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

(Politico)   Now that Obamacare is the law of the land, Democrats are having a go at deciding that portions of it are stupid. Grab the popcorn   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, obamacare, Democrats, law of the land, Maria Cantwell, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  
•       •       •

1899 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Mar 2013 at 7:26 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 09:33:04 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.


And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.
 
2013-03-12 09:35:02 AM  

jgbrowning: People really need to stop confusing insurance with health care. Insurance strives to not deliver care.


Ya, we know, but without insurance a lot of people are priced out of health care, so you kind of need it if you want to have health care.
 
2013-03-12 09:35:04 AM  

stoli n coke: thurstonxhowell: I sound fat: without reading, let me guess...

They dont like the parts of it that pay for it, while they like the parts that spend money?

The GOP staked out that position years ago.


What position? Not reading?


Republicans have railed against the individual mandate, cuts to the Medicare reimbursement rate, the tax on medical devices, the tax on high-end insurance plans, and anything else that helps pay for the PPACA.
 
2013-03-12 09:35:59 AM  

Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.


Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.
 
2013-03-12 09:38:03 AM  

Ned Stark: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.

Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.


Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.
 
2013-03-12 09:39:35 AM  

Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.


No in fact you can't.  The government has to have transparency and the general public is already prone to outrage.   Any insurance company has proprietary algorithms that they use to determine how much they are going to charge you for your premium.  Agents that sell their products have non-disclosure clauses if they are even allowed to know.  In the public sector this becomes attainable information giving the consumers a proper voice into the decision making process.  After all, in the public sector the idea is not record profits quarter after quarter, but to establish a system that can perpetually support its consumers.
 
2013-03-12 09:43:03 AM  
LOLCOMPROMISE

Yeah, it's not really what Democrats wanted, but it's better than nothing at all. It needs to be made better.
 
2013-03-12 09:43:16 AM  

Dr Dreidel: But I can guarantee that nothing improves if we don't tinker.


Can you? This I gotta see.

America suffered a depression in 1920-21. History lessons generally leave it out because it was so brief compared to the Great Depression, and it was brief because the federal government by and large didn't tinker. We need a postwar correction in the size of government and markets and we got it, and got it over with. There are some phenomena it is beyond the power of government to affect for the positive.

Jump ahead a decade and you see Hoover and Roosevelt, a couple of presidents of the just-DO-something school, whatever their party affiliation might have been. Between them they tinkered for a decade, until with WWII looking inevitable Roosevelt came to the realization that crapping all over the business community when there was a war coming was no way to run a country.
 
2013-03-12 09:43:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.

Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.

Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.


I'm sure some states will just ignore the problem and not do anything, so really it's more like 47 new bureaucracies .
 
2013-03-12 09:45:31 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Everyone knows healthcare should be entirely profit driven. Giving power to corporations never leads to corruption.

That also leads to corruption, obviously. But if you're going to put your health in somebody else's hands, it's a pick-your-poison situation. And it is far from clear that the solution lies in Washington. There are aspects of our health we should be handling more of ourselves. I'm thinking primarily of nutrition here, along with anything else we do to our bodies - and yet we have a federal government that actively impedes our ability to do right by ourselves. Think agriculture subsidies, for starters. We subsidize crap, for the most part. We subsidize crap through the food-stamp system, too. Recipients understandably spend their limited resources on the cheapest calories - again, the crap. And then we're surprised at high obesity and diabetes rates for the poor.

At least when the private sector trainwrecks something, I can invest in them and make a buck off it. When the public sector trainwrecks something, everybody's poorer - except those who had the massive resources needed to buy a piece of public-sector power.

Add complexity to the system (and this health-care law is nothing if not complex) and it benefits those with the resources to work the complexity to their advantage - again, that's those who already have the most.

If the federal government has a role here at all, it's to protect us from out-of-the-blue catastrophic health issues (e.g. Lou Gehrig's disease) and to encourage preventive self-care. Instead, they encourage the opposite - everything from obesity to unnecessary testing.

Why would I think that with the Obama plan, that this time they really got it right, honest they did?

Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

God Bless the Multinational Corporation and God Damn the United States of America.


Not sure what would encourage private insurers to spend as little as possible. Since now they can only spent 20% of their output paying themselves, they mostly have effective monopolies, and and its now illegal for their customers to drop out of the market.

It appears to my eye that every incentive is to make sure that things as fantastically expensive as possible.
 
2013-03-12 09:46:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes., putting your health entirely in the care of anonymous, unaccountable corporate bureaucrats who's only concern is spending as little money on you as possible is unquestionably the smart choice. Like you I want the major corporations to have as much power as possible, without restraint form the elected government. Like you I'd like to see food stamps ended and the poor left to be cared for by the overwhelming generosity of companies like McDonalds and Kraft. Only then will we be free and healthy.

And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.

I'm not carrying any water for the Krafts and McDonald's of the world. That should be clear, but you seemed to have misssed my point so let me make it clearer: they AND Congress have a shared interest in the increasing size, cost and complexity of the federal government.

As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.

Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.

Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.


I remember when I was in my halcyon Libertarian days, thinking this idea would somehow work out perfectly. I didn't realize then that state and local governments were often twice as corrupt as the federal government. If you want to talk cronyism, metastatized spending, and downright graft, hang around your state capitol sometime. Plus the federal goverment has had to drag many states on more than one occasion into the current century.
 
2013-03-12 09:46:30 AM  

Gulper Eel: As for the poor, I would indeed gut the food-stamp program - to replace it with a state-by-state food program funded by block grants.


Block grants often fail at delivering what they were intended for. When the direct cash welfare program was reformed in the 90's it lead to an increase in poverty rates as the grant money was often not actually spent on the individual but was diverted to shore up state budgets elsewhere. This was allowed because the grants allowed fungibility of the money so long as the state could justify that it helps the poor and underclass.

An example would be taking some of that block grant money to fix a street, and then justifying by saying that the majority of residents on that street or who use that street are under a certain income level.

Basically block grants screw people over and often fail to deliver their intended services.
 
2013-03-12 09:46:46 AM  

Gulper Eel: verbaltoxin: Gulper Eel: Astounding. Congress fiddles with the health care system to make it more politically-driven and there are still problems?

Clearly the solution to this dilemma is to make it 100 percent politically driven, and screw you haters for bringing up piddling small things like budgets, basic competence and the tendency of power to corrupt.

As usual your additions to this discussion amount to jack squat.

Did you come in here looking for an echo chamber?

The bill was a dog's breakfast at its introduction and the legislative process made it more so. Are you surprised that legislators want to re-visit the whole mess and carve out more goodies?


Other countries' governments manage it fine. Why do you think America's can't? Do you think there's something uniquely wrong with America's government? Why do you hate America?
 
2013-03-12 09:47:22 AM  

Citrate1007: The government has to have transparency


I don't think you were trying to be amusing there, but...wow, you really believe that?

Ned Stark: Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.


Philip Francis Queeg: Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.


And here we have a coupla fellers who have no understanding of federalism and no idea how block grants work.
 
2013-03-12 09:49:30 AM  

Klivian: Yea, that's what happens when you water something down to get it to pass Congress rather than just go single payer


Done in one.
 
2013-03-12 09:49:36 AM  

Gulper Eel: Citrate1007: The government has to have transparency

I don't think you were trying to be amusing there, but...wow, you really believe that?

Ned Stark: Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.

Philip Francis Queeg: Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.

And here we have a coupla fellers who have no understanding of federalism and no idea how block grants work.


In many cases they work poorly.
 
2013-03-12 09:51:28 AM  

Gulper Eel: Dr Dreidel: But I can guarantee that nothing improves if we don't tinker.

Can you? This I gotta see.

America suffered a depression in 1920-21. History lessons generally leave it out because it was so brief compared to the Great Depression, and it was brief because the federal government by and large didn't tinker. We need a postwar correction in the size of government and markets and we got it, and got it over with. There are some phenomena it is beyond the power of government to affect for the positive.

Jump ahead a decade and you see Hoover and Roosevelt, a couple of presidents of the just-DO-something school, whatever their party affiliation might have been. Between them they tinkered for a decade, until with WWII looking inevitable Roosevelt came to the realization that crapping all over the business community when there was a war coming was no way to run a country.


This you should be ashamed of really. The Depression and the 1920-21 recession were different because they were completely different. Equating the two is absurd and you know it. Have some goddamn integrity.
 
2013-03-12 09:52:35 AM  
I think the article actually says that the democrats are upset that all the law is not being implemented correctly or fully - not that these portions are bad.

reading comprehension fail subby?
 
2013-03-12 09:53:08 AM  
So if I buy a football team, am I not allowed to fire the coach?
 
2013-03-12 09:53:32 AM  

Gulper Eel: Citrate1007: The government has to have transparency

I don't think you were trying to be amusing there, but...wow, you really believe that?

Ned Stark: Damn all this complexity!!!

...but adding another layer of bureaucrats will fix it.

Philip Francis Queeg: Clearly 50 bureaucracies will be simpler and more efficient than one.

And here we have a coupla fellers who have no understanding of federalism and no idea how block grants work.


Thinking something is stupid is not the same as not understanding it.
 
2013-03-12 09:55:51 AM  

Tigger: Gulper Eel: Dr Dreidel: But I can guarantee that nothing improves if we don't tinker.

Can you? This I gotta see.

America suffered a depression in 1920-21. History lessons generally leave it out because it was so brief compared to the Great Depression, and it was brief because the federal government by and large didn't tinker. We need a postwar correction in the size of government and markets and we got it, and got it over with. There are some phenomena it is beyond the power of government to affect for the positive.

Jump ahead a decade and you see Hoover and Roosevelt, a couple of presidents of the just-DO-something school, whatever their party affiliation might have been. Between them they tinkered for a decade, until with WWII looking inevitable Roosevelt came to the realization that crapping all over the business community when there was a war coming was no way to run a country.

This you should be ashamed of really. The Depression and the 1920-21 recession were different because they were completely different. Equating the two is absurd and you know it. Have some goddamn integrity.


Plus there is the stupidity of trying to analyze the Great Depression based solely on the basis of US policy.
 
2013-03-12 10:00:10 AM  

Gulper Eel: Citrate1007: The government has to have transparency

I don't think you were trying to be amusing there, but...wow, you really believe that?


No I wasn't.  Do you honestly think that something as controversial as the implementation of Obamacare will go unnoticed.  Sure both sides with be putting out miss-information, but anyone who wants to can gain access to that information if they are so inclined.  That insanely bureaucratic process is a biatch, but compared to the status quo of having to subpoena a corporation for the information it is like a walk in the park.
 
2013-03-12 10:01:36 AM  

Gulper Eel: Astounding. Congress fiddles with the health care system to make it more politically-driven and there are still problems?



This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.

/i guess for republicans it is. For the rest of us, it's common sense for the greatest country in the world to provide for its citizens.
 
2013-03-12 10:04:42 AM  

Tigger: Other countries' governments manage it fine.


Far more importantly, their people manage it fine.

A place like Norway does well under a single-payer system because their people have a stronger tradition of not being farkups, for lack of a better phrase...and because their government has a stronger tradition of honesty and being prudent with money.

verbaltoxin: I didn't realize then that state and local governments were often twice as corrupt as the federal government. If you want to talk cronyism, metastatized spending, and downright graft, hang around your state capitol sometime.


That's true, and the most corrupt state governments are the ones who've been the best at playing the Washington game to max out what they get. Exhibit A: New York and its Medicaid program. We have a HUGE Medicaid program, bigger than the next two largest state programs combined...so we should be the nation's healthiest people, right? Not so much. We're in the middle of the pack, and that's with a big city with a lot of rich people and walkers making our numbers look better. Take the NYC metro out of the mix and we're borderline-Appalachian.

New York managed to fark Medicaid out of $15 billion over the past decade or so, saying it was going to the developmentally disabled when no such thing was happening. We got away with it for so long because New York politicians knew how to game the system to make it all look quasi-legal, and knew that Washington was content to look the other way like they usually do.

The thing about block grants is that they come to less than what the state was getting under the piecemeal system, but the state gets somewhat more flexibility on spending. I'll take that imperfect tradeoff because now everybody's eyes will be on the state legislators. They hate that shiat.
 
2013-03-12 10:07:26 AM  
They are just taking the tea party advice of fix old, no new.
 
2013-03-12 10:07:43 AM  

Gulper Eel: Dr Dreidel: But I can guarantee that nothing improves if we don't tinker.

Can you? This I gotta see.


Simple logic, m'boy: if you change nothing, nothing changes, Things may get worse, but they absolutely will not get better on their own.

Do you think that people would one day just stop exploiting the loopholes in ACA? That the problems we know to be there would solve themselves? That no new problems might arise (like claiming all dental surgery as cosmetic* or some asinine name-game like they do in claiming PACs are nonprofits) that need addressing?

*yes, I know dental isn't covered by ACA.
 
2013-03-12 10:08:36 AM  

Gulper Eel: The thing about block grants is that they come to less than what the state was getting under the piecemeal system, but the state gets somewhat more flexibility on spending. I'll take that imperfect tradeoff because now everybody's eyes will be on the state legislators. They hate that shiat.


No they don't, States love block grants because it allows them to shore up their budgets. They are the most inefficient way to deliver services because of that flexibility. Often money is spent on things totally unrelated to the intent of the program with loose justification.

Again, see how well welfare reform in the 90's essentially screwed people over and rose poverty rates over all.
 
2013-03-12 10:09:32 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Gulper Eel: Dr Dreidel: But I can guarantee that nothing improves if we don't tinker.

Can you? This I gotta see.

Simple logic, m'boy: if you change nothing, nothing changes, Things may get worse, but they absolutely will not get better on their own.

Do you think that people would one day just stop exploiting the loopholes in ACA? That the problems we know to be there would solve themselves? That no new problems might arise (like claiming all dental surgery as cosmetic* or some asinine name-game like they do in claiming PACs are nonprofits) that need addressing?

*yes, I know dental isn't covered by ACA.


"Dental plan!"

"Lisa needs braces!"
 
2013-03-12 10:10:33 AM  

Lord_Baull: This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.


Yes - because a massive amount of the healthcare required is for lifestyle diseases, a lot of which wouldn't have happened if not for the federal government subsidizing unhealthy choices.

The USDA in particular reminds me of the kind of volunteer firefighter you see in the news once in a while, the one who sets fires so he can get credit for helping put them out.
 
2013-03-12 10:10:46 AM  
Gulper Eel:
The thing about block grants is that they come to less than what the state was getting under the piecemeal system, but the state gets somewhat more flexibility on spending.

"Flexibility" meaning the ability to spend it on things that have little to do with the purpose of the grant, as you just said the State of New York has?
 
2013-03-12 10:14:07 AM  
Gulper Eel
Yes - because a massive amount of the healthcare required is for lifestyle diseases

Citations for that claim, please? What percentage of our healthcare spending is "for lifestyle diseases"? What is the technical definition of a "lifestyle disease"?
 
2013-03-12 10:15:23 AM  

mrexcess: Gulper Eel
Yes - because a massive amount of the healthcare required is for lifestyle diseases

Citations for that claim, please? What percentage of our healthcare spending is "for lifestyle diseases"? What is the technical definition of a "lifestyle disease"?


Being fat and poor, duh.
 
2013-03-12 10:16:46 AM  

Gulper Eel: The USDA in particular reminds me of the kind of volunteer firefighter you see in the news once in a while, the one who sets fires so he can get credit for helping put them out.


dgt1.net
 
2013-03-12 10:18:39 AM  

Gulper Eel: That's true, and the most corrupt state governments are the ones who've been the best at playing the Washington game to max out what they get. Exhibit A: New York and its Medicaid program. We have a HUGE Medicaid program, bigger than the next two largest state programs combined...so we should be the nation's healthiest people, right? Not so much. We're in the middle of the pack, and that's with a big city with a lot of rich people and walkers making our numbers look better. Take the NYC metro out of the mix and we're borderline-Appalachian.

New York managed to fark Medicaid out of $15 billion over the past decade or so, saying it was going to the developmentally disabled when no such thing was happening. We got away with it for so long because New York politicians knew how to game the system to make it all look quasi-legal, and knew that Washington was content to look the other way like they usually do.


And you want to give these corrupt people more flexibility and less oversight.  Why?
 
2013-03-12 10:19:08 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lord_Baull: This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.

Yes - because a massive amount of the healthcare required is for lifestyle diseases, a lot of which wouldn't have happened if not for the federal government subsidizing unhealthy choices.


Huh? Is this a dog whistle for something?
Funny how the most ardent "supporters" of our constitutional rights are the ones that want government to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body.
 
2013-03-12 10:19:36 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: No they don't, States love block grants because it allows them to shore up their budgets. They are the most inefficient way to deliver services because of that flexibility. Often money is spent on things totally unrelated to the intent of the program with loose justification.


How does getting less money help a state shore up its budget? That's what the status quo was doing.

Here in NY the state was taking the Medcaid money for the developmentally disabled and using it for other purposes which turned out to be not entirely permissible...but Washington was giving Albany a wink and a nod on that until a couple years ago. The whole premise behind Medicare and Medicaid is the feds know the stated reimbursment rates aren't enough by themselves to get buy-in from providers, but the feds are willing to look the other way if the providers pad their bills to make up the difference, plus a little something for themselves and a kickback to the politicians' campaigns would be nice.

I have to credit Andrew Cuomo for being as blunt as is practical here on what NY's doing now. We had to cut $125m out of the budget for the developmentally disabled as part of the penance for ripping off all that Medicaid money back in the day. He knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining, because overall  the state made out well.
 
2013-03-12 10:20:06 AM  

verbaltoxin: mrexcess: Gulper Eel
Yes - because a massive amount of the healthcare required is for lifestyle diseases

Citations for that claim, please? What percentage of our healthcare spending is "for lifestyle diseases"? What is the technical definition of a "lifestyle disease"?

Being fat and poor, duh.


I think he's trying to refer to AIDs
 
2013-03-12 10:20:53 AM  

Gulper Eel: How does getting less money help a state shore up its budget? That's what the status quo was doing.


I know your trolling, but I have to say you were doing well there. its starting to fall apart though best to bail out now.
 
2013-03-12 10:26:26 AM  

mrexcess: Citations for that claim, please? What percentage of our healthcare spending is "for lifestyle diseases"? What is the technical definition of a "lifestyle disease"?


Examples: Diabetes II, obesity, the circulatory diseases that accompany obesity, arthritis and joint diseases, etc. Here you go.

Diabetes II by itself comes to something like $45b in the '09 Medicare budget, and the number's been rising fast. Blow up the food-stamp program in favor of something that requires alternatives to processed crap, and maybe you spend more on the food stamps but you'll also keep people from needing treatment for the aforementioned diseases.
 
2013-03-12 10:32:20 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Gulper Eel: How does getting less money help a state shore up its budget? That's what the status quo was doing.

I know your trolling, but I have to say you were doing well there. its starting to fall apart though best to bail out now.


My state legislators are shiatting themselves over the possibility that the feds will shift NY over to a block-grant system. They absolutely do not want that.

The prime worry I'm hearing is that the states will fark around with the money, to which I say...and? They're already doing that, and with Washington's blessing.
 
2013-03-12 10:32:22 AM  

neongoats: Democrats find plenty of it stupid, because it was assraped and mangled by republican obstructionism, so what we got was a watered down piece of shiat, instead of any kind of actual reform at all.

farking insurance industry, no farking better than pay day loan scam stores. Parasites that are worthy only of death.


It got zero republican votes, zero republican amendments, and yet passed and lauded as a great democrat achievement, and still you blame republicans? The only obstruction that took place was the two dem senate holdouts who took a Medicare bribe for their respective states that were later tossed after cloture. This is 100% democrat language, now own it.

Bless your heart.
 
2013-03-12 10:35:18 AM  

Gulper Eel: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Gulper Eel: How does getting less money help a state shore up its budget? That's what the status quo was doing.

I know your trolling, but I have to say you were doing well there. its starting to fall apart though best to bail out now.

My state legislators are shiatting themselves over the possibility that the feds will shift NY over to a block-grant system. They absolutely do not want that.

The prime worry I'm hearing is that the states will fark around with the money, to which I say...and? They're already doing that, and with Washington's blessing.


So let's eliminate any restraint on their ability to fark around with the money. Problem solved!
 
2013-03-12 10:35:44 AM  

Gulper Eel: mrexcess: Citations for that claim, please? What percentage of our healthcare spending is "for lifestyle diseases"? What is the technical definition of a "lifestyle disease"?

Examples: Diabetes II, obesity, the circulatory diseases that accompany obesity, arthritis and joint diseases, etc. Here you go.



Obvious troll is obvious.
 
2013-03-12 10:39:38 AM  

Gulper Eel: And you can say precisely the same about anonymous, unaccountable (except to the bosses) political bureaucrats.


I thought we elected those people.  Or to put it another way that we ARE those people.

Good to know you don't accept ownership of your government.
 
2013-03-12 10:41:07 AM  
Gulper Eel: First, the referenced article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it. Can you summarize the facts and figures? Second, that's only dealing with Medicare... do you have any overall numbers?

Third, that's an example of what you consider to be a lifestyle disease, not a clear definition of what lifestyle diseases are. Arguably every disease is either congenital or acquired as a result of someone's actions - a technical definition is important to understand where you're actually drawing the line when calculating this figure.

Fourth, Americans are not the only people to acquire diabetes type II, or to suffer obesity-related health problems like hypertension. Can you explain why our health costs are more than double that of, for example, Australia, despite the rate of obesity not being that dissimilar in the societies (25% vs. 35%)?

Blow up the food-stamp program in favor of something that requires alternatives to processed crap

It's pretty interesting - studies repeatedly confirm that the poorer someone is, the less healthy their diet is... a fact that has been observed for more than a century. Blaming the assistance programs for the poor themselves, then, is perhaps to blame a symptom rather than the cause?
 
2013-03-12 10:43:32 AM  

Lord_Baull: Gulper Eel: Astounding. Congress fiddles with the health care system to make it more politically-driven and there are still problems?


This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.

/i guess for republicans it is. For the rest of us, it's common sense for the greatest country in the world to provide for its citizens.


Telling me that I have to purchase I couldn't afford or face a financial penalty isn't really the same as providing me anything or fixing the rising cost problems with actual healthcare and related rising insurance costs.
 
2013-03-12 10:44:52 AM  
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) then demanded that Cohen explain why the Obama administration "negotiated away" money for another small piece of the law, one to set up insurance co-ops to compete with commercial insurers in the state-based health insurance exchanges. He warned that the administration is risking the entire law's success.

Good idea
 
2013-03-12 10:46:39 AM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Lord_Baull: Gulper Eel: Astounding. Congress fiddles with the health care system to make it more politically-driven and there are still problems?


This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.

/i guess for republicans it is. For the rest of us, it's common sense for the greatest country in the world to provide for its citizens.

Telling me that I have to purchase I couldn't afford or face a financial penalty isn't really the same as providing me anything or fixing the rising cost problems with actual healthcare and related rising insurance costs.


There are subsidies for those who cannot afford the insurance. It does address the rising cost problems of healthcare by covering the costs to all that arise from the uninsured showing up in the ER for healthcare.
 
2013-03-12 10:47:30 AM  

Gulper Eel: My state legislators are shiatting themselves over the possibility that the feds will shift NY over to a block-grant system. They absolutely do not want that.

The prime worry I'm hearing is that the states will fark around with the money, to which I say...and? They're already doing that, and with Washington's blessing.


And yet other states like Indiana are begging to roll it into their other grant programs.

I wonder, what could be the difference between a state like say New York and one like say Indiana?
 
2013-03-12 10:49:21 AM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Lord_Baull: Gulper Eel: Astounding. Congress fiddles with the health care system to make it more politically-driven and there are still problems?


This just in: providing healthcare for millions of Americans that could otherwise not afford it = political grandstanding.

/i guess for republicans it is. For the rest of us, it's common sense for the greatest country in the world to provide for its citizens.

Telling me that I have to purchase I couldn't afford or face a financial penalty isn't really the same as providing me anything or fixing the rising cost problems with actual healthcare and related rising insurance costs.



I wonder if a single-payer system would solve that problem.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report