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.

(Washington Post)   Is Obamacare about to raise taxes on the middle class by $1 TRILLION? Well, is it?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 316
    More: Stupid, obamacare, middle class, income taxes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz  
•       •       •

16765 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 11:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-12 10:32:06 AM
Is Obama going to use that money to fund Friends of Hamas? Well, is he?

I'm just asking questions here
 
2013-03-12 10:33:36 AM
You're getting a 3.8% tax increase for just buying a home people!!
 
2013-03-12 10:40:27 AM
No, but Obamacare is sleeping with your wife.  Sorry to had to learn about it on FARK.
 
2013-03-12 10:48:18 AM
No.
 
2013-03-12 11:12:26 AM
Yes.
 
2013-03-12 11:13:29 AM
Yay! Republican math thread.
 
2013-03-12 11:14:28 AM
Obamacare drank the last of the milk and didn't replace it. It's so inconsiderate.
 
2013-03-12 11:15:47 AM
"More importantly, doesn't it kind of feel like it is when you keep having to see headlines like this? I mean, if this administration cared about The United States of America wouldn't it not include these non existent tax hikes, provisions, decrees, etc. in its legislation? Why do they keep not putting these in their agenda? What is there agenda here and how can we be sure it isn't not this?"
 
2013-03-12 11:16:08 AM
Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.
 
2013-03-12 11:16:13 AM

Citrate1007: Yay! Republican math thread.


Ohh, I love math!  Is this the part where we divide by zero?

gonzoj.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-12 11:16:38 AM
"Their, even."
 
2013-03-12 11:17:04 AM
There's a middle class?
 
2013-03-12 11:17:33 AM
Obama ran over my dog last night, and didn't even have the decency to stop and apologize. Then I caught him late last night trying to steal my grill off my porch. Damn you, Obama!
 
2013-03-12 11:17:41 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-12 11:18:42 AM
Obamacare has been taking your lunch out of the fridge at work. Last month it left you a note asking you to not be so cheap with the cheese.
 
2013-03-12 11:19:14 AM
0bamacare is going to Socialism your guns and gay marry you to a FEMA camp in Benghazi.
 
2013-03-12 11:19:21 AM
Well...if you squint a little...then the answer is sorta.  It is taxing the provider of "luxury" plans.  Which is being passed on to the end user in high premiums.  And it is raising taxes in lots of other areas...some related...like medical devices (not that every Middle Class person has them).

But, it might be safer to say, "Is this Obamacare costing some people more than before?"  And the answer is yes.  And it is making it more affordable for some to have health insurance.  But it really isn't lowering healthcare costs at all.

Where is my public option?!!!!  Let the government compete with private insurance with a subsidized plan or plans based on income and then you might see a reduction in costs of health insurance.  But I'm not sure how exactly you can lower the costs of healthcare in the 21st century.  The costs of new drugs is astronomical and there is no guarantee of a return, and even when you do get it patented and the right to distribute your drug it may take up to 20 years to recover the years of research and production involved in creating the drug.  Same with devices.   You might be able to cut into care costs like hospitalization, wages for medical staff, and stupid over priced stuff like $10 aspirin.  But a lot of medical care is expensive.  Otherwise, we'd all have an MRI machine in our basements.
 
2013-03-12 11:20:02 AM

MattStafford: Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.


If this dude who routinely ignores reality is saying peeps is ignoring reality then someone must be ignoring reality, yo.
 
2013-03-12 11:20:52 AM
If it looks like caca.......smells like caca......and tastes like caca......then it must be Obamacare
 
2013-03-12 11:21:10 AM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

If Obama raises my taxes any more, I'm moving to Belize.
 
2013-03-12 11:21:16 AM
www.oklafan.com
 
2013-03-12 11:21:22 AM
i76.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-12 11:22:29 AM
Two things I do know that happened in the past two years due to Obamacare:

1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA
2) The upper limit for a medical FSA was reduced from $5000/year to $2500/year

Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.
 
2013-03-12 11:23:42 AM
I quit reading after Pinocchio showed up with a dildo.
 
2013-03-12 11:23:45 AM
Obamacare squeezed the toothpaste tube from the middle, and then left the cap off so it got all crusty and gross.
 
2013-03-12 11:24:07 AM
Well sure, everything else they've told us has been true.  Why not this?
 
2013-03-12 11:24:51 AM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 200x200]

If Obama raises my taxes any more, I'm moving to Belize.



Is this sarcasm? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
 
2013-03-12 11:25:51 AM

born_yesterday: No, but Obamacare is sleeping with your wife.  Sorry to had to learn about it on FARK.


I'd better fluff up a couple of robes in the dryer and steam some washcloths.

Do you think he prefers pancakes or waffles?
 
2013-03-12 11:27:38 AM
If you want the government to take care of things like this, they are going to cost money. Pay up.
 
2013-03-12 11:27:44 AM

enry: Two things I do know that happened in the past two years due to Obamacare:

1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA
2) The upper limit for a medical FSA was reduced from $5000/year to $2500/year

Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


FSA is a scam to distract you from higher deductibles and copayments allowing record high insurance company profits.
 
2013-03-12 11:27:52 AM

J.Shelby: Citrate1007: Yay! Republican math thread.

Ohh, I love math!  Is this the part where we divide by zero?

[gonzoj.files.wordpress.com image 560x373]


Man, I hope they teched up to perimeter defenses before they built that; the mindworms are sure to be pissed.
 
2013-03-12 11:28:42 AM

karnal: If it looks like caca.......smells like caca......and tastes like caca......then it must be Obamacare


I think you just Obamacared the thread.
 
2013-03-12 11:30:05 AM

born_yesterday: J.Shelby: Citrate1007: Yay! Republican math thread.

Ohh, I love math!  Is this the part where we divide by zero?

[gonzoj.files.wordpress.com image 560x373]

Man, I hope they teched up to perimeter defenses before they built that; the mindworms are sure to be pissed.


That's why you go green - all the boreholes you want, amiright?
 
2013-03-12 11:31:08 AM
No...er..yes....hmm..wait...I know I can work this out...

Lets see...Potato * Herp / Derp...carry the 5...ok...I get 42.

/was never good at math
 
2013-03-12 11:31:23 AM
This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Also, FTA:

Moreover, most calculations show that middle-income Americans are expected to get more in tax relief , such as health-care subsidies, than in additional tax hikes. CBO, for instance, indicates that middle-income Americans would receive about $1 trillion in premium credits in this 10-year period. So on a net basis, most middle-class Americans should expect to come out ahead.


=Smidge=
 
2013-03-12 11:31:54 AM
Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican says it, its a lie.
 
2013-03-12 11:32:33 AM

Hermione_Granger: I quit reading after Pinocchio showed up with a dildo.


Better things to do, eh?
 
2013-03-12 11:32:34 AM
We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.
 
2013-03-12 11:33:05 AM
I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.
 
2013-03-12 11:33:52 AM

festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican Politician says it, its a lie.


FTFY.
 
2013-03-12 11:36:00 AM

Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.


We will only stop calling it Obamacare if it becomes clear that the program is a success.

/we don't want Nobama taking credit for something positive
//in that unlikely event, we will not only start calling it the Affordable Care Act, we will act like we had always been calling it that
 
2013-03-12 11:36:39 AM

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


Cat food and rainwater is actually a more balanced diet than that which is currently eaten by many Americans.
 
2013-03-12 11:37:18 AM

kid_icarus: Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.

We will only stop calling it Obamacare if it becomes clear that the program is a success.

/we don't want Nobama taking credit for something positive
//in that unlikely event, we will not only start calling it the Affordable Care Act, we will act like we had always been calling it that


Nope.  We'll go back to calling it 'RomneyCare'.
 
2013-03-12 11:38:37 AM

kid_icarus: Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.

We will only stop calling it Obamacare if it becomes clear that the program is a success.

/we don't want Nobama taking credit for something positive
//in that unlikely event, we will not only start calling it the Affordable Care Act, we will act like we had always been calling it that


Rectal thermometers, however, will be officially renamed Obamamometers.
 
2013-03-12 11:38:51 AM

MattStafford: The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill


No.  Part of the Republican objection to the plan was that people would be forced to purchase their own health care.

/Did I just feed the troll?
 
2013-03-12 11:39:39 AM
i184.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-12 11:42:49 AM

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.
 
2013-03-12 11:42:49 AM
How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?
 
2013-03-12 11:44:50 AM
i86.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-12 11:45:18 AM
Obamacare has three wives!

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Who ate all the pies? Obamacare!

/Obamacare believes in compulsory buggery!
 
2013-03-12 11:45:22 AM
I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.

One explanation about Obamacare that I read is that it is not just have some insurance and you won't be fined, but rather that Obamacare level insurance could run as high as $800/month for the average family.  But, with no pre-existing conditions, coverage beginning the moment you buy your policy, why should a healthy person buy insurance when taking the tax fine is cheaper?  Think of it this way: I am healthy.  I see a doctor less than once a year.  Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine.  Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs.   All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance.  And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.
 
2013-03-12 11:45:24 AM

tylerdurden217: How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?


Socialism. Because you're cutting out insturance executives from their entitled profits. Because fr-profit insurance which denies claims isn't socialism.
 
2013-03-12 11:45:41 AM
So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.
 
2013-03-12 11:46:40 AM
We must get rid of it before things kick in and you like it.
 
2013-03-12 11:47:59 AM

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


I can only afford cat food made from real cats.  "Fancy Feast" indeed...
 
2013-03-12 11:48:39 AM
Obamacare is about to raise a gigantic 13 inch cock on the American tax leader. The only thing real Americans can do in the face of this black dick is to act like little pussies. Little pussies sometimes get farked by African monster-dongs, and, sometimes they elect them. Only Hilary can save us now, 44-46.

Also, wait for the trickle-down. Because, God wants you to be successful.
 
2013-03-12 11:49:33 AM

Bartleby the Scrivener: Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.


Would you prefer not to?
 
2013-03-12 11:52:55 AM
I_C_Weener:
Where is my public option?!!!!

Ironically a public option would have forced private providers to compete honestly for once and pushed the medicine/medical insurance market closer to a perfectly competitive, free market equilibrium. So a single payer/public option (which didn't happen because socialism or something) would have been a better free market solution than the increased regulation that the Republican party forced us towards by opposing a single payer option.
 
2013-03-12 11:55:36 AM
img593.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-12 11:56:19 AM
But if you,like, LIVE LONGER, doesn't it kinda just even out anyways?

(grunt,snarl)
 
2013-03-12 11:56:36 AM
This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.

They break it down and Johnson just completely lied about the entire point he was making. He specifically was saying that middle income Americans were getting a $1 trillion tax hike under Obamacare. Now they said that the $1 trillion figure didn't come from thin air.... but that it wasn't the new taxes on the middle class and that ALSO on the balance middle income Americans were going to have more in credits then new taxes so they won't have a tax hike at all... they'll have a tax CREDIT. The opposite of what Johnson was claiming.

Now Schultz on the other hand said that Johnson's claim wasn't true... but because in the middle of her rebuttal she didn't insert the words "middle class" when responding to his false claim they rate her statement as JUST AS untrue as his... even though she was correct that he was full of shiat.

WTF? Liberal media my ass.
 
2013-03-12 11:56:43 AM
enry:  ....  1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA ....

If Republicans really wanted to de-fund birth control, all they would have to do is make it over-the-counter. Millions fewer women would be able to afford it (as insurance does not cover OTC meds).... and now they wouldn't even be able to use the FSA to reduce costs.

But Republican voters are far too un-subtle to 'get' that, ensuring a backlash of titanic proportions if they actually took the single most effective step towards eliminating what they see as the greatest evil in society since universal suffrage. It's hilarious.
 
2013-03-12 12:00:11 PM

LordOfThePings: Bartleby the Scrivener: Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.

Would you prefer not to?


What?

I don't get it
 
2013-03-12 12:01:08 PM

Enigmamf: enry:  ....  1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA ....

If Republicans really wanted to de-fund birth control, all they would have to do is make it over-the-counter. Millions fewer women would be able to afford it (as insurance does not cover OTC meds).... and now they wouldn't even be able to use the FSA to reduce costs.


Some insurance does cover over the counter medications and I believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act requires insurance companies to cover birth control.

/also I'm pretty sure Congress can't just declare certain medications or classes of medicines to be OTC
 
2013-03-12 12:01:55 PM
I heard it was $200 trillion per day.
 
2013-03-12 12:02:54 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: What?

I don't get it


There's nothing to "get". I'm just asking questions.
 
2013-03-12 12:04:58 PM
Look,  all I want to know is if there is any way I can blame my sandy vag on Obama.
 
2013-03-12 12:05:30 PM
Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.

Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.

And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare. So what did we solve exactly? Sounds like we raised everyone's health insurance premiums, gave small businesses a reason to cut health insurance coverage, and made a lot of low-wage full-time workers into low-wage part-time workers--oh and we made everyone's tax forms a lot more complicated and intrusive. Not much of a solution, if you ask me.
 
2013-03-12 12:07:47 PM

LordOfThePings: Bartleby the Scrivener: What?

I don't get it

There's nothing to "get". I'm just asking questions.


OK. Got it.
 
2013-03-12 12:07:52 PM
Look; I'm the last guy who's going to claim the ACA was perfect.

But after the 'Baggers spend four years convincing the population that the bill was too complex to work, or even be understood by themselves or their constituents, and running on a platform of OVERTURNING IT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WAS IN IT,*  how the hell am I supposed to believe anything any of them have to say about it?

*Seriously. That was Chip Cravaack's campaign in 2010 - "I haven't read it, let's overturn it."
 
KIA
2013-03-12 12:08:26 PM
There is no miracle of the fishes and the loaves here people. Huge, expensive promises were made for prescription drug care and then expanded for general health care. Someone has to pay for that now and you, dear middle class, with your victimization and white guilt mentality hoped that any change would be good. You're wrong. Pay up.
 
2013-03-12 12:10:13 PM
What is the definition of middle-class?  It seems middle-class to republicans is on the order of $250,000 to $500,000 a year.

But it is easier to invoke outrage when people don't all agree on what is defined as middle-class, because everyone thinks they are in the middle-class if they don't consider themselves as "rich"
 
2013-03-12 12:11:15 PM

k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along.


Everyone had access to emergency medical care.

Start showing the symptoms of a long-running but manageable disease like MS and you're farked if you don't have insurance.

k1j2b3: So what did we solve exactly?


You mean apart from mandating that insurance companies not refuse people on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Or that bit about them spending a large chunk on insurance and not on marketing and overhead?
Or that bit about expanding Medicaid?
Or that bit about letting children stay on their parents' plans longer - which is incredibly vital in this recession?

k1j2b3: And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare.


And those people will pay a fine. Good.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:37 PM

Voiceofreason01: I_C_Weener:
Where is my public option?!!!!

Ironically a public option would have forced private providers to compete honestly for once and pushed the medicine/medical insurance market closer to a perfectly competitive, free market equilibrium. So a single payer/public option (which didn't happen because socialism or something) would have been a better free market solution than the increased regulation that the Republican party forced us towards by opposing a single payer option.


I know.  I think single payer has some benefits, but a public option that consolidated Medicare, Medicaid together would have made some sense.  No need to have 3 groups doing the same thing.  And as you said, it would have offered subsidized competition for the health insurance companies out there.  They either compete to lower premiums or offer a better product for higher premiums allowing for multi-level options for all Americans.  It also would avoid the problems of single payer such as waiting lists to see doctors who would remain private employees, not employees of the government.

Basically, it would have allowed for innovation, and the best of what we have, but made it more affordable for all of us.  Basically, an improved version of Canada and Europe models.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:55 PM

Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to


Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:57 PM

kid_icarus: [i76.photobucket.com image 360x202]


That seriously made my day better.  Thanks.
 
2013-03-12 12:16:52 PM
Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


\Seriously Wasserman Shultz as an authority on anything but bad hair.  Really.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:13 PM
enry:
Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


It will hurt us in the long run. the last thing we need is more people living longer. We need some form of population control.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:25 PM

MattStafford: Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.


Why don't we buy everyone a car too? Everyone needs transportation! We can just average out the cost to everyone!

It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:37 PM
i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-12 12:20:22 PM

I_C_Weener: Well...if you squint a little...then the answer is sorta.  It is taxing the provider of "luxury" plans.  Which is being passed on to the end user in high premiums.  And it is raising taxes in lots of other areas...some related...like medical devices (not that every Middle Class person has them).

But, it might be safer to say, "Is this Obamacare costing some people more than before?"  And the answer is yes.  And it is making it more affordable for some to have health insurance.  But it really isn't lowering healthcare costs at all.

Where is my public option?!!!!  Let the government compete with private insurance with a subsidized plan or plans based on income and then you might see a reduction in costs of health insurance.  But I'm not sure how exactly you can lower the costs of healthcare in the 21st century.  The costs of new drugs is astronomical and there is no guarantee of a return, and even when you do get it patented and the right to distribute your drug it may take up to 20 years to recover the years of research and production involved in creating the drug.  Same with devices.   You might be able to cut into care costs like hospitalization, wages for medical staff, and stupid over priced stuff like $10 aspirin.  But a lot of medical care is expensive.  Otherwise, we'd all have an MRI machine in our basements.


I agree with most of this.  But 1) the previsions in Obamacare to encourage preventative health care are expected lower healthcare costs in the long run. It costs less to fix a health problem with prevention, such as prenatal care and care for children not currently covered than it does to fix the subsequent problems in the emergency room. 2) Another area of theoretical savings is as the medical review boards (NOT aka "death panels") move towards a model of compensating medical providers for results rather than procedures. 3)Big Pharma whines about their R&D costs but the cost of new drugs is further inflated by astronomical marketing expenses that are entirely unnecessary and unrelated to R&D.
 
2013-03-12 12:20:28 PM

LemSkroob: enry:
Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


It will hurt us in the long run. the last thing we need is more people living longer. We need some form of population control.


I saw a story yesterday about a drug that will let us live until 150.  My first thought was that social security will be broke at 85.
 
2013-03-12 12:21:10 PM
Headline is a question?
Dollar amount without a time reference in the title?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-12 12:21:40 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to

Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.


Except that lawyers cost you more medical dollars on a day in, day out basis than Maury, "Salesman of the Month", in June 2003 ever will.
 
2013-03-12 12:21:53 PM

Buffalo77: Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


\Seriously Wasserman Shultz as an authority on anything but bad hair.  Really.


Isn't that every thread?
 
2013-03-12 12:22:17 PM

Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.


That's why Nancy Pelosi insisted we had to pass it to find out what was in it.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:07 PM

CheekyMonkey: festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican Politician says it, its a lie.

FTFY.


There's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat might steal candy from a baby, and then lie about it.

A Republican would steal candy from a baby, then they'd steal the baby. Then they'd try to convince you the damn socialist Demoncrats stole the baby, while they barbeque it, dice it up an serve it to you on a hoagie roll. And if you happen to recognize the baby on your plate slathered in BBQ sauce, with Republican fingerprints all over it, they'll try to blame it all on Obama.

At this point you can tell who the Tea Bagger is, because he'd be the one who'd dig in and start eating.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:47 PM

Thats No Moose: k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along.

Everyone had access to emergency medical care.

Start showing the symptoms of a long-running but manageable disease like MS and you're farked if you don't have insurance.

k1j2b3: So what did we solve exactly?

You mean apart from mandating that insurance companies not refuse people on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Or that bit about them spending a large chunk on insurance and not on marketing and overhead?
Or that bit about expanding Medicaid?
Or that bit about letting children stay on their parents' plans longer - which is incredibly vital in this recession?

k1j2b3: And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare.

And those people will pay a fine. Good.


Guess who those people will be? The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!  Not those with good jobs and health insurance. So you are okay with fining someone who makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid and can't afford to buy health insurance that has now become more expensive?  Ok. Way to care for the little guy.

And I guess you are happy with dis-incentivizing people to buy health insurance by allowing them to pay a fine until they feel they suddenly need health insurance...which then they can buy (due to the pre-existing condition situation you mentioned) with no problems?  How does this help anything?

Should we now target any other business out there who spends more than 15% of its profits on things beyond its products/services?  What about your internet service? Your cell service? Gasoline? Electricity?

Why are we focusing so much on the health care industry and what we consider to be allowable profits?  And not other businesses that also cause hardship to many people with high costs?
 
2013-03-12 12:26:24 PM

MattStafford: A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income


Oh, look!  It's One Note Johnny, playing the only song he knows.

Again.
 
2013-03-12 12:26:49 PM
Did Obamacare leave the toilet seat up again?

/goddammitsomuch!
 
2013-03-12 12:27:29 PM

Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 370x343]


If you look closely, you can almost hear the sound of the NICU nurse taking care of that baby totally losing her shiat as the cellphone falls.
 
2013-03-12 12:27:49 PM

k1j2b3: Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.

Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.


As someone else pointed out, they can't deny you emergency medical care. Then they'll send you the bill. A bill that (without insurance) will be gargantuous. Many people will ignore early warning signs (such as chest pains) until it's too late to avoid putting more financial burden on their family. Times had been hard enough after getting laid off from work last year. Then one day you find them dead of a massive heart attack and learn (much to late) that they'd been experiencing early warning signs for nearly a year and had been hiding it.

But yeah...that's totally the same as having real health insurance.

/RIP Aunt Nee
 
2013-03-12 12:28:03 PM
I hate this number-fudging game that politicians play. Yes, I realize that future revenues and expenses are all estimates and we need to have something to plan by, but it always pisses me off how they present things. I think they often make it intentionally deceiving and manipulate a lot of factors to support whatever their position is (startling insight, I know!).

"Cutting X will save us eleventy bajillion dollars!!"*
"Policy Y raises taxes by forty gazillion dollars!!"*

*Over the course of the next 4,000 years, assuming the economy grows at 20% annually and everything else stays exactly the same
 
2013-03-12 12:28:28 PM

kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.


We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.
 
2013-03-12 12:28:28 PM

Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Also, FTA:

Moreover, most calculations show that middle-income Americans are expected to get more in tax relief , such as health-care subsidies, than in additional tax hikes. CBO, for instance, indicates that middle-income Americans would receive about $1 trillion in premium credits in this 10-year period. So on a net basis, most middle-class Americans should expect to come out ahead.


=Smidge=


Naw, as a percent of income the plan firmly sticks the burden up the keister of anyone who is not insured under medicare/medicaid.

The day after he signed the bill the insurance companies and employers started hiking up rates and deductibles.
 
2013-03-12 12:29:02 PM

Thats No Moose: Everyone had access to emergency medical care.


Even that was questionable. EMTALA only states you have to have a medical screening exam to rule out life- and limb-threatening emergencies. Beyond that, a Hospital has to do nothing for you.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:21 PM

Great Janitor: And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.


Speaking as a person who's been in healthcare for almost twenty years, I'd like to say that I certainly hope that does turn out to be true.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:48 PM
I'm confused, I thought Republicans only cared about taxes on the Wealthy.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:55 PM

Buffalo77: Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


I'm guessing that those are the ones that agree with you
 
2013-03-12 12:31:01 PM

hdhale: Except that lawyers cost you more medical dollars on a day in, day out basis than Maury, "Salesman of the Month", in June 2003 ever will.


There's no "except" about it. If tort reform is part of the problem, fine, fix that too. Doesn't change that a substantial portion of health care funds buy boats for brokers and it's unnecessary. We used to pay travel agents to set up vacations - they got 10%. Now it's virtually a dead profession. I used to have to take my chances on god knows what with car salesmen - bought my last three cars without one. Realtors used to get 6% on home sales - that commission is rapidly dwindling and many escape it altogether these days. I am counting the days until the same is true with group health policies.
 
2013-03-12 12:31:57 PM
By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.
 
2013-03-12 12:35:23 PM

IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.


Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.
 
2013-03-12 12:38:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.


Sure beats that single payer system that everyone wanted Obamacare to be. That might have put a few of them out of business when people didn't have to spend 30%+ of their monthly income in some cases paying for bottom of the barrel health insurance coverage.
 
2013-03-12 12:38:17 PM
Obama was using a modified wooden toilet paper roller the whole time?
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-12 12:38:20 PM

MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.


You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!
 
2013-03-12 12:40:31 PM

kendelrio: Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?


You wouldn't.  Part of the Republican objection to the plan was that people would be forced topurchase their own health care.
 
2013-03-12 12:41:07 PM

indarwinsshadow: So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.


This.

As a "smug Canadian" I support Obamacare and hope it comes to be. Really though, theres no hope. It'll never fly. Enjoy paying for your doctor visits! At least you won't have to pay taxes right?
 
2013-03-12 12:41:18 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: LordOfThePings: Bartleby the Scrivener: Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.

Would you prefer not to?

What?

I don't get it


you must prefer not to
 
2013-03-12 12:45:30 PM

midigod: kendelrio: Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?

You wouldn't.  Part of the Republican objection to the plan was that people would be forced topurchase their own health care.


But what about people who "can't afford it"? Oh yeah, they pay a fine (as mentioned up thread). This whole situation takes away freedom of choice! That is probably what grinds my gears. If I don't want health insurance, I shouldn't be required to buy it! I know someone is going to reply "but what about the costs to society if you get sick?". My answer? Let me die.

"But you have to buy insurance for your car!!!". Not the same thing. Vehicle insurance protects the investment a bank or loan company has in your vehicle and people you may injure in an accident. Medical insurance mandate =/= vehicle insurance mandate.
 
2013-03-12 12:46:38 PM
The real questions are:
Did global warming cause Obamacare? And, will Obamacare fix global warming, end all deficits, take your guns, free the slaves, end illegal immigration, set a uniform tipping policy, and lower totalfark to the price of a sixer of miller lite?
 
2013-03-12 12:46:44 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to

Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.


You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims.  That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month.  So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen.  Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees.
 
2013-03-12 12:47:09 PM

indarwinsshadow: So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.


They don't want to help brown people, they want to bomb them.
 
2013-03-12 12:47:28 PM
Look, he didn't want it to come to this. But you free loading poors forced his hand. So if it means getting rid of healthcare for you maggots, Ryan will reluctantly balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Happy now?
 
2013-03-12 12:47:57 PM

midigod: kendelrio: Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?

You wouldn't.  Part of the Republican objection to the plan was that people would be forced topurchase their own health care with the assistance of federal subsidies granted to anyone whose income is less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level.


FTFY.
 
2013-03-12 12:50:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.


Heh, I always love it when peoples sarcasm gets thrown in their face on this topic.

Yes, they are  just thrilled:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-12 12:51:31 PM
All I know is my co-pays on generic drugs just doubled, and my copays for doctor's visits as well.  And I have good insurance.

Boooo.  Don't care who is at fault.  Boooo.

/Boooourns
 
2013-03-12 12:52:33 PM

Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"


Someone at $200k/y is not really that much better off, truly, than someone making $50k/y.  Slightly better car, slightly better house/apartment.  Going out to eat a bit more often at slightly better places.  Slightly fancier meals.  Vacations abroad, versus a local camping trip.

That's still middle class.  Very much so.  If you distance yourself from those people - and feel they're the problem - you're just following in the footsteps of the idiots who idolize Che'.

There's a video about it that is making the rounds, re-explaining this again.  Doctors and engineers aren't your enemy, we're there with you.  Aim your bile at CEOs, investment bankers, etc:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
 
2013-03-12 12:53:15 PM

IRQ12: cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.

Heh, I always love it when peoples sarcasm gets thrown in their face on this topic.

Yes, they are  just thrilled:

[i.imgur.com image 810x607]


I will concede that they aren't allowed to literally rape people or rob them at gun point so maybe they aren't so thrilled.
 
2013-03-12 12:53:55 PM

IamAwake: Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Someone at $200k/y is not really that much better off, truly, than someone making $50k/y.  Slightly better car, slightly better house/apartment.  Going out to eat a bit more often at slightly better places.  Slightly fancier meals.  Vacations abroad, versus a local camping trip.

That's still middle class.  Very much so.  If you distance yourself from those people - and feel they're the problem - you're just following in the footsteps of the idiots who idolize Che'.

There's a video about it that is making the rounds, re-explaining this again.  Doctors and engineers aren't your enemy, we're there with you.  Aim your bile at CEOs, investment bankers, etc:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM


lol 50k a year is middle class?  oh god
 
2013-03-12 12:54:50 PM

Great Janitor: JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...
Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.

You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims.  That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month.  So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen.  Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-12 12:54:56 PM

k1j2b3: The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!


When did this happen?

/please cite a source that is NOT a histrionic conservative small-business owner, thanks
 
2013-03-12 12:55:22 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


Same reason you pay for any other safety net.  Social Contract, and all that jazz.
 
2013-03-12 12:55:23 PM

UberDave: You're getting a 3.8% tax increase for just buying a home people!!


Bullschitt.  That tax applies (a) to the capital gains when you *sell*, and (b) only if you can't exempt the capital gains from the regular capital gains tax.
 
2013-03-12 12:55:55 PM
I'm middle class (so "middle class that I'd be eligible for vouchers if I didn't have insurance provided my employer), and my insurance premiums have gone up, copays have gone up, and coverage has gone down since the "affordable care act" has passed.

And, I've discovered that my coverage is a "Cadillac plan" and therefore is subject to penalties and fines for being "too good."

I don't think I'd call it a tax hike, not even a "sneaky" one, but this is the second time that Congress has done something to help or protect the middle class that has personally hurt my day-to-day finances.

Last I checked, Congress passed the law; they should call it CongressCare instead of ObamaCare. That more adequately encapsulates what a tremendous fark-up the whole thing is.
 
2013-03-12 12:57:13 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: k1j2b3: The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!

When did this happen?

/please cite a source that is NOT a histrionic conservative small-business owner, thanks


Given that these provisions don't take effect until January 1 of next year, you're essentially asking people to prove that something will not happen in the future.
 
2013-03-12 12:57:27 PM
Remember who the WSJ thinks is middle class:

si.wsj.net
 
2013-03-12 12:57:48 PM

stirfrybry: That's why Nancy Pelosi insisted we had to pass it to find out what was in it.


You know that's bullshiat, right? The point was that Republicans were telling lies about what was in the ACA ("death panels") when the bill contained nothing of the sort. Once it was passed, then Republicans would stop lying about it (ha!) and people would actually figure out what the bill does.

Congress knew exactly what was in it. They just lied to everybody else. And the media went along with it, instead of tearing into the actual bill and reporting facts - usually through asking misleading questions in headlines or positing unlikely hypotheticals that result in the government killing your grandma and sending you to a FEMA camp for not having an abortion.
 
2013-03-12 12:57:48 PM

indarwinsshadow: So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.


Gosh, you'd be making a great point, were it not for the fact that polls show most Americans are not ok with the bailouts, the wars, the nuclear arms race, and such - and that we are ok with universal health care of some sort.

All countries have despots, ours just pretend they're democratically elected, and are serving the will of The People.
 
2013-03-12 12:58:01 PM

IRQ12: cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.

Heh, I always love it when peoples sarcasm gets thrown in their face on this topic.

Yes, they are  just thrilled:

[i.imgur.com image 810x607]


So Aetna is almost but not quite where they were in 2005? Yeah, I bet they're psyched about that.
 
2013-03-12 12:58:53 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?


Because you live in a society.  Either suck it up and help out your neighbors, or take your whiney ass to the woods.
 
2013-03-12 12:59:55 PM
This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.

They break it down and Johnson just completely lied about the entire point he was making. He specifically was saying that middle income Americans were getting a $1 trillion tax hike under Obamacare. Now they said that the $1 trillion figure didn't come from thin air.... but that it wasn't the new taxes on the middle class and that ALSO on the balance middle income Americans were going to have more in credits then new taxes so they won't have a tax hike at all... they'll have a tax CREDIT. The opposite of what Johnson was claiming.

Now Schultz on the other hand said that Johnson's claim wasn't true... but because in the middle of her rebuttal she didn't insert the words "middle class" when responding to his false claim they rate her statement as JUST AS untrue as his... even though she was correct that he was full of shiat.

WTF? Liberal media my ass.
 
2013-03-12 01:01:04 PM

happyleper: The My Little Pony Killer: k1j2b3: The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!

When did this happen?

/please cite a source that is NOT a histrionic conservative small-business owner, thanks

Given that these provisions don't take effect until January 1 of next year, you're essentially asking people to prove that something will not happen in the future.


And yet he's crying about it as though it's already happened.
 
2013-03-12 01:02:06 PM

kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


Sounds like someone doesn't like living in a society.
 
2013-03-12 01:03:15 PM

Ukab the Great: This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.


Am I stuck in a timewarp again?
 
2013-03-12 01:05:18 PM
Obamacare didn't wash its hands after it peed and then it went and put its hands on all the sodas in my fridge.

/ sodas are > 16oz so SUCK IT Mayor Bloomberg!
 
2013-03-12 01:08:47 PM

festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican politician says it, its a lie.


FTFY. Do you seriously think the Democrats lie any less than the Republicans?
 
2013-03-12 01:10:16 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


youaresketch.typepad.com

AH, look! Crikey!

It's the elusive "I got mine, fark everyone else" mentality in it's wild, natural habitat! The anonymity of the internet literally allows it to be a complete dick to everyone else without fear of being called out and shamed by the rest of it's species.

Truly, truly majestic, it is. Beautiful plumage.
 
2013-03-12 01:12:35 PM

Infernalist: lol 50k a year is middle class? oh god


1)  I said $200k was middle class, and that it isn't really that much different than $50k.  I didn't say $50k was middle class.  We can't buy anyone off, we can't affect political change, we can't afford to send kids to school without loans, we can't pay cash for a house, we can't take off work for a year, etc.  Our <i>real</i> standard of living is very similar.

2)  Yes, I'd say $50k is middle class.  It is in fact squarely in the middle of the middle 20% income range.  As someone who has been homeless, and who has many friends who live in barros in Tijuana without running water, electricity, or sewer (and who live off less than $100/week)...but who currently makes almost $200k...I know poor.  $50k is not poor.  If you can't afford a car, a yearly vacation, a nice safe place to live near good schools, and plenty of food at $50k...you're doing something wrong.  I don't believe in bootstrappy-ness, I was just lucky...but fark you if you think you're poor at $50k.  I've slept on the streets while still working - that's low income.

That's the whole point of the video link I posted, and of Occupy, and etc.  You think someone making $200k is different than you, that they're the enemy.  The enemy is making that per week, not per year - and controls the government.  Income and wealth are not a nice even slope in this country - when looked at on a chart, anyone making less than $400k/y or so looks like a relatively even level when you zoom out enough to see the wealth of the top 5%, and especially the top 0.5%.   If I do a bad job, I get fired.  If someone making $100m/y does a bad job, they get a $20m severence.  Yes, there's a difference.   But hey, the revolution in south america worked out really well...kill off the doctors and engineers, leave the ones that are rich enough to pay for protection alone...then you have no doctors or engineers, and the wealth is even more concentrated at the top.  Sounds like a plan!  Hop to it, revolutionary!
 
2013-03-12 01:13:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: cameroncrazy1984: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're just thrilled about all the new things they have to cover and the removal of yearly caps. And the 80/20 rule. Just thrilled.

Heh, I always love it when peoples sarcasm gets thrown in their face on this topic.

Yes, they are  just thrilled:

[i.imgur.com image 810x607]

So Aetna is almost but not quite where they were in 2005? Yeah, I bet they're psyched about that.


Yes, they are.  What this should tell you is that this is not expected to hurt the bottom line of these companies at all, in fact they are doing better than ever because they have priced all of this in because  THEY WROTE THE BILL!

They are "psyched" and "thrilled" for this boon to their industry, as are their investors.

Did you honestly think your government would do  anything that would hurt the profits of one of the largest lobbies in Washington?
 
2013-03-12 01:14:19 PM

I_C_Weener: LemSkroob: enry:
Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


It will hurt us in the long run. the last thing we need is more people living longer. We need some form of population control.

I saw a story yesterday about a drug that will let us live until 150.  My first thought was that social security will be broke at 85.


and im sure the unions will still demand full retirement benefits at 55.
 
2013-03-12 01:15:49 PM

Great Janitor: You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims. That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month. So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen. Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees


And that borders on criminal. It should be much higher than that. For instance we use one of the blues, which is technically a non-profit. 35% to overhead and administration would barely qualify as a shiatty charity. Paying 5% of health care premiums to a salesman is archaic and wasteful to say the least. I do not need a farking salesman to choose an insurance policy any more than I need a salesman to choose a car or book an airline ticket. I spend almost three hundred grand a year on health insurance. The fact that the first $14k off the top of that goes into a salesman's pocket before paying for any health costs is absurd on its face.
 
2013-03-12 01:17:17 PM

Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.


But CongressCare is an oxymoron.
 
2013-03-12 01:18:56 PM

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-03-12 01:19:29 PM

kendelrio: This whole situation takes away freedom of choice! That is probably what grinds my gears. If I don't want health insurance, I shouldn't be required to buy it! I know someone is going to reply "but what about the costs to society if you get sick?". My answer? Let me die.


The rub there is that annoying "social contract" thing.  If millions of people (or any number you choose) didn't have health insurance, would we, as a nation, be willing to simply "let them die?"  Absolutely not.  And we don't allow that now.  We allow those people to use the emergency room, and everyone else pays for it.  That seems to make much less economic sense than having them on an actual plan whose risk is shared by the nation as a whole.
 
2013-03-12 01:19:33 PM

digitalrain: But CongressCare is an oxymoron.


you win, thread over.  ;)
 
2013-03-12 01:20:18 PM

IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.


Calling Obamacare Corporatecare is like calling ACORN Community Organizations International or like calling a Socialist a Democrat
 
2013-03-12 01:21:55 PM

tylerdurden217: How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?


Why hello there, tovarisch fellow traveler!
 
2013-03-12 01:22:43 PM

IamAwake: digitalrain: But CongressCare is an oxymoron.

you win, thread over.  ;)


th458.photobucket.com

YAY! My first thread-win!
 
2013-03-12 01:26:37 PM

jonrey: Great Janitor: JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...
Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.

You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims.  That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month.  So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen.  Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 447x335]


What's funny is that some people think that 65% of insurance premiums going to pay medical costs is somehow a good number. I build freakin' houses. If you give me $100 you can bet your sweet ass that AT LEAST $85 went to pay the labor materials and subs to build that house and it's quite often more than that. Then I pay all my overhead and STILL turn a profit with the $15 left over.
 
2013-03-12 01:29:09 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims. That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month. So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen. Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees

And that borders on criminal. It should be much higher than that. For instance we use one of the blues, which is technically a non-profit. 35% to overhead and administration would barely qualify as a shiatty charity. Paying 5% of health care premiums to a salesman is archaic and wasteful to say the least. I do not need a farking salesman to choose an insurance policy any more than I need a salesman to choose a car or book an airline ticket. I spend almost three hundred grand a year on health insurance. The fact that the first $14k off the top of that goes into a salesman's pocket before paying for any health costs is absurd on its face.


Medicare overhead is about 1.4% of total expenditures.
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/racs-/-icd-9-/-icd-10/4-things- to -know-about-medicares-overhead-costs.html
 
2013-03-12 01:32:01 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Because you live in a society.


Society is in the shiatter.
 
2013-03-12 01:32:56 PM
Every lie is precious.

Not to worry folks. "Obamacare" is mostly just political posturing. The ACA was written in such a way as to allow key provisions of it to be easily repealed with amendments to other legislation. It also has a lot of pork in it, which is the reason the Repubs went along with a bill that was written largely by the insurance lobby.
 
2013-03-12 01:34:50 PM

karnal: IRQ12: By the way this is not "Obamacare".

It is "Corporatecare" brought to you by Obama and friends.

Calling Obamacare Corporatecare is like calling ACORN Community Organizations International or like calling a Socialist a Democrat


Naw, it's like calling The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act " a boon to health insurance companies.

Or comparing advocates for it who aren't direct beneficiaries chickens voting for colonel sanders.
 
2013-03-12 01:35:47 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims. That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month. So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen. Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees

And that borders on criminal. It should be much higher than that. For instance we use one of the blues, which is technically a non-profit. 35% to overhead and administration would barely qualify as a shiatty charity. Paying 5% of health care premiums to a salesman is archaic and wasteful to say the least. I do not need a farking salesman to choose an insurance policy any more than I need a salesman to choose a car or book an airline ticket. I spend almost three hundred grand a year on health insurance. The fact that the first $14k off the top of that goes into a salesman's pocket before paying for any health costs is absurd on its face.


You do need a salesman to walk you through your insurance sell to show you exactly what you're getting.  I've taken several classes over the past 12 months on insurance policies offered by my company, and several parts of those classes were rather confusing.  You need someone knowledgeable.  You can't test drive a policy like you can a car.  When I sell a policy I make crystal clear what the policy covers, what it won't, how to get it to cover what it's not covering (most policies have exclusions, conditions where the policy will never pay, like getting hurt while committing a felony for example), plus part of my job as salesman is to be the person to call when you have questions about your policy, instead of some call center in India.

And when I say that no less than 65% of all money received must be paid out in claims, it's actually a lot higher.  AFLAC, for example, pays over 80% in claims.
 
2013-03-12 01:37:05 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: tylerdurden217: How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?

Why hello there, tovarisch fellow traveler!


Whenever I think of a command economy of some failed state, I remember how it all began with universal health care. Then some other things happened and before you knew it an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship was sending ruling and the once free citizens were left wondering, "How did this all happen?"
 
2013-03-12 01:42:03 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?

Because you live in a society.  Either suck it up and help out your neighbors, or take your whiney ass to the woods.


Seriously.  The day the government asks me if I want my taxes to be used to make bombs to kill brown poors is the day I give a fark about where the teatards want their money to go.
 
2013-03-12 01:45:39 PM

Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Also, FTA:

Moreover, most calculations show that middle-income Americans are expected to get more in tax relief , such as health-care subsidies, than in additional tax hikes. CBO, for instance, indicates that middle-income Americans would receive about $1 trillion in premium credits in this 10-year period. So on a net basis, most middle-class Americans should expect to come out ahead.


=Smidge=


I think they need to clarify. Real middle class people will not get subsidies. Middle class is not 40k a year any more, not even close. Not even 80k per family should be considered middle class.

Obamacare is nothing but a gigantic hit on the economy, and a boon to the insurance companies, the IRS, and the government.
 
2013-03-12 01:45:40 PM

digitalrain: festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican  politician says it, its a lie.

FTFY. Do you seriously think the Democrats lie any less than the Republicans?


CheesyMonkey beat you to it with this particular bit of RW stupidity. It's not the quantity of of the lies that really matter, but the quality. A lie from Democrat might make you sad or feel slightly uncomfortable. A lie from a Republican will kill you or leave you destitute.

And the Tea Baggers would be all gung-ho to join in on the killing.
 
2013-03-12 01:46:07 PM
does anyone find the photo in the article bizarre?  that person with the shirt off seems very oddly shaped - where is that person's chest and arms and why is their back indented like that?
 
2013-03-12 01:49:47 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: You do realize that by law, all money taken in by health insurance companies, no less than 65% of that money must be paid on claims. That means that health insurance companies must pay all employees, including salesmen, secretaries, all the utility bills, marketing, other costs of running a company out of 35% of the money taken in each month. So, your money isn't being wasted on brokers and salesmen. Your money, if it's not going to the well being of your employees, is going to the well being of others who are insured through the same people insuring your employees

And that borders on criminal. It should be much higher than that. For instance we use one of the blues, which is technically a non-profit. 35% to overhead and administration would barely qualify as a shiatty charity. Paying 5% of health care premiums to a salesman is archaic and wasteful to say the least. I do not need a farking salesman to choose an insurance policy any more than I need a salesman to choose a car or book an airline ticket. I spend almost three hundred grand a year on health insurance. The fact that the first $14k off the top of that goes into a salesman's pocket before paying for any health costs is absurd on its face.


Check the facts on your Blue plan. BCBS of AL is above 95% to claims. Yours is likely close.
 
2013-03-12 01:50:43 PM

Great Janitor: Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine. Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs. All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance. And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.


If you are in some type of accident that renders you unconscious before the ambulance gets you to the hospital how are you going to get insured before you rack up tens of thousands in bills?
 
2013-03-12 01:50:47 PM
Probably, but only if you accept the Supreme Court judgement that the fines involved with NOT having health insurance constitutes a "tax".
 
2013-03-12 01:54:06 PM
Thus, within the 2013 to 2022 budget period, there seems little debate that the health-care law has about $1 trillion in taxes. The House Ways & Means Committee released a calculation earlier this month and there are few questions about its math. Alternatively, the Congressional Budget Office last year released an analysis showing that repeal of the law would cut revenues by exactly $1 trillion.
"I think the $1 trillion figure is fair," said Paul Van de Water of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The biggest tax increases in the law stem from an additional 0.9 percent payroll tax and a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income - but those are aimed at couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. That accounts for almost a third - $318 billion - of the $1 trillion total between 2013 and 2022.


So Obamacare adds $1T of new taxes over ten years, with only a third of that hitting couples making over $250,000 or individuals making over $200,000.  Seems like a lot in additional taxes.
 
2013-03-12 01:54:38 PM
As the article states, both Johnson and Wasserman-Schulz were both right and wrong.

Just like politics and our elected officials.

What?
 
2013-03-12 01:55:36 PM
My reaction to this thread:
 
2013-03-12 01:55:39 PM

Queensowntalia: Obamacare drank the last of the milk and didn't replace it. It's so inconsiderate.



Obama comes to your house and leaves just three sheets of toilet paper on the roll so he doesn't have to replace it!

/ Thanks Obama
 
2013-03-12 01:55:41 PM
I think the question here really is "should everyone have access to healthcare?" If a person starts abusing drugs at age 15 drops out of high school is under or not employed do they really deserve access to healthcare? This bill is basically a huge expansion to Medicaid as most people that are not insured now will have to join Medicaid. Don't confuse Medicaid with Medicare which is not being expanded and is a program working adults paid into to take advantage of when they retire. There is nothing in this law that is of any benefit to people who already pay health insurance only punishment in the form of higher taxes, insurance premiums and healthcare costs. It is a bad law but most people can't get past their emotional objections to see that not everyone is equal or entitled to the same treatment. No one can produce any scenario where a person through no fault of their own finds themselves in a situation where the taxpayers need to subsidize their continued livelihood. It is like taking water (money) out of the bucket (economy) and pouring it into a rusty bucket full of holes (welfare programs) as those holes get bigger (offspring) more and more water is just going to drain out (most of the money is spent on disposable goods) at some point you are going to run out of water in the economy bucket.
 
2013-03-12 01:57:23 PM

kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


The "screw you, I got mine!" Mentality in action here folx...
 
2013-03-12 01:57:26 PM

Great Janitor: You do need a salesman to walk you through your insurance sell to show you exactly what you're getting.


No, I do not.

You need someone knowledgeable.

One would assume companies who are providing a product would be staffed by people knowledgeable about that product. That need not be a commissioned salesperson - particularly when the entities he is representing are non-profits.

You can't test drive a policy like you can a car.

I don't need to. What I need to know is the premium, deductible, network, max out of pocket, etc. It's not brain surgery.

When I sell a policy I make crystal clear what the policy covers, what it won't, how to get it to cover what it's not covering (most policies have exclusions, conditions where the policy will never pay, like getting hurt while committing a felony for example), plus part of my job as salesman is to be the person to call when you have questions about your policy, instead of some call center in India.

You tell people the rules and provisions concerning what they are purchasing? How generous. There's a number on the back of the insurance card with a number on it. My insurance salesman does not answer that number when I call it. Nor does he do my COBRA administration. He doesn't even handle terminations or cancellations - I do that all online.

And when I say that no less than 65% of all money received must be paid out in claims, it's actually a lot higher. AFLAC, for example, pays over 80% in claims.

And there goes any credibility you might have had. AFLAC is one of the magic words around here and their salespeople aren't allowed in the building. If you sell that shiat you ought to be ashamed.
 
2013-03-12 01:57:34 PM
I am employed by a company that manufactures and sells medical devices.  Headcount is an issue now that there is a significant tax liability increase in play (that's business-speak for 'beyotches be gettin' fired 'roun heah!' for you Obamabots that can't/won't/will never have a real job).  My daughter, an independent full time college student, can't get full employment because her targeted employers are all cutting hours due to Obamacare.  And I really get a kick out of those who condemn the R's for wanting to repeal it without fully researching it, after Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it (she really did say that, there's video on the innerwebs and everything).  I've spoken to real, live citizens of countries that have socialised health care, and they all say the same thing: It costs a lot of money.  So, if you're a fan of socialism it's good.  If you're a fan of capitalism, free markets, and freedom of choice, not so much.
 
2013-03-12 01:57:42 PM
Technically speaking these tax increases will hit 'middle class' because they are not pegged to inflation. However by the time someone making roughly 60k now hits 250k plus it will be well beyond 2020 and maybe even 2030.

And really by then it won't matter, the earth will be destroyed by an asteroid wiping out all humanity.

So for now and until then

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
 
2013-03-12 01:57:55 PM

Citrate1007: Yay! Republican math thread.


spinnyliberal.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-12 01:58:01 PM
Obamacare is likely to cost $800 B, and the costs will be paid by people who can't pass along the extra expenses.

No such thing as a free lunch.
 
2013-03-12 01:58:21 PM
For me it is at the point now, where the more they talk about this program and how it'll do X/Y/Z bad things, the more I want the program to succeed. They louder they yell, the more I ignore them.
 
2013-03-12 01:59:05 PM
It is interesting to have a memory that goes back farther than 2007.  I remember when every law and tax passed by a Democratic congress was Bush's fault.  Now, nothing is Obama's fault because half of Congress is Republican.
 
2013-03-12 02:00:14 PM

mycatisposter: Check the facts on your Blue plan. BCBS of AL is above 95% to claims. Yours is likely close.


One would hope so. Because 65% would be criminal. As for the 5% to the broker selling the policy, that's indisputable. I get a letter each year disclosing it.
 
2013-03-12 02:01:36 PM
Interesting pic in the article..looks more like a chinatown massage parlor than a hospital
 
2013-03-12 02:01:44 PM
Buck Ofama
 
2013-03-12 02:02:24 PM

jst3p: Great Janitor: Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine. Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs. All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance. And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.

If you are in some type of accident that renders you unconscious before the ambulance gets you to the hospital how are you going to get insured before you rack up tens of thousands in bills?


Much like today, the bill goes unpaid to a debt collector and I spend the next few years ignoring those calls.

Want to really do some good for healthcare reform?  We take in over $3 trillion annually in taxes on the Federal level.  The vast majority of that spending is military.  Pull out of these wars in other countries that we are in, cut back on the military spending (not end it all, just cut back) and put that money into a basic level of healthcare for all Americans without raising taxes.
 
2013-03-12 02:04:29 PM

give me doughnuts: vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 200x200]

If Obama raises my taxes any more, I'm moving to Belize.


Is this sarcasm? Sometimes it's hard to tell.


If you can afford it, what the Fark are you still doing here?
 
2013-03-12 02:07:36 PM
If found this article interesting because it gave me an idea how much I have to discount Republican statements on alleged Democratic tax increases. The answer is 66% with a possibility of an additional 34%.
 
2013-03-12 02:09:52 PM

olddinosaur: Obamacare is likely to cost $800 B, and the costs will be paid by people who can't pass along the extra expenses.

No such thing as a free lunch.


Cool - Old Dinosaur. Hey, tell us the one about how we should be paying cash for our house.
 
2013-03-12 02:12:26 PM

JohnBigBootay: What's funny is that some people think that 65% of insurance premiums going to pay medical costs is somehow a good number. I build freakin' houses. If you give me $100 you can bet your sweet ass that AT LEAST $85 went to pay the labor materials and subs to build that house and it's quite often more than that. Then I pay all my overhead and STILL turn a profit with the $15 left over.


You're not comparing apples to apples.  The 65% mentioned doesn't cover ANY of the labor of the insurance company, but you're including your own labor.  Take out your labor costs and see if you can still hit 65%.

And by the way, that 65% figure is a mandated minimum, not the desired target.  I've worked for two of the largest insurers in the country, and they were constantly trying to get their own labor and admin costs down as low as they could possibly go.  And then some more.  Their ideal for claim costs was 90%, even though they knew they could never reach it.  Dumping the brokers would have given them a free 13-18%!  It's just too bad that, in many states, insurers are required to use brokers, because of the brokers' lobby.
 
2013-03-12 02:13:45 PM

I_C_Weener: Well...if you squint a little...then the answer is sorta.  It is taxing the provider of "luxury" plans.  Which is being passed on to the end user in high premiums.  And it is raising taxes in lots of other areas...some related...like medical devices (not that every Middle Class person has them).

But, it might be safer to say, "Is this Obamacare costing some people more than before?"  And the answer is yes.  And it is making it more affordable for some to have health insurance.  But it really isn't lowering healthcare costs at all.

Where is my public option?!!!!  Let the government compete with private insurance with a subsidized plan or plans based on income and then you might see a reduction in costs of health insurance.  But I'm not sure how exactly you can lower the costs of healthcare in the 21st century.  The costs of new drugs is astronomical and there is no guarantee of a return, and even when you do get it patented and the right to distribute your drug it may take up to 20 years to recover the years of research and production involved in creating the drug.  Same with devices.   You might be able to cut into care costs like hospitalization, wages for medical staff, and stupid over priced stuff like $10 aspirin.  But a lot of medical care is expensive.  Otherwise, we'd all have an MRI machine in our basements.


Medical care is expensive because the act doesn't address tort reform...period.

Doctors pay ridiculously high malpractice premiums because judges and juries award ridiculous damage awards and it costs a litigant nothing to bring a lawsuit because for even borderline ludicrous claims, its more cost effective to settle rather than defend and go to trial.  What this does is force doctors to practice defensive medicine, ordering every single test they can think of so they can't be adjudged to be negligent later on.

Remove much of the lawsuit incentive, reform malpractice laws to discourage lawsuits in the first place while retaining access to the courts for egregious cases and you deflate a major driver of what drives costs through the roof.  The U.S. spends the highest, by far, per capita on healthcare and are no healthier than the rest of the world and unhealthier than many.  One of the differences in the costs is our civil court system.  It's nice to have most of the time...but this ain't one of them.

And it won't be meaningfully addressed because we elect lawyers to Congress way more than any other occupational group.
 
2013-03-12 02:15:46 PM

Great Janitor: jst3p: Great Janitor: Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine. Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs. All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance. And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.

If you are in some type of accident that renders you unconscious before the ambulance gets you to the hospital how are you going to get insured before you rack up tens of thousands in bills?

Much like today, the bill goes unpaid to a debt collector and I spend the next few years ignoring those calls.

Want to really do some good for healthcare reform?  We take in over $3 trillion annually in taxes on the Federal level.  The vast majority of that spending is military.  Pull out of these wars in other countries that we are in, cut back on the military spending (not end it all, just cut back) and put that money into a basic level of healthcare for all Americans without raising taxes.


To cover 100% of Americans, Medicare for everyone. If you want fancier care, you get supplemental insurance, which would still be private and would still have a disgusting profit margin. Basic healthcare should be universal, non-profit and run by just marginally increasing HHS.
 
2013-03-12 02:15:47 PM

craig328: Medical care is expensive because the act doesn't address tort reform...period.


Not correct.
 
2013-03-12 02:15:52 PM

craig328: What this does is force doctors to practice defensive medicine, ordering every single test they can think of so they can't be adjudged to be negligent later on.


Yes because in no way to doctors make more money for every test they order

www.reactionface.info
 
2013-03-12 02:16:22 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: UberDave: You're getting a 3.8% tax increase for just buying a home people!!

Bullschitt.  That tax applies (a) to the capital gains when you *sell*, and (b) only if you can't exempt the capital gains from the regular capital gains tax.


Fix your sarcasm detector.
 
2013-03-12 02:16:44 PM

olddinosaur: Obamacare is likely to cost $800 B, and the costs will be paid by people who can't pass along the extra expenses.

No such thing as a free lunch.


Exactly.  You can't give everyone in your country access to health care without paying for it.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't give everyone access to health care in our country, but might as well be honest that it is going to cost money
 
2013-03-12 02:19:36 PM
I think they need to clarify. Real middle class people will not get subsidies. Middle class is not 40k a year any more, not even close. Not even 80k per family should be considered middle class.


$80K a year is not considered middle class? Can you please tell us what you consider middle class?

/F'ing entitlement!
 
2013-03-12 02:20:05 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: You do need a salesman to walk you through your insurance sell to show you exactly what you're getting.

No, I do not.


Interesting, you're the only person to ever say that.  Either you are an expert when it comes to insurance, or a fool.

You need someone knowledgeable.

One would assume companies who are providing a product would be staffed by people knowledgeable about that product. That need not be a commissioned salesperson - particularly when the entities he is representing are non-profits.


Who's going to take the time to sit down with you and answer all your questions?  I have no problem taking time out to answer questions and present options to find out what is best for my clients.  Calling a 1-800 number isn't going to get you what's best for you.  Yeah, if I called up a lead and he said "I want $100,000 of life insurance."  I could quote him a price and sell it to him over the phone.  But, unless I take the time to get to know him and his needs, I could be over insuring him or under insuring him.  What if he actually needs $250,000?  Just saying "Sure thing, $100K of life insurance."  isn't doing him any real good.

You can't test drive a policy like you can a car.

I don't need to. What I need to know is the premium, deductible, network, max out of pocket, etc. It's not brain surgery.


You would think.  What I have learned is that there are details like, what is covered, what is not covered.  Can you get a rider to cover what's not covered, what is the exclusion to a policy.  Hell, I sell the stuff and each week I have questions that I need to call the office to answer.  

When I sell a policy I make crystal clear what the policy covers, what it won't, how to get it to cover what it's not covering (most policies have exclusions, conditions where the policy will never pay, like getting hurt while committing a felony for example), plus part of my job as salesman is to be the person to call when you have questions about your policy, instead of some call center in India.

You tell people the rules and provisions concerning what they are purchasing? How generous. There's a number on the back of the insurance card with a number on it. My insurance salesman does not answer that number when I call it. Nor does he do my COBRA administration. He doesn't even handle terminations or cancellations - I do that all online.


I can't answer why your salesman doesn't answer or return your calls.  I may not answer my phone all the time, but I do return all calls.  Doing so is in my best interest.  

And when I say that no less than 65% of all money received must be paid out in claims, it's actually a lot higher. AFLAC, for example, pays over 80% in claims.

And there goes any credibility you might have had. AFLAC is one of the magic words around here and their salespeople aren't allowed in the building. If you sell that shiat you ought to be ashamed.


First, I just pointed to another insurance company to explain that they pay more than 65% of their money in claims.  Secondly, what really is wrong with AFLAC.  I was injured in a car wreck where I was rear ended by a woman who was texting while driving.  I broke seven ribs and two shoulders.  In under a week AFLAC sent me a $5,000 check.  Since I was on disability leave and not making my full income, that $5,000 check was well needed to help make ends meet until I could go back to work three months after the car wreck.  Third, no, I don't sell AFLAC, but I do have positive experience from them.
 
2013-03-12 02:22:09 PM
Great Janitor:

Please tell I am not the only one to be thinking this when reading that tripe

www.fuenf-filmfreunde.de
 
2013-03-12 02:24:13 PM

craig328: Medical care is expensive because the act doesn't address tort reform...period.

Doctors pay ridiculously high malpractice premiums because judges and juries award ridiculous damage awards and it costs a litigant nothing to bring a lawsuit because for even borderline ludicrous claims, its more cost effective to settle rather than defend and go to trial.  What this does is force doctors to practice defensive medicine, ordering every single test they can think of so they can't be adjudged to be negligent later on.

Remove much of the lawsuit incentive, reform malpractice laws to discourage lawsuits in the first place while retaining access to the courts for egregious cases and you deflate a major driver of what drives costs through the roof.  The U.S. spends the highest, by far, per capita on healthcare and are no healthier than the rest of the world and unhealthier than many.  One of the differences in the costs is our civil court system.  It's nice to have most of the time...but this ain't one of them.

And it won't be meaningfully addressed because we elect lawyers to Congress way more than any other occupational group.


This is a myth. The cost of lawsuits represents less than .5% of the cost of healthcare.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226036480/

What would you cap mal-practice at? What if a parent brings a child to the doctor for a routine surgery and halfway in the doctors realize they don't have the right blood type for the child and cannot give a transfusion. The child gets permanent brain damage and will need around the clock care and will not be able to mature intellectually as a result of a bone headed move by the doctor. What if this was the hospital's fault because they mis labeled the blood and had a history of doing this and had covered it up? The parents bring a suit against the hospital and win a whopping $250,000. Good luck providing care for a child with that drop in the bucket. Even if the tort reform excluded the cost of care from the cap, this child could have been a healthy productive member of society, but gross negligence on the part of the system ruined this persons life. And the punitive damage is limited to $250K. That is such a tiny amount that the hospital wouldn't even notice it on their books.
 
2013-03-12 02:26:52 PM
More than that

Get ready for your Van Jones™ aluminum foil condom
 
2013-03-12 02:27:19 PM
Hey, is this the thread where I say that Obamacare is stupid because people will make the obviously logical and rational decision to drop their health insurance after it goes into effect and pay a fine instead of dropping it now and paying no fine at all?

That makes sense. Keep making that argument.

Or wait, is this the thread where people who don't understand the first thing about healthcare prices or economics and pretend that they aren't currently paying for the people who don't have insurance and think that now that people are mandated to have insurance, the cost to them is somehow going up?

Or is it both? I think what we need is education reform, because there's a lot of really stupid people out there.
 
2013-03-12 02:28:03 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: craig328: What this does is force doctors to practice defensive medicine, ordering every single test they can think of so they can't be adjudged to be negligent later on.

Yes because in no way to doctors make more money for every test they order


So let me see if I get this straight.  Your family practice doc sees you for say...a persistent cough.  Years back, your cough rates an office visit and a prescription for cough medicine with maybe a follow up visit in a couple of weeks.  These days, some docs will have you get a blood test (phelbotomist...not your doc), an x-ray or perhaps more imaging (radiologist...not your doc).  Where in there does your family doc (you know...the guy practicing the defensive medicine here) make more money on this?  HE'S not performing the test.  He's not even reading the tea leaves of the results because even tho he's likely qualified to he's not an endocrinologist or radiologist which means a lawyer will suggest he's not really qualified...so he relies on those guys.

Your doc made exactly zero extra billing there for himself.

midigod: craig328: Medical care is expensive because the act doesn't address tort reform...period.

Not correct.


Sorry, but it doesn't.  Politifact covered this point (they're pretty much as middle of the road you can get on political claims).  Sorry man but it ain't there.
 
2013-03-12 02:28:15 PM

midigod: And by the way, that 65% figure is a mandated minimum, not the desired target. I've worked for two of the largest insurers in the country, and they were constantly trying to get their own labor and admin costs down as low as they could possibly go. And then some more. Their ideal for claim costs was 90%, even though they knew they could never reach it. Dumping the brokers would have given them a free 13-18%! It's just too bad that, in many states, insurers are required to use brokers, because of the brokers' lobby.


And therein lies the problem. We should not be paying goddam sales commissions on a universal necessity. The need for health insurance in modern american society goes somewhere down the list not very far behind water, oxygen, food, and shelter. Having paid well in excess of two million dollars in health premiums on behalf of my employer in recent years it pains me to say that they guy in the fancy house who visits me once a year to go over the renewal brings precious little in value added to the whole process.
 
2013-03-12 02:29:35 PM

hardinparamedic: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!



AH, look! Crikey!

It's the elusive "I got mine, fark everyone else" mentality in it's wild, natural habitat! The anonymity of the internet literally allows it to be a complete dick to everyone else without fear of being called out and shamed by the rest of it's species.

Truly, truly majestic, it is. Beautiful plumage.


Yes, I have mine. How did I get it? I bust my ass 84 hours a week for it. I earned it.
Fark them.
 
2013-03-12 02:30:31 PM

k1j2b3: Thats No Moose: k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along.

Everyone had access to emergency medical care.

Start showing the symptoms of a long-running but manageable disease like MS and you're farked if you don't have insurance.

k1j2b3: So what did we solve exactly?

You mean apart from mandating that insurance companies not refuse people on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Or that bit about them spending a large chunk on insurance and not on marketing and overhead?
Or that bit about expanding Medicaid?
Or that bit about letting children stay on their parents' plans longer - which is incredibly vital in this recession?

k1j2b3: And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare.

And those people will pay a fine. Good.

Guess who those people will be? The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!  Not those with good jobs and health insurance. So you are okay with fining someone who makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid and can't afford to buy health insurance that has now become more expensive?  Ok. Way to care for the little guy.

And I guess you are happy with dis-incentivizing people to buy health insurance by allowing them to pay a fine until they feel they suddenly need health insurance...which then they can buy (due to the pre-existing condition situation you mentioned) with no problems?  How does this help anything?

Should we now target any other business out there who spends more than 15% of its profits on things beyond its products/services?  What about your internet service? Your cell service? Gasoline? Electricity?

Why are we focusing so much on the health care industry and what we consider to be allowable profits?  And not other businesses that also cause hardship to many people with high costs?


You need to read up on the ACA, buddy, because those people will be subsidized.
 
2013-03-12 02:32:08 PM

Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.

One explanation about Obamacare that I read is that it is not just have some insurance and you won't be fined, but rather that Obamacare level insurance could run as high as $800/month for the average family.  But, with no pre-existing conditions, coverage beginning the moment you buy your policy, why should a healthy person buy insurance when taking the tax fine is cheaper?  Think of it this way: I am healthy.  I see a doctor less than once a year.  Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine.  Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs.   All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance.  And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.


Yes. We know. That's why you should support single payer.
 
2013-03-12 02:33:40 PM

kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


Because you get the benefit of living in the USA, and therefore have to follow it's rules and regulations. If you want to not follow those laws, either move or risk penalties, but most important, STFU and stop whining.
 
2013-03-12 02:33:58 PM

tylerdurden217: How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?


tylerdurden217
How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?


The right to not be sick or suffering from a treatable condition shouldn't be for profit.

But financing the old as balls who refuse to die with dignity, or the deliberately obese/unhealthy is what we are paying for. Oh the entitlement to life.
 
2013-03-12 02:34:11 PM

tylerdurden217: This is a myth. The cost of lawsuits represents less than .5% of the cost of healthcare.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226036480/

What would you cap mal-practice at? What if a parent brings a child to the doctor for a routine surgery and halfway in the doctors realize they don't have the right blood type for the child and cannot give a transfusion. The child gets permanent brain damage and will need around the clock care and will not be able to mature intellectually as a result of a bone headed move by the doctor. What if this was the hospital's fault because they mis labeled the blood and had a history of doing this and had covered it up? The parents bring a suit against the hospital and win a whopping $250,000. Good luck providing care for a child with that drop in the bucket. Even if the tort reform excluded the cost of care from the cap, this child could have been a healthy productive member of society, but gross negligence on the part of the system ruined this persons life. And the punitive damage is limited to $250K. That is such a tiny amount that the hospital wouldn't even notice it on their books.


Oh.  You discovered a book that supports your point of view.  How nice.  Lessee here for a moment...written by Tom Baker.  Well, I'm sure he's spent many years in the industry seeing patients and knowing that the threat of such lawsuits drives defensive medicine, right?

Oh wait...no...professor of law and a scholar of insurance law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  So...he's a lawyer then?  Nice.

Listen, even if his .5% (which is pretty much disputed by even the ABA, BTW as being kinda low) is acceptable...it doesn't address the atmosphere of defensive medicine that it creates.

But you go ahead and read that whole book (like I'm sure you certainly did, right?) and let us know how it ends.
 
2013-03-12 02:36:11 PM
I really don't think I care, and if you're a member of the unemployed - the group of people that the Republicans claim to care about - then you don't care either because you can't pay taxes on income you don't have.
 
2013-03-12 02:37:39 PM

craig328: Your doc made exactly zero extra billing there for himself.


Not quite so fast there.

Actually increasingly as we've moved beyond the failed HMO model and more into a fee for service model many physicians are getting into shared ownership partnerships with testing facilities. So those referrals in a round about way make them extra money.

Also, in hospitals many doctors are not part of the actual hospital staff and instead are fee for service based physicians and the hospital takes a portion of the cut so to speak. In a way very similar to how a tattoo shop works, you pay the artist but the shop takes a small cut off the top for access to the shop. In those instances, in order to keep access to that income stream physicians will order everything under the sun to avoid black marks which might lose them that income stream.So in a self service way, its done for money.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your bumbling in this thread.
 
2013-03-12 02:40:12 PM
The only thing worse than Obongocare is no plan at all. Too bad we didn't see it sooner.

//lude
 
2013-03-12 02:40:36 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!


You already do pay for someone else's healthcare with EMTALA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_ La bor_Act

Wouldn't it be better to stop hiding the cost of covering people who are uninsured in America? If we put that cost on the table rather than pretending like it doesn't exist. Also, preventative care is cheaper than emergency room care. I've had a bill from an hour in trauma and it was absurd. The insurance company picked it up, but still. Crazy. And to think that people go to the Emergency Room because their strep throat is getting so bad they can't swallow water. Imagine if they could have had a cheap swab/culture/here's your penicillin visit. No, that would require universal care where we are honest about the cost of healthcare and address it openly.
 
2013-03-12 02:43:40 PM

TheHumanCannonball: ....They louder they yell, the more I ignore them.


You shouldn't because sometimes, much to your and my own chagrin, they are yelling because it's a message people need to hear.

People applauding being virtually forced to give money to the very companies that have destroyed our healthcare system is insanity to me.  Regardless of how much you think Obama is a super rad guy.
 
2013-03-12 02:45:17 PM
The Heritage Foundation Healthcare Plan, heavily modified by the same party that originated it,
clogged my toilet and then broke the gods damned toilet tank lid.

F*ckers.
 
2013-03-12 02:45:47 PM

Great Janitor: I can't answer why your salesman doesn't answer or return your calls. I may not answer my phone all the time, but I do return all calls. Doing so is in my best interest.


Regence BC answers every time I call. My agent is not regence - he's just a rep of the broker I am required to pay a commission to in order to buy that regence policy for my group.

First, I just pointed to another insurance company to explain that they pay more than 65% of their money in claims.  Secondly, what really is wrong with AFLAC.  I was injured in a car wreck where I was rear ended by a woman who was texting while driving.  I broke seven ribs and two shoulders.  In under a week AFLAC sent me a $5,000 check.  Since I was on disability leave and not making my full income, that $5,000 check was well needed to help make ends meet until I could go back to work three months after the car wreck.  Third, no, I don't sell AFLAC, but I do have positive experience from them.

AFLAC is not health insurance, it's a farking ponzi scheme. Good for you collecting on a short term disability claim. As an agent you should know that you can get a far better short term disability plan for much lower premiums than you pay aflac. You should thank your lucky stars you don't sell it. They rip their agents off worse than their subscribers.
 
2013-03-12 02:49:45 PM

FloydA: Obamacare squeezed the toothpaste tube from the middle, and then left the cap off so it got all crusty and gross.


We should just take Weird Al's song "Virus Alert" and replace every instance of the word "virus" with "Obamacare," then play it at the next Tea Party rally.
 
2013-03-12 02:51:41 PM

craig328: Oh.  You discovered a book that supports your point of view.  How nice.  Lessee here for a moment...written by Tom Baker.  Well, I'm sure he's spent many years in the industry seeing patients and knowing that the threat of such lawsuits drives defensive medicine, right?

Oh wait...no...professor of law and a scholar of insurance law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  So...he's a lawyer then?  Nice.

Listen, even if his .5% (which is pretty much disputed by even the ABA, BTW as being kinda low) is acceptable...it doesn't address the atmosphere of defensive medicine that it creates.

But you go ahead and read that whole book (like I'm sure you certainly did, right?) and let us know how it ends.


No, only you read books. I just troll on the internet, right? Maybe I could have just linked to the HuffPo as my source. That's sure to win you over. What's wrong with an attorney writing an article? Tom Baker is familiar with how many cases are already thrown out by judges for their frivolity and how many cases lawyers already disregard altogether because they aren't worthwhile.

What is an "Atmosphere of defensive medicine" exactly? I would rather have doctors and hospitals that were concerned about the financial penalties for gross negligence than one that can just accept the tiny cap that legislators put on punitive claims.
 
2013-03-12 02:52:29 PM

DaWormyPimpsta: spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.

I can only afford cat food made from real cats.  "Fancy Feast" indeed...


thefilmexperience.net
Approves.
 
2013-03-12 02:53:53 PM

Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.

One explanation about Obamacare that I read is that it is not just have some insurance and you won't be fined, but rather that Obamacare level insurance could run as high as $800/month for the average family.  But, with no pre-existing conditions, coverage beginning the moment you buy your policy, why should a healthy person buy insurance when taking the tax fine is cheaper?  Think of it this way: I am healthy.  I see a doctor less than once a year.  Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine.  Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs.   All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance.  And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.


Won't somebody think of the insurance salesmen?!?!
 
2013-03-12 02:57:09 PM

Witty_Retort: Remember who the WSJ thinks is middle class:


Except, of course, that they didn't say those folks were middle class. They just gave examples of how certain people are impacted by tax structure.
 
2013-03-12 03:00:24 PM

tylerdurden217: No, only you read books. I just troll on the internet, right? Maybe I could have just linked to the HuffPo as my source. That's sure to win you over. What's wrong with an attorney writing an article? Tom Baker is familiar with how many cases are already thrown out by judges for their frivolity and how many cases lawyers already disregard altogether because they aren't worthwhile.

What is an "Atmosphere of defensive medicine" exactly? I would rather have doctors and hospitals that were concerned about the financial penalties for gross negligence than one that can just accept the tiny cap that legislators put on punitive claims.


I didn't claim to read any books.  I did find as agnostic a citation for the lack of tort reform in the law and paraphrased what they said wasn't in the law (tort reform, in case you're losing track here) and how the threat of lawsuits.  You cited a book you've almost certainly never set eyes on much less read.

As for claiming ignorance of defensive medicine...hell even the president acknowledges its existence for crissake (that'll go to a link that will require...well...reading).  If you're truly as ignorant as you're trying to sound then why are you even debating the subject in the first place?

And, just so we're clear capping punitive awards is not the entirety of tort reform...so if you were considering posing ignorance on that one in your next post, please...don't.
 
2013-03-12 03:00:32 PM
Great Janitor:  Secondly, what really is wrong with AFLAC.  I was injured in a car wreck where I was rear ended by a woman who was texting while driving.  I broke seven ribs and two shoulders.  In under a week AFLAC sent me a $5,000 check.  Since I was on disability leave and not making my full income, that $5,000 check was well needed to help make ends meet until I could go back to work three months after the car wreck.  Third, no, I don't sell AFLAC, but I do have positive experience from them.

I don't know much about it aside from it basically being "I can't save even the smallest amount of money" insurance.

The hate comes from the droves of selling zombies pounding at the doors of any business (their sales people are 100% commission and pretty much anyone with a few hundred bucks can buy a "job").  The massive amount of shills on the internet doesn't help either.
 
2013-03-12 03:06:22 PM

mongbiohazard: This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.

They break it down and Johnson just completely lied about the entire point he was making. He specifically was saying that middle income Americans were getting a $1 trillion tax hike under Obamacare. Now they said that the $1 trillion figure didn't come from thin air.... but that it wasn't the new taxes on the middle class and that ALSO on the balance middle income Americans were going to have more in credits then new taxes so they won't have a tax hike at all... they'll have a tax CREDIT. The opposite of what Johnson was claiming.

Now Schultz on the other hand said that Johnson's claim wasn't true... but because in the middle of her rebuttal she didn't insert the words "middle class" when responding to his false claim they rate her statement as JUST AS untrue as his... even though she was correct that he was full of shiat.


It's a no-win scenario.  On the one hand, yes, it's something of a false equivalence.  But on the other hand, if the author doesn't bend over backwards trying to be "fair" to the Republicans (i.e., try to find some convoluted way in which what Johnson  said could be construed as at least partly true), then Fox and Rush and and the other Conservative pundits will use that as "proof" that The Fact Checker and The Washington Post are just Liberal running dogs.

If you want the kind of people who are already deeply suspicious of Obamacare to listen to you at all, you have to work really, really hard at both trying to be "fair" to them (in the Fox News sense of "fair") while simultaneously producing the facts that might lead them to realize that most of what they've been told is utter nonsense.

Like so much else in life, it has to be done gradually and gently.
 
2013-03-12 03:08:23 PM

machodonkeywrestler: kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!

Because you get the benefit of living in the USA, and therefore have to follow it's rules and regulations. If you want to not follow those laws, either move or risk penalties, but most important, STFU and stop whining.


Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.
 
2013-03-12 03:09:16 PM

PanicMan: kid_icarus: [i76.photobucket.com image 360x202]

That seriously made my day better.  Thanks.


It's just MORE proof that the humble banana really is the atheist's nightmare.
 
2013-03-12 03:12:41 PM

festoon: CheekyMonkey: festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican Politician says it, its a lie.

FTFY.

There's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat might steal candy from a baby, and then lie about it.

A Republican would steal candy from a baby, then they'd steal the baby. Then they'd try to convince you the damn socialist Demoncrats stole the baby, while they barbeque it, dice it up an serve it to you on a hoagie roll. And if you happen to recognize the baby on your plate slathered in BBQ sauce, with Republican fingerprints all over it, they'll try to blame it all on Obama.

At this point you can tell who the Tea Bagger is, because he'd be the one who'd dig in and start eating.


Spoken like a True Liberal, wanting to let a perfectly good barbecued baby go to waste.
 
2013-03-12 03:13:15 PM

craig328: And, just so we're clear capping punitive awards is not the entirety of tort reform...so if you were considering posing ignorance on that one in your next post, please...don't.


You need to get less angry.  Here's the position you started with:

craig328: Medical care is expensive because the act doesn't address tort reform...period.


No one here is arguing that tort reform isn't necessary.  What everyone here is arguing is that it is not the sole driver of excessive cost.  Except for you.  And you're wrong.
 
2013-03-12 03:17:06 PM

craig328: I didn't claim to read any books.  I did find as agnostic a citation for the lack of tort reform in the law and paraphrased what they said wasn't in the law (tort reform, in case you're losing track here) and how the threat of lawsuits.  You cited a book you've almost certainly never set eyes on much less read.

As for claiming ignorance of defensive medicine...hell even the president acknowledges its existence for crissake (that'll go to a link that will require...well...reading).  If you're truly as ignorant as you're trying to sound then why are you even debating the subject in the first place?

And, just so we're clear capping punitive awards is not the entirety of tort reform...so if you were considering posing ignorance on that one in your next post, please...don't.


For starters, Fark off. You are a prick. I have that book on my Kindle and I did read it, It's a a short evening read and it was cheap. Tom Baker is an authority on the subject of tort reform. I heard any interview with him on NPR a couple years ago. You should check the book out. Anyone who says something as farking ignorant as "You cited a book you've almost certainly never set eyes on much less read" should be ignored. I abhor anyone who makes claims they cannot possibly have any knowledge to support.

Capping the awards is the most significant piece of tort reform legislation. I never claimed that it was the entirety of the tort reform. I gave a real world example of a time when $250K is insufficient and proceeded to present an argument against the caps that come with tort reform.
 
2013-03-12 03:19:48 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I can't answer why your salesman doesn't answer or return your calls. I may not answer my phone all the time, but I do return all calls. Doing so is in my best interest.

Regence BC answers every time I call. My agent is not regence - he's just a rep of the broker I am required to pay a commission to in order to buy that regence policy for my group.


That's the difference, I'm not a broker.  Now in the past I have worked with brokers.  They had the existing clients, so I could just get the broker to get his clients excited about my products and show the broker how to fill out the forms.  On the commission splits, typically I would give the broker more since I was using his business, but I still made more money in the long run because I could sell to all of his clients.  But the downside is that the broker didn't know any of the details of the policies and if the insurance deal died five months after because the broker didn't want to forward calls to me or the clients didn't want to call me directly, just deal with the broker, the broker didn't care because he still got his cut.

First, I just pointed to another insurance company to explain that they pay more than 65% of their money in claims.  Secondly, what really is wrong with AFLAC.  I was injured in a car wreck where I was rear ended by a woman who was texting while driving.  I broke seven ribs and two shoulders.  In under a week AFLAC sent me a $5,000 check.  Since I was on disability leave and not making my full income, that $5,000 check was well needed to help make ends meet until I could go back to work three months after the car wreck.  Third, no, I don't sell AFLAC, but I do have positive experience from them.

AFLAC is not health insurance, it's a farking ponzi scheme. Good for you collecting on a short term disability claim. As an agent you should know that you can get a far better short term disability plan for much lower premiums than you pay aflac. You should thank your lucky stars you don't sell it. They rip their agents off worse than their subscribers.


AFLAC says upfront that they are not health insurance, just supplemental insurance.  I have known several AFLAC agents.  Some make $5,000/day and only work one day a week.  Others work 12 hours a day, five days a week and a part time job.  It's not an easy company because they simply don't have lead generation.  I work with two former AFLAC agents who told me that they got out of the company because in my area the market is saturated, too much competition and the companies are just constantly hit by AFLAC agent after AFLAC agent that it's not a business worth getting into.

The absolute worst insurance company to get into is the one I started in, Primerica.  Their stance of 'Whole life is evil' and 'Buy term, invest the difference' is great on paper, but doesn't work in reality.  I can do more good selling an over funded UL policy than buying term and investing the different.  I left that company because I hated what I was doing.  I felt like I was lying to get people to come in for interviews.  I felt like I was lying during the interviews and I knew I was lying when setting up sales appointments (case in point, when setting them up, we told the perspective client that it was a training appointment for their friend/family member who we just hired, but the term around the office was KT, short for Kitchen Table sales appointment).  Every day I found myself spending money out of my pocket for the company one way or another.  Yeah, I didn't mind chipping in for interview sheets since I had more coming in than anyone else.  But if there was an event happening in Colorado, for example, I had to not just buy my ticket there, but be expected to buy a ticket for my wife (who never went), and buy tickets for my entire time and expect them to buy them from me, minimum of five tickets at a time, $20/ticket.  Plus pay for my way to and from the event, over night stay for each night and food.  All while insulting people who had their doubts about the company (recruiting tactic, insult them for having a job so that they'd join), being told that spending time with my non-Primerica friends and family members was stupid because they didn't respect what I did so why should I hang out with them and put up with their insulting what I do (which didn't happen, but couldn't tell Boss Lady that, so I never told her what I did when I wasn't there because I knew she'd belittle it).  I am one of the few people who Primerica fired.  What happened was when I started at the company that I'm at now, they got offended and told me to leave or be fired.  I said "You want me to leave a company where I'm getting free leads from people who actually want to be sold insurance and join a company where I have to interview 10 people a week just to get maybe one new hire and that new hire will lead me to five people who I will have to lie to in order to get maybe one sale that will probably get dropped in under a year leading to a charge back?"  So they fired me.  I was tempted to frame the firing letter.

Friends don't let friends join Primerica.
 
2013-03-12 03:20:45 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?


Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.
 
2013-03-12 03:30:53 PM

Great Janitor: I am healthy.  I see a doctor less than once a year.  Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine.  Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs.   All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance.  And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.


Which is why the system requires you to have health insurance "even if you don't need it" so you can't pull a stunt like that.
 
2013-03-12 03:36:33 PM

ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.


No offense, but you stating something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.  Societies, by definition, do not need to have the 'strong' helping the 'weak'.  They may or may not.  That's like me saying 'Societies all have sports teams'.  Some do, some don't, but my statement is incorrect.

You might think all societies *should* have the strong help the weak, but that's an opinion.  I might even agree.  But the alternative to that is *not* living alone in a cave.  That's a false dilemma.
 
2013-03-12 03:37:26 PM
libertesinternets.files.wordpress.com

Come on, people.

We cannot wait for the proof... the Smoking Gun... to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
 
2013-03-12 03:38:40 PM

Great Janitor: Friends don't let friends join Primerica.


That sounds hellish. As for Aflac, I wish I had a nickel for every cold call I've fielded from their sales people.
 
2013-03-12 03:43:49 PM

kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?


Look - A married guy with kids who thinks he'll be happy as a clam to pay his own way when his wife or one of his kids gets a terminal illness that exceeds his insurance policy limits and personal savings.

/happens. every. day.
 
2013-03-12 03:44:25 PM

KIA: There is no miracle of the fishes and the loaves here people. Huge, expensive promises were made for prescription drug care and then expanded for general health care. Someone has to pay for that now and you, dear middle class, with your victimization and white guilt mentality hoped that any change would be good. You're wrong. Pay up.


Fine.  After the moneyed class pays their fair share... OF ANYTHING! AND Insurance hand hospital FOR PROFIT corporations have so badly screwed up health care in this country that it TAKES a strong handed approach just to keep the costs from continuing to go crazy and break us all.

Republicans and Teabaggers want to say that the middle class is getting screwed.  I say that they have the tense wrong.  We GOT screwed by REGANISM and the inevitable cram downs that came with it.  So now we ALL have to pay the taxes we should have paid in the past but instead used to buy metaphorical hookers and blow.

So yes, as a responsible citizen, this is the change I had hoped for.  NOW maybe we can stop with the voodoo economics and get back to growing this country from the middle out.
 
2013-03-12 03:46:46 PM

Unoriginal_Username: No...er..yes....hmm..wait...I know I can work this out...

Lets see...Potato * Herp / Derp...carry the 5...ok...I get 42.

/was never good at math


You are a liberal. Of course you aren't good at math. See the new senate democrat budget.
 
2013-03-12 03:47:11 PM

Queensowntalia: Obamacare drank the last of the milk and didn't replace it. It's so inconsiderate.


Obamacare finished off the box of Honey Nut Cheerios and didn't holla on it.
 
2013-03-12 03:49:58 PM

ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.


And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.
 
2013-03-12 04:03:00 PM

k1j2b3: Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.

Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.


The EXACT reason for HCR. Through efforts to secure a primary care provider, society hopes to reduce the expense associated with non-emergency emergency care. Cut my thumb to the bone. Still waited in line behind people who had a cold and needed a prescription.

Shift the non-emergency care folks out of $1500/visit emergency care into $1500/year subsidized health care providers and you have a net savings. AND, people really in need of emergency care aren't waiting behind people with a cold.
 
2013-03-12 04:05:48 PM
If there are people who still think Team Obama is pulling for the middle class then they have crossed in to the realm of full retard
 
2013-03-12 04:07:15 PM

kendelrio: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.


Dude. :(

You'll go bankrupt from medical costs in roughly 2.5 seconds if you get hit by a car, for example.

Getting accidentally hit by a car or in a car accident or LOLwhoops fell off chair while putting light bulb in ceiling fixture that results in moderate-to-FATAL injuries happens every day.

It's not a thing you can put on a schedule and plan for.
 
2013-03-12 04:07:57 PM
IamAwake:

Someone at $200k/y is not really that much better off, truly, than someone making $50k/y.

Yes they are.

Comparing apples to apples in the same SES area, someone making 4x more than then person sitting next to them is WAY better off. They very likely have a retirement plan, maybe investing in their kids education, they have better goods which saves money in the long run..... as that $200 pair of Cole Haan shoes is going to last longer than the $50 pair the lesser earner bought at Walmart.
 
2013-03-12 04:13:20 PM
IamAwake:

Someone at $200k/y is not really that much better off, truly, than someone making $50k/y.


I also think the 250k mark is not the right place to make a marked increase in taxes.
But even at the 1MIL mark, Redubs did not want to budge on taxes.

But really. $250k and 1MIL are not that far apart. Why increase taxes at a 1MIL? Sure, you might have a bass boat and they have a custom Chris Craft... but they are both just boats. Right?

BTW: I don't consider someone making 4x my income the enemy.
I just think they are delusional if they believe we are living the same life.
 
2013-03-12 04:15:39 PM

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: Friends don't let friends join Primerica.

That sounds hellish. As for Aflac, I wish I had a nickel for every cold call I've fielded from their sales people.


AFLAC has a good product.  I was a happy client of them once I was in that wreck.  I've even looked at many of their products and it's not bad, their cancer policy is great and recognizes that if a child has cancer no one is going to work so they'll pay the family money.  Their cancer policy even has a clause that pays bone marrow donors money once they become a donor.  The downside to AFLAC, however, is that they have to hit companies in a door to door salesman type environment and there is no communal site for their agents to go to and say "This company has been hit 19 times in the past six months but won't do a do not contact list".

Some of what I sale competes with AFLAC, with the bonus of not being a payroll deduction and allowing more control of the policy.  The biggest downside to insurance from work is that the company owns the policy and you, the employee, while paying on the policy (or part of it) have zero control over the policy.  If you can afford to get your own coverage, do so, that way you can control it.  Never get your life insurance through work.
 
2013-03-12 04:18:31 PM
 

kendelrio: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.


Hot air. You too will become old and infirm one day. And if (heaven forbid) one of your kids gets bone marrow cancer you'll queue up in the handout line like anyone else would and your fair weather insistence that you pay your own way will be conveniently forgotten.
 
2013-03-12 04:22:19 PM

ciberido: mongbiohazard: This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.

They break it down and Johnson just completely lied about the entire point he was making. He specifically was saying that middle income Americans were getting a $1 trillion tax hike under Obamacare. Now they said that the $1 trillion figure didn't come from thin air.... but that it wasn't the new taxes on the middle class and that ALSO on the balance middle income Americans were going to have more in credits then new taxes so they won't have a tax hike at all... they'll have a tax CREDIT. The opposite of what Johnson was claiming.

Now Schultz on the other hand said that Johnson's claim wasn't true... but because in the middle of her rebuttal she didn't insert the words "middle class" when responding to his false claim they rate her statement as JUST AS untrue as his... even though she was correct that he was full of shiat.

It's a no-win scenario.  On the one hand, yes, it's something of a false equivalence.  But on the other hand, if the author doesn't bend over backwards trying to be "fair" to the Republicans (i.e., try to find some convoluted way in which what Johnson  said could be construed as at least partly true), then Fox and Rush and and the other Conservative pundits will use that as "proof" that The Fact Checker and The Washington Post are just Liberal running dogs.

If you want the kind of people who are already deeply suspicious of Obamacare to listen to you at all, you have to work really, really hard at both trying to be "fair" to them (in the Fox News sense of "fair") while simultaneously producing the facts that might lead them to realize that most of what they've been told is utter nonsense.

Like so much else in life, it has to be done gradually and gently.


I know what you're saying, but I think there are two flaws with that.
1. Rush, Beck and the other conservative "pundits" are going to smear you as liberal no matter HOW you report it unless you report it exactly as they want you to.
2. The people who you're trying to "gradually and gently" ease in to the truth you're doing no such thing by distorting the truth like that with false equivalence. It only serves to provide them more fodder to use to support the pre-judged opinion they come to the table with. "See! Even the WaPo said Schultz was lying!" Those are the folks that Rush and the right-wing echo chamber rely on... they're called the "unpersuadeables". And anyone else who IS persuadable you don't need to do that for.

It's a losing strategy which gains nothing.
 
2013-03-12 04:23:12 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Also, in hospitals many doctors are not part of the actual hospital staff and instead are fee for service based physicians and the hospital takes a portion of the cut so to speak...<snip>... In those instances, in order to keep access to that income stream physicians will order everything under the sun to avoid black marks which might lose them that income stream.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your bumbling in this thread.



In the fantasy you describe, you're claiming that an imaginary doctor will be dismissed as a service provider from a hospital that determines he is not ordering enough questionable tests from which they take their percentage.

Certainly you can cite facts to distinguish this claim from a scenario you have pictured in your mind, especially given the manner in which you dismissed the target of your fictional claim.
 
2013-03-12 04:26:36 PM

Great Janitor: AFLAC has a good product. I was a happy client of them once I was in that wreck. I've even looked at many of their products and it's not bad, their cancer policy is great and recognizes that if a child has cancer no one is going to work so they'll pay the family money. Their cancer policy even has a clause that pays bone marrow donors money once they become a donor. The downside to AFLAC, however, is that they have to hit companies in a door to door salesman type environment and there is no communal site for their agents to go to and say "This company has been hit 19 times in the past six months but won't do a do not contact list".

Some of what I sale competes with AFLAC, with the bonus of not being a payroll deduction and allowing more control of the policy. The biggest downside to insurance from work is that the company owns the policy and you, the employee, while paying on the policy (or part of it) have zero control over the policy. If you can afford to get your own coverage, do so, that way you can control it. Never get your life insurance through work.


They have A product, I would not say it's a good one for most americans. Being happy that it paid out when you had it is no different that being happy you bought a lotto ticket that was a winner. fact is most supplemental or cafeteria plan policies are a poor use of resources for the vast majority of americans. The guy who gets a claim paid is happy of course. All the other people who pumped money into it when they should have been avoiding car loans and high interest credit cards and not saving for retirement would be much better served on the whole by not having some oddball 'cancer policy' that sends you a check when you get cancer.
 
2013-03-12 04:32:47 PM

kendelrio: machodonkeywrestler: kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!

Because you get the benefit of living in the USA, and therefore have to follow it's rules and regulations. If you want to not follow those laws, either move or risk penalties, but most important, STFU and stop whining.

Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.


No, but it sure as hell does in our founding document. So maybe we should be declaring war on all of you who take that viewpoint.
 
2013-03-12 04:35:14 PM

MattStafford: Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.


The problem with this type of logic is that health issues do not work this way. You can die of a toothache if it's left unattended long enough. Health issues that start out small and manageable work their way up to deadly if not treated.

This is why we should pay more attention to issues while they're small and manageable and not wait until they become catastrophic.
 
2013-03-12 04:41:41 PM

JohnBigBootay: kendelrio: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

Hot air. You too will become old and infirm one day. And if (heaven forbid) one of your kids gets bone marrow cancer you'll queue up in the handout line like anyone else would and your fair weather insistence that you pay your own way will be conveniently forgotten.


That is how the "entitled" justify things, "well everybody else is doing it". That is a big problem with today's entitled society and what got us into this healthcare mess. "Everybody else is cheating the system, I should too." "Everybody else has a cell phone, I should get one too. even though I cant afford it".

/Doesn't make it right
 
2013-03-12 04:46:08 PM

machodonkeywrestler: kendelrio: machodonkeywrestler: kendelrio: MattStafford: kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.

We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.

You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Also, at what age is a person a farking adult? Kids mandated to stay on my insurance until they're 26? That's bullshiat too. If a "kid" can go to PMITA prison for life at 18, join the military at 18, get married at 18 drink a beer or other things legally, why should I have to foot their insurance bill? So now I'm paying for MY families insurance, some farker who can't afford their insurance AND their crotchfruits insurance until they're 26? fark that!

Because you get the benefit of living in the USA, and therefore have to follow it's rules and regulations. If you want to not follow those laws, either move or risk penalties, but most important, STFU and stop whining.

Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.

No, but it sure as hell does in our founding document. So maybe we should be declaring war on all of you who take that viewpoint.


Please cite for me the part of the "founding document" that specifies the right to health care.
 
2013-03-12 04:48:15 PM

The Missing Link: That is how the "entitled" justify things, "well everybody else is doing it". That is a big problem with today's entitled society and what got us into this healthcare mess. "Everybody else is cheating the system, I should too." "Everybody else has a cell phone, I should get one too. even though I cant afford it".

/Doesn't make it right


Insurance is for those costs that no working person could reasonably be expected to afford. A bad car wreck or a single instance of cancer can have claim costs that exceed what most bootstrappers will earn in a lifetime. All the pontificating in the world won't change that. You either have good health insurance or the state bears the cost.
 
2013-03-12 04:51:50 PM

JohnBigBootay:  kendelrio: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

Hot air. You too will become old and infirm one day. And if (heaven forbid) one of your kids gets bone marrow cancer you'll queue up in the handout line like anyone else would and your fair weather insistence that you pay your own way will be conveniently forgotten.


Wrong. Part of that pay that I am busting my ass for goes into a "disaster fund". Granted, it may not cover a million dollars of health care costs, but between it and insurance, I should be ok. As far as old and infirm, I'm saving so I don't rely on social security. If you state "what of your savings are gone?", them there is nothing I can do. I AM, however planning and saving so myself and my family aren't dependent on any type of government handouts.
 
2013-03-12 04:58:59 PM

JohnBigBootay: The Missing Link: That is how the "entitled" justify things, "well everybody else is doing it". That is a big problem with today's entitled society and what got us into this healthcare mess. "Everybody else is cheating the system, I should too." "Everybody else has a cell phone, I should get one too. even though I cant afford it".

/Doesn't make it right

Insurance is for those costs that no working person could reasonably be expected to afford. A bad car wreck or a single instance of cancer can have claim costs that exceed what most bootstrappers will earn in a lifetime. All the pontificating in the world won't change that. You either have good health insurance or the state bears the cost.


"Hot air. You too will become old and infirm one day. And if (heaven forbid) one of your kids gets bone marrow cancer you'll queue up in the handout line like anyone else would and your fair weather insistence that you pay your own way will be conveniently forgotten. "

I don't think you were talking about insurance when you made this statement. You were talking about hand outs and taking advantage of the system "like everyone else would"

I am not that old but the real people that helped build this country would be embarrassed to take the handouts you are talking about. The steel and factory workers of the 20's, 30's and so on would never take the handouts unless they truly needed it. They would never think of taking advantage of a system because "everyone else is doing it" Have some F'ing pride!
 
2013-03-12 05:00:19 PM

IRQ12: TheHumanCannonball: ....They louder they yell, the more I ignore them.

You shouldn't because sometimes, much to your and my own chagrin, they are yelling because it's a message people need to hear.

People applauding being virtually forced to give money to the very companies that have destroyed our healthcare system is insanity to me.  Regardless of how much you think Obama is a super rad guy.


I don't think Obama is super rad.

What I do think, that everyone should have access to basic healthcare, and in the case of emergencies, treatment that won't result in bankruptcy. If ObamaCare gets us closer to that than the current system, then it's a step in the right direction. I wish it had gone further, but we've ended up where we are.
 
2013-03-12 05:03:39 PM

TheHumanCannonball: IRQ12: TheHumanCannonball: ....They louder they yell, the more I ignore them.

You shouldn't because sometimes, much to your and my own chagrin, they are yelling because it's a message people need to hear.

People applauding being virtually forced to give money to the very companies that have destroyed our healthcare system is insanity to me.  Regardless of how much you think Obama is a super rad guy.

I don't think Obama is super rad.

What I do think, that everyone should have access to basic healthcare, and in the case of emergencies, treatment that won't result in bankruptcy. If ObamaCare gets us closer to that than the current system, then it's a step in the right direction. I wish it had gone further, but we've ended up where we are.


Obamacare did nothing to help control healthcare cost. It changed who is going to pay for it but did nothing to control the cost of healthcare.
 
2013-03-12 05:04:40 PM

kendelrio: Wrong. Part of that pay that I am busting my ass for goes into a "disaster fund". Granted, it may not cover a million dollars of health care costs, but between it and insurance, I should be ok. As far as old and infirm, I'm saving so I don't rely on social security. If you state "what of your savings are gone?", them there is nothing I can do. I AM, however planning and saving so myself and my family aren't dependent on any type of government handouts.


No matter how much you save, you will end up using Medicare when you turn 65. If you want to supplement on top of that, fine, but you will be on medicare. Why not expand that to make everyone eligible? We could conceivably wipe out the deficit by doing that alone. Young healthy adults contributing more to Medicare while not using many services would generate revenue for the program.
 
2013-03-12 05:06:01 PM

kendelrio: Wrong. Part of that pay that I am busting my ass for goes into a "disaster fund".


Hey, me too. I'm kind of bootstrappy myself in that I have documented earned income every year of my life all the way back to 13 years old. I've saved 15% of every paycheck since I was 28 and I'm 47. Prior to the recent healthcare legislation my policy had a million dollar limit that could easily have been exceeded by a chronic health problem like ALS or the oft mentioned bone marrow cancer. I have plenty, save more than most, waste not want not and all that and I can easily imagine a medical bankruptcy.

Granted, it may not cover a million dollars of health care costs,

Yeah, it won't.

but between it and insurance, I should be ok.

So you have health insurance you just don't think you should have to have health insurance? Is that it?

As far as old and infirm, I'm saving so I don't rely on social security.

But if it's still there you'll refuse it, right?

If you state "what of your savings are gone?", them there is nothing I can do. I AM, however planning and saving so myself and my family aren't dependent on any type of government handouts.

Here's to having life unfold exactly as you plan.
 
2013-03-12 05:08:16 PM

JohnBigBootay: kendelrio: Wrong. Part of that pay that I am busting my ass for goes into a "disaster fund".

Hey, me too. I'm kind of bootstrappy myself in that I have documented earned income every year of my life all the way back to 13 years old. I've saved 15% of every paycheck since I was 28 and I'm 47. Prior to the recent healthcare legislation my policy had a million dollar limit that could easily have been exceeded by a chronic health problem like ALS or the oft mentioned bone marrow cancer. I have plenty, save more than most, waste not want not and all that and I can easily imagine a medical bankruptcy.

Granted, it may not cover a million dollars of health care costs,

Yeah, it won't.

but between it and insurance, I should be ok.

So you have health insurance you just don't think you should have to have health insurance? Is that it?

As far as old and infirm, I'm saving so I don't rely on social security.

But if it's still there you'll refuse it, right?

If you state "what of your savings are gone?", them there is nothing I can do. I AM, however planning and saving so myself and my family aren't dependent on any type of government handouts.

Here's to having life unfold exactly as you plan.


"Hot air. You too will become old and infirm one day. And if (heaven forbid) one of your kids gets bone marrow cancer you'll queue up in the handout line like anyone else would and your fair weather insistence that you pay your own way will be conveniently forgotten. "
 
2013-03-12 05:17:12 PM

tylerdurden217: kendelrio: Wrong. Part of that pay that I am busting my ass for goes into a "disaster fund". Granted, it may not cover a million dollars of health care costs, but between it and insurance, I should be ok. As far as old and infirm, I'm saving so I don't rely on social security. If you state "what of your savings are gone?", them there is nothing I can do. I AM, however planning and saving so myself and my family aren't dependent on any type of government handouts.

No matter how much you save, you will end up using Medicare when you turn 65. If you want to supplement on top of that, fine, but you will be on medicare. Why not expand that to make everyone eligible? We could conceivably wipe out the deficit by doing that alone. Young healthy adults contributing more to Medicare while not using many services would generate revenue for the program.


That's what social security was supposed to do.
 
2013-03-12 05:20:07 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

No offense, but you stating something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.  Societies, by definition, do not need to have the 'strong' helping the 'weak'.  They may or may not.  That's like me saying 'Societies all have sports teams'.  Some do, some don't, but my statement is incorrect.

You might think all societies *should* have the strong help the weak, but that's an opinion.  I might even agree.  But the alternative to that is *not* living alone in a cave.  That's a false dilemma.


No, it's not a false dilemma or false dichotomy at all.  Nor is it an opinion when it's part of the very definition of "society."

What IS up for debate is to what degree the strong must help the weak, or in what ways.  That they must do so to some degree in some ways, however, is not up for debate.  If you truly believe that one member has no obligation whatsoever to any other member, then what you want isn't a society; it's a bunch of anarchists living in the same space.

Funny how both us us seem to want to use "by definition" as proof of our point.  It would seem that at least  one of us doesn't understand what a society is.  Or, possibly, we are not as completely in disagreement as it first appeared.  That also happens on Fark.
 
2013-03-12 05:23:14 PM

The Missing Link: I don't think you were talking about insurance when you made this statement. You were talking about hand outs and taking advantage of the system "like everyone else would"

I am not that old but the real people that helped build this country would be embarrassed to take the handouts you are talking about. The steel and factory workers of the 20's, 30's and so on would never take the handouts unless they truly needed it. They would never think of taking advantage of a system because "everyone else is doing it" Have some F'ing pride!


Isn't this the romantic fantasy that is routinely dismantled every single time it is mentioned on Fark? The idea that people in the 20's and 30's were more moral because they didn't take handouts, even though that's not at all true?

The 20's: Women finally win the right to vote. Schools were segregated and there was such a strong fear of immigrants destroying the racial hygiene of America that the federal government limited immigration.

But people were too proud to take handouts, got it.
 
2013-03-12 05:25:32 PM
the Texas high risk pool cost me 1,200+  a month for 20/80 and one doctor visit a year
and that was 4 or 5 years ago

the Federal high risk pool is under 700 with much better coverage

thanks Obama

.
 
2013-03-12 05:26:26 PM

TheHumanCannonball: IRQ12: TheHumanCannonball: ....They louder they yell, the more I ignore them.

You shouldn't because sometimes, much to your and my own chagrin, they are yelling because it's a message people need to hear.

People applauding being virtually forced to give money to the very companies that have destroyed our healthcare system is insanity to me.  Regardless of how much you think Obama is a super rad guy.

I don't think Obama is super rad.

What I do think, that everyone should have access to basic healthcare, and in the case of emergencies, treatment that won't result in bankruptcy. If ObamaCare gets us closer to that than the current system, then it's a step in the right direction. I wish it had gone further, but we've ended up where we are.


I agree with you and I think that it takes us no closer to that.  I actually think the harm it is doing to the broad public sentiment supporting reform/Single payer is hurting the overall cause.
 
2013-03-12 05:32:48 PM

kendelrio: That's what social security was supposed to do.


You are like a magic disinformation machine.
 
2013-03-12 05:33:43 PM

kendelrio: ciberido: kendelrio: You didn't answer my question. Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me. Why should I bust my ass to provide for my family only to have more of my wages taken to pay for someone else's benefits?

Because that's how societies work.  The strong help the weak.  If you don't like it, go live alone in a cave.

/Just don't ever get sick, or old, or break anything.

And if I do, I will pay for it. I don't expect society to pick up my slack.



Are you seriously claiming to be able to go live on a desert island Robinson Crusoe-style all by yourself for 30 years, or are you missing my point out of belligerent stupidity?

If you want to live in a society, you have an obligation to that society, and that includes paying for things you don't personally benefit from (schools even when your children don't attend them, research to find a cure for cancer even though you don't have cancer, or roads even if you don't have a car).   And if you don't like doing that, then either grit your teeth and bear it (just like I have to grit my teeth and pay for wars I don't like), or go somewhere else and stop bothering the civilized folks.

"I don't think society really needs this" is a valid argument to make against a political expenditure.  "I don't want it because it doesn't benefit me personally" isn't an argument.  It's just an announcement of mindless self-absorption.
 
2013-03-12 05:35:34 PM

IRQ12: I agree with you and I think that it takes us no closer to that.  I actually think the harm it is doing to the broad public sentiment supporting reform/Single payer is hurting the overall cause.


I worried about that as well, but then I read about Vermont and a push to get a single payer system for the entire state.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81267.html

If Vermont successfully sets up a system that is efficient and can proves the concept as a success within the US, then other states may follow suit. If enough states end up following the model, the entire country could eventually be single payer.
 
2013-03-12 05:36:36 PM
Gdalescrboz: If there are people who still think Team Obama is pulling for the middle class then they have crossed in to the realm of full retard

There were many sections of the Affordable Care Act that were vigorously fought against, and ultimately removed from ACA - much of it in the support of cost savings or regulation.  Yes, Tort Reform should have been followed, but other steps could be taken to lower the PRICE of healthcare.  Many of these have to do with the defensive medical practices outlined above, but there are also monetary incentives to add more tests and use more machines.  Medicare could cost a lot less per year if Congress would allow Medicare to negotiate with Pharmaceuticals on the cost of drugs.  Also, the cost of some materials is beyond leverage.

If anyone can find the time, Time magazine had a fascinating article about the Cost of Healthcare -vs- the PRICE of Healthcare - especially if you're visiting a hopital, at which time you're not able to consider the cost - only the outcome.

http://healthland.time.com/why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

The number of issues that drive the PRICE of healthcare higher than they need to be leads to a complexity of solutions; if they are pursued, there are going to be parts of that solution that will be hard to take on both sides, but they'll definitely be fighting uphill against a lobbying effort that is far larger than even Defense Industry lobbying.  Even if legislation is introduced to suggest cost savings, they'll be interpreted as loss of choice or "Death Panels" by Conservatives.  Tort Reform?  "How can we judge the cost of a life?"  We'll hear that from the liberals.  But until these decisions can be made, there is no real means to slow down Healthcare PRICES.

"More expensive is better" is a typical mindset for the patient - but mostly they don't lead to better results. Since doctors are theones ordering the tests and are pretty decent at knowing the pros and cons of how it affects the patient (and generally the fiscal bottom line), it is probably going to take a collaboration between Doctors and the Government to cut down on multiple tests or overtesting.  But if Doctors profit from more testing or more lab work, how does the government convince doctors to cut down on a "good thing" - which they can justify as "defensive medicine"?  I'd think we'd have to establish monetary incentives for Doctors to achieve good results that don't cost as much.Because it might not work any other way; disincentivize them on one side and incentivize them on the other.

It is reasonable to want affordable health insurance in this country.  It should also be reasonable to establish oversight on an industry that is 20% of the economy - and it's the biggest bubble out there.
 
2013-03-12 05:37:54 PM
Obamacare nailed your mom last night, just like everybody else.
 
2013-03-12 05:44:16 PM

tylerdurden217: If Vermont successfully sets up a system that is efficient and can proves the concept as a success within the US, then other states may follow suit. If enough states end up following the model, the entire country could eventually be single payer.


Optimism is good. But we're ultimately gonna have to nuke alabama, mississippi and lousiana at the least. Lots of good land down there but the population of those states do not seem capable of generating more tax dollars than they consume in entitlement programs. which, when looking at a national election map, could very safely qualify as ironic.
 
2013-03-12 05:46:28 PM

k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.


Please describe the procedure by which hospitals provide regular chemotherapy and other cancer treatment sessions to patients lacking money and insurance.
 
2013-03-12 05:53:12 PM

kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.


like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?
 
2013-03-12 05:57:03 PM

tylerdurden217: IRQ12: I agree with you and I think that it takes us no closer to that.  I actually think the harm it is doing to the broad public sentiment supporting reform/Single payer is hurting the overall cause.

I worried about that as well, but then I read about Vermont and a push to get a single payer system for the entire state.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81267.html

If Vermont successfully sets up a system that is efficient and can proves the concept as a success within the US, then other states may follow suit. If enough states end up following the model, the entire country could eventually be single payer.


See, that guy knows how to set a bar and motivate his base.

And it points another reason the bill is a failure.  It really didn't open up any real options or paths towards single payer.
 
2013-03-12 05:58:46 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?


Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".
 
2013-03-12 06:08:21 PM

kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?

Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".


oh so you do interact in a social environment & have a job, sure was nice of that society to set you up with access to employment ! Money? you mean the monetary notes that our government prints as a means to exchange currency? paycheck! well i bet you just stuff that piece of paper under you mattress & don't even spend it or do you cash it? or deposit it into that bank you have an account with?   you were kinda hinting that you relied upon society for Zero, turns out you actually participate in one!  Congratulations!
 
2013-03-12 06:10:10 PM

IRQ12: And it points another reason the bill is a failure.  It really didn't open up any real options or paths towards single payer.


I agree with you on that being a failure of the PPACA. It really should have given states an automatic exemption from the Health Care exchanges if they set up a Single Payer system. I'm hopeful that Vermont can get something done by 2017.

Republicans would never have gone for a Single Payer system. They immediately jumped on the "Death Panel" smear campaign. Sadly no one on the right ever listened to that and asked whether the private, profit driven insurance companies that answer to stock holders have anything like Death Panels.
 
2013-03-12 06:13:00 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?

Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".

oh so you do interact in a social environment & have a job, sure was nice of that society to set you up with access to employment ! Money? you mean the monetary notes that our government prints as a means to exchange currency? paycheck! well i bet you just stuff that piece of paper under you mattress & don't even spend it or do you cash it? or deposit it into that bank you have an account with?   you were kinda hinting that you relied upon society for Zero, turns out you actually participate in one!  Congratulations!


Disingenuous you are, because I participate in society does not mean I was subsidized or handed anything. As far as access to work, my job wasn't handed to me. I had to prove to my employer I had the skills needed to either perform the job or the ability to learn through OJT.

How does me getting a job and earning my paycheck mean I need to subsidize someone who can't or won't?
 
2013-03-12 06:15:42 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?

Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".

oh so you do interact in a social environment & have a job, sure was nice of that society to set you up with access to employment ! Money? you mean the monetary notes that our government prints as a means to exchange currency? paycheck! well i bet you just stuff that piece of paper under you mattress & don't even spend it or do you cash it? or deposit it into that bank you have an account with?   you were kinda hinting that you relied upon society for Zero, turns out you actually participate in one!  Congratulations!


And I said I don't rely on social **hand outs**. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that I don't want to subsidize other people's problems?
 
2013-03-12 06:17:26 PM

kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?

Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".

oh so you do interact in a social environment & have a job, sure was nice of that society to set you up with access to employment ! Money? you mean the monetary notes that our government prints as a means to exchange currency? paycheck! well i bet you just stuff that piece of paper under you mattress & don't even spend it or do you cash it? or deposit it into that bank you have an account with?   you were kinda hinting that you relied upon society for Zero, turns out you actually participate in one!  Congratulations!

Disingenuous you are, because I participate in society does not mean I was subsidized or handed anything. As far as access to work, my job wasn't handed to me. I had to prove to my employer I had the skills needed to either perform the job or the ability to learn through OJT.

How does me getting a job and earning my paycheck mean I need to subsidize someone who can't or won't?


you were fortunate enough to be born into a society that has done all the hard work to provide you with the easy life you live.  i loathe people like you, born on third & claim to have hit a triple.
We educated you, we fed you, we provide you with the environment to live the life you live & all you can't even admit that much.
 
2013-03-12 06:19:27 PM

kendelrio: And I said I don't rely on social **hand outs**. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that I don't want to subsidize other people's problems?


not hard at all, i am absolutely accepting the fact that you got yours & F#@$ everyone else.
 
2013-03-12 06:26:23 PM

kendelrio: And I said I don't rely on social **hand outs**.


Be thankful that the union as a whole doesn't take the same philosophy toward your state. Lousiana is an entitlement black hole with no hope of becoming self sufficient any time soon.
 
2013-03-12 06:26:54 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Isitoveryet: kendelrio: I don't expect society to pick up my slack.

like you don't expect society to provide you with fuel for the "Deuce" or do you refine you own oil that you harvest from thin air?

Actually, I "pay" for the fuel for my deuce with the "money" I earn in my "paycheck".

oh so you do interact in a social environment & have a job, sure was nice of that society to set you up with access to employment ! Money? you mean the monetary notes that our government prints as a means to exchange currency? paycheck! well i bet you just stuff that piece of paper under you mattress & don't even spend it or do you cash it? or deposit it into that bank you have an account with?   you were kinda hinting that you relied upon society for Zero, turns out you actually participate in one!  Congratulations!

Disingenuous you are, because I participate in society does not mean I was subsidized or handed anything. As far as access to work, my job wasn't handed to me. I had to prove to my employer I had the skills needed to either perform the job or the ability to learn through OJT.

How does me getting a job and earning my paycheck mean I need to subsidize someone who can't or won't?

you were fortunate enough to be born into a society that has done all the hard work to provide you with the easy life you live.  i loathe people like you, born on third & claim to have hit a triple.
We educated you, we fed you, we provide you with the environment to live the life you live & all you can't even admit that much.


I was "fortunate" enough to be born the 5th kid of 7. I am "fortunate" enough to remember staring at a Burger King and **wishing** we had money to eat. I was "fortunate" enough to have been born to an alcoholic mother and absent father. I was "fortunate" in that I was able to attend 5 different schools by 2nd grade.

You want to use the term "boot-strappy"? Yes. I'm boot strappy. I decided at an early age I was **not** going to live like that and my children were never going to go through what I did.

Did I struggle? Yes. Have I ever taken a handout? No.

Where were your precious handouts when I ate ketchup soup? Where was this "society" that did me all these favors?

Did I sit around and whine about how unfair life is? No. I got my from high school and went to work making sure I and mine were never going to be a burden and my kids would never go to bed hungry.

Do I feel "entitled"? No. I've earned mine.
 
2013-03-12 06:28:11 PM

kendelrio: How does me getting a job and earning my paycheck mean I need to subsidize someone who can't or won't?


Because you don't just get to opt out of part of the whole. You get to benefit from so many things that the government provides for you and you can't just pick and choose like some a la carte menu. "Ah, let's see... I'll have the clean drinking water, oh and air too, I love clean air. And let's have paved roads, I'll probably need police, fire department, just in case. Um, hold the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, I'll never be needy."

Most of us don't want to live in a country with starving children. So you get to live in that country too. I assume you like 95% of it. You just have to swallow the idea that extreme poverty comes with a very small safety net and yes, some extremely small percentage of what tax liability you have DOES go to that. Even though you aren't totally on board.
 
2013-03-12 06:32:20 PM

kendelrio: I was "fortunate" enough to be born the 5th kid of 7. I am "fortunate" enough to remember staring at a Burger King and **wishing** we had money to eat. I was "fortunate" enough to have been born to an alcoholic mother and absent father. I was "fortunate" in that I was able to attend 5 different schools by 2nd grade.

You want to use the term "boot-strappy"? Yes. I'm boot strappy. I decided at an early age I was **not** going to live like that and my children were never going to go through what I did.

Did I struggle? Yes. Have I ever taken a handout? No.

Where were your precious handouts when I ate ketchup soup? Where was this "society" that did me all these favors?

Did I sit around and whine about how unfair life is? No. I got my from high school and went to work making sure I and mine were never going to be a burden and my kids would never go to bed hungry.

Do I feel "entitled"? No. I've earned mine.


You do now, but back in your ketchup soup days, did you mother take any assistance that she almost certainly qualified for? Like WIC or Foodstamps?
 
2013-03-12 06:34:47 PM

Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Also, FTA:

Moreover, most calculations show that middle-income Americans are expected to get more in tax relief , such as health-care subsidies, than in additional tax hikes. CBO, for instance, indicates that middle-income Americans would receive about $1 trillion in premium credits in this 10-year period. So on a net basis, most middle-class Americans should expect to come out ahead.


=Smidge=


Be honest with you, I lost $150-200 a paycheck due to new taxes, so I'm not getting a kick.
 
2013-03-12 06:36:45 PM

kendelrio: Did I sit around and whine about how unfair life is? No. I got my from high school


After that diatribe one would assume that you went to a private school and paid your own tuition? Surely you did not attend a federally subsidized public school...
 
2013-03-12 06:37:36 PM

tylerdurden217: kendelrio: I was "fortunate" enough to be born the 5th kid of 7. I am "fortunate" enough to remember staring at a Burger King and **wishing** we had money to eat. I was "fortunate" enough to have been born to an alcoholic mother and absent father. I was "fortunate" in that I was able to attend 5 different schools by 2nd grade.

You want to use the term "boot-strappy"? Yes. I'm boot strappy. I decided at an early age I was **not** going to live like that and my children were never going to go through what I did.

Did I struggle? Yes. Have I ever taken a handout? No.

Where were your precious handouts when I ate ketchup soup? Where was this "society" that did me all these favors?

Did I sit around and whine about how unfair life is? No. I got my from high school and went to work making sure I and mine were never going to be a burden and my kids would never go to bed hungry.

Do I feel "entitled"? No. I've earned mine.

You do now, but back in your ketchup soup days, did you mother take any assistance that she almost certainly qualified for? Like WIC or Foodstamps?


To my knowledge, no. It was in those days we ate ketchup soup. My mother was never one to "get in the system". I know for a fact she had multiple warrants and was scared of being picked up. A few times she **did** go to jail, we inevitable went into the CPS system until she got out and somehow got us back.
 
2013-03-12 06:40:01 PM

kendelrio: A few times she **did** go to jail, we inevitable went into the CPS system

..

Now that sucks most assuredly. It's also a program that is 'free' to its participants as a result of the contribution by the community at large. Like the public schools you went to.
 
2013-03-12 06:44:15 PM

People_are_Idiots: Be honest with you, I lost $150-200 a paycheck due to new taxes, so I'm not getting a kick.


If you are single, then you would have to make well in excess of $400,000 / year for your taxes to have gone up. Unless of course you are talking about the 2% increase in your share of the payroll tax. That wasn't an increase so much as it was an expiration to the temporary tax holiday. They reduced the Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011, it was extended to 2012, but then it expired. It's really not a big deal. Especially if you really have lost $200, because if you get paid every 2 weeks and you make $10,000 a check, you are doing pretty well at $260,000/year.
 
2013-03-12 06:48:53 PM

kendelrio: To my knowledge, no. It was in those days we ate ketchup soup. My mother was never one to "get in the system". I know for a fact she had multiple warrants and was scared of being picked up. A few times she **did** go to jail, we inevitable went into the CPS system until she got out and somehow got us back.


If all of this is true, it's a sad story. But if your mother had collected some assistance, you would have received better nutrition via WIC and Foodstamps. Would you have a problem with the "system" if you had received milk, eggs, bread, etc. from WIC and a simple yet basic meal via Food Stamps? Your situation wasn't your fault, it was your parents' fault. This is the exact reason I would like to see these programs improved, not eliminated. By all means, control the waste, but we shouldn't be the richest and most powerful country in the world and also let people starve. No thanks.
 
2013-03-12 06:53:20 PM

Pangea: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Also, in hospitals many doctors are not part of the actual hospital staff and instead are fee for service based physicians and the hospital takes a portion of the cut so to speak...<snip>... In those instances, in order to keep access to that income stream physicians will order everything under the sun to avoid black marks which might lose them that income stream.

But lets not let facts get in the way of your bumbling in this thread.


In the fantasy you describe, you're claiming that an imaginary doctor will be dismissed as a service provider from a hospital that determines he is not ordering enough questionable tests from which they take their percentage.

Certainly you can cite facts to distinguish this claim from a scenario you have pictured in your mind, especially given the manner in which you dismissed the target of your fictional claim.



He isn't just pulling that out of thin air. Hospitals are quiet about it, but many of them DO compare the amount of tests that the doctors in their their hospital order and will reprimand them if they are on the lower end of the scale. The NPR Planet Money team mentioned that in this elucidating podcast recently on why healthcare costs what it costs (HIGHLY worth a few minutes to listen to it). The hospitals make money from those tests, and if you have studied economics you'll know what generally happens when people have incentives to do things...
 
2013-03-12 06:55:00 PM

tylerdurden217: kendelrio: To my knowledge, no. It was in those days we ate ketchup soup. My mother was never one to "get in the system". I know for a fact she had multiple warrants and was scared of being picked up. A few times she **did** go to jail, we inevitable went into the CPS system until she got out and somehow got us back.

If all of this is true, it's a sad story. But if your mother had collected some assistance, you would have received better nutrition via WIC and Foodstamps. Would you have a problem with the "system" if you had received milk, eggs, bread, etc. from WIC and a simple yet basic meal via Food Stamps? Your situation wasn't your fault, it was your parents' fault. This is the exact reason I would like to see these programs improved, not eliminated. By all means, control the waste, but we shouldn't be the richest and most powerful country in the world and also let people starve. No thanks.


It's absolutely true and I agree with you, which is why I prefer I prefer to donate on my own. I help local families where I live and I **know** it is being properly used.

As I stated up thread, it's the lack of choice that galls me.

I'm all for helping, but is it charity if you're forced to give it?
 
2013-03-12 06:57:44 PM

kendelrio: Do I feel "entitled"? No. I've earned mine.


everyone goes through life, each life is different, we all have had our ups and downs (actually, some well to-do's probably don't, constantly on the up).  some of the things you mention i find i've dealt with growing up, moving around a lot sucked (I was a military brat), dealt with alcoholism, the father out and about, hard times... and yes good times too, always hoping for the future & succeeding to a point then losing most of it then back on your feet again, & again, we are fortunate to have grown up in the geographic location we have.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that we as a society look out for one another as best we can. Entitlements? c'mon, stop sipping from the conservative spigot of misinformation, these people need help & we are going to help them, they aren't entitled to anything but death.  I apologize that your family didn't take advantage of the programs that are available to those who qualify but that's no reason to deny others the same services that are in place should be in place.

you should start to look at yourself & notice that there are others that have it worse than you do & hopefully you can have the opportunity to not only help yourself (as you've been able to do) but also help those less fortunate than you.
 
2013-03-12 06:57:50 PM
kendelrio:Please cite for me the part of the "founding document" that specifies the right to health care.

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

And yes, that specifically includes "health, and indolency of body."
 
2013-03-12 07:03:38 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Do I feel "entitled"? No. I've earned mine.

everyone goes through life, each life is different, we all have had our ups and downs (actually, some well to-do's probably don't, constantly on the up).  some of the things you mention i find i've dealt with growing up, moving around a lot sucked (I was a military brat), dealt with alcoholism, the father out and about, hard times... and yes good times too, always hoping for the future & succeeding to a point then losing most of it then back on your feet again, & again, we are fortunate to have grown up in the geographic location we have.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that we as a society look out for one another as best we can. Entitlements? c'mon, stop sipping from the conservative spigot of misinformation, these people need help & we are going to help them, they aren't entitled to anything but death.  I apologize that your family didn't take advantage of the programs that are available to those who qualify but that's no reason to deny others the same services that are in place should be in place.

you should start to look at yourself & notice that there are others that have it worse than you do & hopefully you can have the opportunity to not only help yourself (as you've been able to do) but also help those less fortunate than you.


Please note up thread where I stated "I help local families".

I have no problem helping. I can't **stand** to see a hungry child and my wife and I are teaching our children to help those less fortunate.

I disagree with being told I **have** to, regardless of my feelings on the matter.
 
2013-03-12 07:13:26 PM

kendelrio: Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me.


Yes there is. Ignoring the ethical arguments:

1. Other people being healthy is good for you. More economic output, less transmittable disease, larger economies of scale, etc., etc., etc. This is just basic economics and not particularly related to healthcare. You can argue about the relative value of the benefits vs. the costs, but to say "there is no benefit" is clearly false.

2. You're pre-funding your own healthcare. Right now you (claim that you) can afford the healthcare you want. That's great. But one of the goals of the system is to guarantee that you'll continue to be able to get the healthcare you need even if you cease being able to afford it. You might not want that benefit, but it's a benefit nonetheless.
 
2013-03-12 07:14:15 PM

kendelrio: Please note up thread where I stated "I help local families".

I have no problem helping. I can't **stand** to see a hungry child and my wife and I are teaching our children to help those less fortunate.

I disagree with being told I **have** to, regardless of my feelings on the matter.


noted.  & it's nice to see you aren't the fark you i got mine that i had though you were (because you were coming across as such).
now aside from the social benefits of being an American (of which there are many) there are always going to be programs that we agree with & disagree with.
it has always been my understanding that healthcare reform was intended to slow the rising costs that our government is already spending funds on, our taxes are already being spent, now why not use the mandate as a tool to get everyones skin in the game?
If you don't want it, take the taxation, look at is as a loophole you can't take advantage of or a tax deduction that you never use because you don't have children or own a home or something like that.
either way, we as a society benefit from a healthy society & that's something i will never have a problem contributing to.
 
2013-03-12 07:20:48 PM

kendelrio: Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.


The constitution doesn't declare or limit the rights of the people, it merely defines and limits the rights of the government. The people's rights are inherent, and if the people decide that they have a right to healthcare it's up to the government to find support in the constitution to regulate or otherwise curtail that right.

You can argue about whether or not access to healthcare is a right in the first place, or about whether the government should act in support of that right if it exists, or about whether the government should promote access to healthcare even if we decide it's not a right, but to argue that we only have the rights guaranteed in the constitution is fundamentally flawed.
 
2013-03-12 07:20:49 PM

JohnBigBootay: kendelrio: And I said I don't rely on social **hand outs**.

Be thankful that the union as a whole doesn't take the same philosophy toward your state. Louisiana is an entitlement black hole with no hope of becoming self sufficient any time soon.


Ahhh.
 
2013-03-12 07:22:22 PM

profplump: kendelrio: Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.

The constitution doesn't declare or limit the rights of the people, it merely defines and limits the rights of the government. The people's rights are inherent, and if the people decide that they have a right to healthcare it's up to the government to find support in the constitution to regulate or otherwise curtail that right.

You can argue about whether or not access to healthcare is a right in the first place, or about whether the government should act in support of that right if it exists, or about whether the government should promote access to healthcare even if we decide it's not a right, but to argue that we only have the rights guaranteed in the constitution is fundamentally flawed.


I think you used too many big words for him.
 
2013-03-12 07:32:35 PM

kendelrio: I disagree with being told I **have** to, regardless of my feelings on the matter.


I wouldn't murder people even if it were legal. But I still think it's a good idea to have a law against murder. It has no practical effect on my freedoms and offers protection against people who do not believe or act as I do with respect to murder.

It would be great if we could all just agree how to deal with each other and provide all the protections and help that are necessary without being asked. But not everyone agrees on all topics, not everyone is informed and involved enough to care even if they agreed, and there are non-trivial tasks in the coordination of effort and resources even if we agreed and all cared the same amount about all issues.

Which is why we devised methods for enforcing compliance with shared social goals in the first place. I agree, laws reduce freedom. But the also help us build the society we want.
 
2013-03-12 08:08:52 PM
Three responses coming, unfortunately the mobile app doesn't allow multiple quotes.
 
2013-03-12 08:09:18 PM

IamAwake: Someone at $200k/y is not really that much better off, truly, than someone making $50k/y.


Having made both numbers at points in my career, you must be incredibly high to even conceive of this idea. I mean mind bogglingly high.

Slightly better car, slightly better house/apartment.  Going out to eat a bit more often at slightly better places.  Slightly fancier meals.  Vacations abroad, versus a local camping trip.

At 50k I was worried about paying my bills and barely saving for retirement if at all. At 200k I have about zero money related stress and I am able to significantly invest for retirement. This is not some minor difference. This is a massive quality of life difference. Just going from worrying about day to day money to feeling like retirement is not only possible but I can probably do it in style is an improvement in the quality of life on the scale of orders of power.

Your notion only applies to incredibly stupid people who make $200k and increase their standard of living to the point where they are still in debt.
 
2013-03-12 08:14:14 PM

profplump: kendelrio: Why should I pay for someone elses healthcare? There is no benefit to me.

Yes there is. Ignoring the ethical arguments:

1. Other people being healthy is good for you. More economic output, less transmittable disease, larger economies of scale, etc., etc., etc. This is just basic economics and not particularly related to healthcare. You can argue about the relative value of the benefits vs. the costs, but to say "there is no benefit" is clearly false.

2. You're pre-funding your own healthcare. Right now you (claim that you) can afford the healthcare you want. That's great. But one of the goals of the system is to guarantee that you'll continue to be able to get the healthcare you need even if you cease being able to afford it. You might not want that benefit, but it's a benefit nonetheless.


I understand your logic in point #1. As a society, we all benefit from healthy people.
As far as #2, that is why I am saving for my families future medical costs. I have many friends who depend on the VA for health care, and while it is low cost (or free) for them, by and large it is a beaurocracy (sp?) and the health care they receive reflects that. My goal is to not depend on a government body to make my health decisions.
 
2013-03-12 08:18:47 PM

Isitoveryet: kendelrio: Please note up thread where I stated "I help local families".

I have no problem helping. I can't **stand** to see a hungry child and my wife and I are teaching our children to help those less fortunate.

I disagree with being told I **have** to, regardless of my feelings on the matter.

noted.  & it's nice to see you aren't the fark you i got mine that i had though you were (because you were coming across as such).
now aside from the social benefits of being an American (of which there are many) there are always going to be programs that we agree with & disagree with.
it has always been my understanding that healthcare reform was intended to slow the rising costs that our government is already spending funds on, our taxes are already being spent, now why not use the mandate as a tool to get everyones skin in the game?
If you don't want it, take the taxation, look at is as a loophole you can't take advantage of or a tax deduction that you never use because you don't have children or own a home or something like that.
either way, we as a society benefit from a healthy society & that's something i will never have a problem contributing to.


That sidesteps the issue of the government already subsidizing it. Why don't we reform the tax dollars they already get and are spending poorly rather than pay MORE money for them to mismanage?

Looking back I did come across as an asshole. There's a disconnect between what I was thinking and what I was typing. My bad.

I still think there are better ways to do this than the mandate.
 
2013-03-12 08:20:34 PM

profplump: kendelrio: Conversely, the rules and regulations have to follow the constitution. I have never seen a guarantee of health care in **any** of the founders documents.

The constitution doesn't declare or limit the rights of the people, it merely defines and limits the rights of the government. The people's rights are inherent, and if the people decide that they have a right to healthcare it's up to the government to find support in the constitution to regulate or otherwise curtail that right.

You can argue about whether or not access to healthcare is a right in the first place, or about whether the government should act in support of that right if it exists, or about whether the government should promote access to healthcare even if we decide it's not a right, but to argue that we only have the rights guaranteed in the constitution is fundamentally flawed.


That is a very good point and well explained. Thank you. It certainly gives me a different perspective.
 
2013-03-12 08:23:05 PM

profplump: kendelrio: I disagree with being told I **have** to, regardless of my feelings on the matter.

I wouldn't murder people even if it were legal. But I still think it's a good idea to have a law against murder. It has no practical effect on my freedoms and offers protection against people who do not believe or act as I do with respect to murder.

It would be great if we could all just agree how to deal with each other and provide all the protections and help that are necessary without being asked. But not everyone agrees on all topics, not everyone is informed and involved enough to care even if they agreed, and there are non-trivial tasks in the coordination of effort and resources even if we agreed and all cared the same amount about all issues.

Which is why we devised methods for enforcing compliance with shared social goals in the first place. I agree, laws reduce freedom. But the also help us build the society we want.


But this **does** have an effect on my liberties on that the added cost of this mandate directly impedes my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I'm so broke from paying taxes I can't take my family to the local campground for a weekend, where is my happiness?
 
2013-03-12 08:32:50 PM
mongbiohazard: He isn't just pulling that out of thin air. Hospitals are quiet about it, but many of them DO compare the amount of tests that the doctors in their their hospital order and will reprimand them if they are on the lower end of the scale. The NPR Planet Money team mentioned that in this elucidating podcast recently on why healthcare costs what it costs (HIGHLY worth a few minutes to listen to it). The hospitals make money from those tests, and if you have studied economics you'll know what generally happens when people have incentives to do things...


Calling for speculation based on "what generally happens when people have incentives to do things... " and references to non-specific reprimands targeting doctors, based on claims made by the terminated physicians, from a podcast that assuredly has an agenda against for-profit health care of not the same thing as facts.

I'm not saying these claims are entirely fabricated, but I also think the common "welfare queen" drama we hear from the right is not entirely fabricated either. Those anecdotes of what people swear their closest friend saw in a convenience store in Atlanta should not be confused with verifiable evidence.
 
2013-03-12 09:06:52 PM

indarwinsshadow: So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.


No, No, No, and finally no.

Not OK with any of it.  Next question.
 
2013-03-12 09:12:21 PM

indarwinsshadow: So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.


Liberals and Conservatives want the same thing: elimination of poverty. They just go about it different ways... Liberals try to build programs to help make poor people less poor, and Conservatives try to simply eliminate poor people.

But it's obvious that neither side will really succeed as long as the other is around.
 
2013-03-12 09:58:11 PM
HAHAHAHAHA, as if anyone actually cared about you people.

Hospitals and Insurances Co's will get theirs, from you, at a increased rate.

The freeloaders will still use the emergency room for the sniffles, paid for by you, the workers.

Congress, and whomsoever is/will be sitting in the White house will get a better plan than any Fortune 50 CEO could dream of, paid for, by you the taxpayers that are left.

And the "Single-Payer" dorks will rant until someone finally put them out of my misery.

Hmmm, have I left anything out?

0bama is truley and honestly proving that he is an American, as we are the only nation on the face of this planet, that could produce such a pile of fecal scum with his sense of entitlement.

I'm taking my disability check up to the Casino now, and spending it in cheap rum, and rigged black jack.

Thanks America!
 
2013-03-12 10:00:27 PM
This $1 trillion in new taxes will surely result in a net positive impact to jobs and the economy while extending the lifespan and quality of life of every American.
 
2013-03-12 10:11:58 PM

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


I like cat food, especially the good crunchy stuff, with a little skim milk to wash it down.
 
KIA
2013-03-12 10:57:47 PM

plewis: So yes, as a responsible citizen, this is the change I had hoped for.


You are nothing like a responsible citizen if you want to incur trillion-dollar deficits for government mismanagement.
 
2013-03-12 10:58:07 PM

Hermione_Granger: The problem with this type of logic is that health issues do not work this way. You can die of a toothache if it's left unattended long enough. Health issues that start out small and manageable work their way up to deadly if not treated.

This is why we should pay more attention to issues while they're small and manageable and not wait until they become catastrophic.


People don't treat these small, manageable issues because they do not have the money to treat these small manageable issues.  They wait until they're deadly, then go to the emergency room so they don't have to pay.  We should fix the first part of that equation, and give them the money so they can treat these small manageable issues.
 
2013-03-12 11:47:54 PM

kendelrio: MattStafford: Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.

Why don't we buy everyone a car too? Everyone needs transportation! We can just average out the cost to everyone!

It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.


Except, you're already paying for it ... 3 times over.  You pay for your families (sic) healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of your check. BECAUSE all the uninsured people who run up $80,000 bills getting their kidneys removed because of undiagnosed high blood pressure aren't paying those bills. YOU ARE -- that's why your health care bill is so high.
 
2013-03-13 08:55:55 AM
All you arseholes should leave your keyboards immediately and go exercise so I don't have to pay for your healthcare when you get fat. GO GO GO!
 
2013-03-13 03:28:07 PM

kendelrio: tylerdurden217:

You do now, but back in your ketchup soup days, did you mother take any assistance that she almost certainly qualified for? Like WIC or Foodstamps?

To my knowledge, no. It was in those days we ate ketchup soup. My mother was never one to "get in the system". I know for a fact she had multiple warrants and was scared of being picked up. A few times she **did** go to jail, we inevitable went into the CPS system until she got out and somehow got us back.


I think it would be far more better and bootstrappy if, instead of going to a government run and paid for CPS system you were simply thrown out onto the street as the founders intended.

Why should *I* have had to pay for your mother's mistakes?
 
2013-03-13 03:28:20 PM

tylerdurden217: People_are_Idiots: Be honest with you, I lost $150-200 a paycheck due to new taxes, so I'm not getting a kick.

If you are single, then you would have to make well in excess of $400,000 / year for your taxes to have gone up. Unless of course you are talking about the 2% increase in your share of the payroll tax. That wasn't an increase so much as it was an expiration to the temporary tax holiday. They reduced the Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011, it was extended to 2012, but then it expired. It's really not a big deal. Especially if you really have lost $200, because if you get paid every 2 weeks and you make $10,000 a check, you are doing pretty well at $260,000/year.


I make $50k a year...
 
Displayed 316 of 316 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report