failing to provide healthcare without bankrupting the nation. Obamacare shores up the plan by patching it piecemeal so that it has a chance to work. It is essentially a "fix old, no new" policy. That is also why, in part, it is complicated legislature. It would be much more streamlined and efficient to eliminate health insurance altogether and rid the sales model from our health.


You can grow no NEW tree of healthcare until you chop down the old, corrupt, PROFITABLE one.
It will take more than Paul Bunion, and a gd herd of blue oxen.
 
2013-02-20 03:01:14 PM
If this results in Obama forcing churches' insurance to cover birth control, I'm all for it. After all, it covers Viagra, does it not?
 
2013-02-20 08:29:48 PM
Wow, sh0tglass has really gone off the deep end.
 
2013-02-21 11:53:25 AM

qorkfiend: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 360x480]

I farking love it when people clearly on Medicare complain about government "helth" care.


These are the same old people in your town voting down initiatives to help the school system because they are property owners because they haven't had kids at home in 40 years because fark you.  And they're voting in morality laws to keep liquor stores out of easy reach from where you live because the only thing they drink is a 12-pack of Ensure because fark you. And they want their healthcare but they don't want to chip in for yours because fark you.  They don't care about you because in their day they could buy a house and a car on a janitor's salary so quit your whining about your really expensive rent.
 
Displayed 192 of 192 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report