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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report