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.

(Reuters)   As "Obamacare" marks its third anniversary, it's becoming increasingly clear who the real winners are under this law: healthcare lobbyists, of course   (reuters.com) divider line 299
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Amy Klobuchar, National Coalition Party, America's Health Insurance Plans, National Federation of Independent Business, Medtronic, lobbying, medical device  
•       •       •

1423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 11:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-25 10:21:27 AM
In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!
 
2013-03-25 10:27:14 AM
"thrid?"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-25 10:30:36 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!


So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare?  You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?
 
2013-03-25 10:35:17 AM
Gee. No shiat?
 
2013-03-25 10:39:27 AM
Medical device makers on Thursday won a victory of sorts in the Senate, when more than 30 Democrats joined Republicans to approve a non-binding budget amendment calling for repeal of a 2.3 percent tax on medical device companies.

Once again, nobody actually cares about the deficit.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:26 AM

vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?


Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.
 
2013-03-25 10:44:43 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.


It will take YEARS for this turd to work it's way through the bowels of the regulatory process before being dumped on our heads.
 
2013-03-25 10:56:39 AM
That's how Republicans designed it to work.
 
2013-03-25 10:56:46 AM

vpb: The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!

So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare?  You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?


Actually, he's not wrong. Hospitals and doctors are going to be reimbursed at contracted government rates, which is pennies on the ten dollars. And since it'll be a law that they are FORCED to accept it, quality of care is going to suffer. Everyone will get basic services but will either have to have costshare in order to have more expensive services, or if you're really sick or over a certain age, you'll just get "end of life" counseling if covering your care is more expensive than it's worth.

I've read the bill. It's not going to end well for ANYONE, except maybe the government.
 
2013-03-25 11:00:51 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.


Oh yeah, that "let's pass it so that we can find out what's in it" bullcrap. That pissed me off so much. And Mentat- for the record, most Republicans are against it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Rom's main promise was to repeal it. Wealthy republicans who own health insurance companies would of COURSE be against it, because they're the one taking hits.

I'm against it because I don't want to be dependent upon the government, and because a million jobs are going to go up in smoke. I consider myself neither republican NOR democrat, because they're both bizarrely wrong in some ways. I'm just against this whole idea that everyone gets the same care and Uncle Sam decides exactly what that care entails.
 
2013-03-25 11:14:51 AM
I saw Obamacare personally kill my grandmother.
 
2013-03-25 11:26:49 AM

kiwimoogle84: Oh yeah, that "let's pass it so that we can find out what's in it" bullcrap. That pissed me off so much. And Mentat- for the record, most Republicans are against it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Rom's main promise was to repeal it. Wealthy republicans who own health insurance companies would of COURSE be against it, because they're the one taking hits.


They're against it now because a Democrat passed it.  They weren't against it when the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea, or when Newt Gingrich offered it as an alternative to HillaryCare, or when Governor Romney signed it into law in Massachusetts and suggested it should serve as a national model for health care.
 
2013-03-25 11:29:13 AM

kiwimoogle84: I'm against it because I don't want to be dependent upon the government


So...don't become dependent on the government.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-25 11:29:54 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.


Of course they know, or do you mean that they don't have every single detail memorized?

I'm sure they know that it isn't putting everyone on Medicare and making them pay a fine too, but the right wing derposphere has it's own reality.
 
2013-03-25 11:34:25 AM
The US health care system is barbaric.  And there is no way it will get any better before it gets a whole lot worse.  But at least my pre-existing conditions will be covered starting in 2014.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:10 AM
Subby can't spell thoday. Isn't this like the thrid misspelled headline?
 
2013-03-25 11:35:16 AM
If you're not changing it to single player or public option, STFU.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:41 AM

ManateeGag: I saw Obamacare personally kill my grandmother.


It raped my father.
 
2013-03-25 11:35:52 AM

EyeballKid: If you're not changing it to single player or public option, STFU.



Damn these typos!
 
2013-03-25 11:36:23 AM
can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you

wow overt lying on fark dot com, must be a day
 
2013-03-25 11:39:17 AM
Medical device makers, health insurers, retailers and restaurants are waging what lobbyists call a coordinated effort to gain Senate Democratic support for overturning $130 billion in taxes that will be used to fund the new law, and repealing a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for full-time workers or pay a fine.

This right here is only feeding the oncoming demand for single-payer. The President couldn't wrangle single payer from blue dogs and teabaggers, so this was put into place. I said it once, and I'll say it again: PPACA was designed to suck just enough to make Americans finally cave and implement single payer.
 
2013-03-25 11:39:42 AM

Jackson Herring: can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you

wow overt lying on fark dot com, must be a day


He's actually correct. If small business employers can't afford the plans that they are being forced to offer, they can opt out and pay a penalty instead.
 
2013-03-25 11:39:43 AM
I hate to break it to you  Subby, lobbyists win no matter what the situation is.  They are the best political influence that money can by.  A government (initially) by the people, of the greedy and power-hungry, and for the richest corporations.
 
2013-03-25 11:40:59 AM

DubyaHater: I hate to break it to you  Subby, lobbyists win no matter what the situation is.  They are the best political influence that money can buy.  A government (initially) by the people, of the greedy and power-hungry, and for the richest corporations.


Fixed
 
2013-03-25 11:41:36 AM
At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?
 
2013-03-25 11:41:47 AM
The Heritage Foundation/Republican Party's health care plan from 1995 is a big corporate giveaway? I'm farking shocked. But thanks to our conservative politicians on both sides of the aisle, a real solution was never forthcoming.
 
2013-03-25 11:42:14 AM

verbaltoxin: Medical device makers, health insurers, retailers and restaurants are waging what lobbyists call a coordinated effort to gain Senate Democratic support for overturning $130 billion in taxes that will be used to fund the new law, and repealing a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for full-time workers or pay a fine.

This right here is only feeding the oncoming demand for single-payer. The President couldn't wrangle single payer from blue dogs and teabaggers, so this was put into place. I said it once, and I'll say it again: PPACA was designed to suck just enough to make Americans finally cave and implement single payer.


IDK if it was designed that way, but I hope that's how it turns out.
 
2013-03-25 11:42:38 AM

verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?


I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.
 
2013-03-25 11:42:39 AM

kiwimoogle84: small business employers


farking lollll
 
2013-03-25 11:43:15 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.


I heard that if you printed Obozocare on single-sided pages that it's 20,000 pages!  20,000 pages!  20,000 pages is a lot of pages so you know that it's bad.

When Herman "Hermanator" Cain is president, he won't sign anything more than 3 pages.  I say that's too much!  If I had it my way, the highway bill would only say "BUILD SOME ROADS".
 
2013-03-25 11:44:22 AM

kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


oh my god are you for real

like really really for real
 
2013-03-25 11:44:34 AM
A few friends of mine are lobbyists...

So I'm sure they're really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-03-25 11:44:41 AM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


WAAAAA, SOCIALISM!!

The health care industry has spent more than $700 million to lobby Congress and U.S. agencies from 2010 onward, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Companies, executives and employees have poured millions more into the coffers of House and Senate members up for re-election in 2014

$700 million. All that NOT spent on providing medical coverage to millions.

Sure, let private industry stand between you and your doctor, not people we elect and can kick out if they don't represent us. Good move there.
 
2013-03-25 11:44:52 AM

Marcus Aurelius: The US health care system is barbaric.  And there is no way it will get any better before it gets a whole lot worse.  But at least my pre-existing conditions will be covered starting in 2014.


Right up until they decide that it's cheaper to let you die than treat you.  That should come about by about 2014.  Go die elsewhere citizen
 
2013-03-25 11:44:58 AM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


But those other people are all totally okay, right?

Jesus. I'm an anarchist and I don't get nearly as pissy-pants about the government as you wingnuts.
 
2013-03-25 11:45:10 AM
Of course, the lesson here isn't that our system of lobbying/political money is broken and needs major reform.  The lesson is that Obamacare = bad because (unlike every other law, apparently) it was written to benefit lobbyists.
 
2013-03-25 11:45:46 AM

Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real


Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.
 
2013-03-25 11:45:48 AM

verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?


Isn't it really your health care providers who decide whether you live or die?
 
2013-03-25 11:45:59 AM
Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful.
Margaret J. Wheatley
 
2013-03-25 11:46:22 AM

Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real


Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:01 AM
I've given up arguing about Obamacare. Three years of reading fark threads & Facebook posts have taught me that conservatives have no idea what the ACA does, and don't want to learn.

It's very odd behavior to me, if anyone has ever had a success story I'd love to hear it.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:11 AM
I was promised death panels. Thanks a lot, Obummer.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:12 AM

Yeah another Obamacare thread!

Did a paper on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in College.

Here ya go for people who actually want to educate themselves!! Coming in 3 parts because it's looooonnnngggggg.


PART 1 of 3


Table of Contents

Table of Contents               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     2

Overview              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       3

Brief History of Health Care in the United States     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPACA)      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             4

Brief History of PPACA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     4

Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)   . . . . . . . . . . .           4

Currently in Effect            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plans (PCIP)      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             4

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)         . . . . . . . . . . .           5

Identifying National Priorities for Research             . . . . . . . . . . .           5

Creating research agenda based on identified priorities        . . . .         6

Removal of Life-Time Limit Insurance Caps            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             6

Free Services for Preventative Care            . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               7

Effective January 1, 2014               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             7

Applicable Individuals     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Applicable Minimum Essential Coverage Plans       . . . . . . . . . .            8

Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               8

Effective January 1, 2017               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

State Sponsored Health Care Systems          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conclusion           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         9

Resource and Reference   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       10

Overview


Health Care in the United States can be traced back to as early as the 1850's. It was first offered by Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts in the form of Accident Insurance against injuries sustained by railroad and steamboat accidents. Health Care played a relatively small role in the lives of American citizens during the late 1800's and early 1900's and was relatively inexpensive due to technological limitations and limited medical knowledge. Over the past 100 years countless technological advances and medical breakthroughs has caused medical care to become a necessity and the cost of health care to grow exponentially. With costs on the rise and an ever growing population requiring care, the United States is currently attempting to quickly gain control of the rising cost of providing Health Care and develop a system that allows for better access to medical facilities and medical care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is the latest piece of legislation aimed at helping individuals in the United States gain access to affordable and quality health care as well as reduce the Cost of Care associated with treatments and is the focus of this paper. This paper will give a brief history detailing a timeline of health care in the United States, a brief history of PPACA, and then systematically break down key provisions of PPACA explaining how they have already changed the current Health Care System and how they will affect it for years to come.

Brief History of Health Care in the United States

Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts was the first business to offer insurance but was quickly followed by sixty other companies offering insurance by the late 1860's. However, due to the limited medical knowledge and technology of the time, the services medical facilities could offer were extremely limited and most individuals were seen by a doctor in their house. During this period it was reported that the cost of missing work due to illness was four times more costly than the cost to treat the illness therefore sickness and accident insurance were offered by companies that covered sick leave rather than medical expenditures.

During the next few decades, numerous associations such as the American College for Surgeons (ACS), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Council on Medical Education (CME) helped create new and improved standards of quality and care in the medical field as medical technology and knowledge progressed. As medical technology and knowledge progressed, so did the role of health care and how it was provided. Hospitals and medical facilities became the standard treatment facilities for patients, rather than their homes, and new standards of care and quality were creating better treatments and success rates. With improved standards and new medical breakthroughs in treatments, demand and cost for health care started to grow exponentially. By the 1960's national healthcare expenditures were ~ 4.5% of the Gross National Product (GNP), healthcare costs had doubled, over 700 insurance companies were selling health insurance and President Lyndon Johnson had signed into law Medicaid and Medicare providing government assistance to millions of Americans. Health care had become more expansive and more expensive than anyone could have predicted.

Since the 1960's the cost of providing medical care had risen to double the inflation rate and almost 16% of the nations citizens (44 million Americans) were without health insurance by 2000.  During this time multiple pieces of legislation were enacted in order to help provide access to and improve the United States Health Care System. Medicare and Medicaid were created in order to provide assistance to the elderly and impoverished. Multiple attempts at creating a "Single Payer" or National Health Care System have been attempted but never succeeded. With medical technology and knowledge continuing to grow at an exponential rate with no signs of slowing down, the cost of care and treatments available are only going to increase. An effective and efficient strategy that seeks to continually lowers costs and improves access to medical care is needed going forward if the United States hopes to gain control of their Health Care System.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Brief History of PPACA


The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was first introduced to the House by Charles Rangel on September 17, 2009 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009  (H.R. 3590). It was reviewed by the Tax and Means Committee and passed by the House on October 8, 2009. This Act originally modified homebuyer's credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted H.R. 3590, removed all existing language from the bill and replaced it with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

On December 24, 2009 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment attached, in the Senate with a 60 - 39 vote and on March 23, 2010 President Obama signed the law into effect. Almost immediately there were challenges as to the constitutionality of the bill. Multiple states as well as private lawsuits were filed in order to have the bill struck down as unconstitutional. After multiple rulings and appeals through the lower courts, on June 28, 2012 the Supreme Court Justices ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional and upheld the bill in a landmark ruling under National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius. However there are those who are still opposed to the new law and are attempting to have it repealed. The outcome of the next upcoming Presidential Election will greatly influence the fate of PPACA and the direction of Health Care in the United States.

Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a massive piece of legislation that has hundreds of provisions covering a multitude of different areas in the medical field. From attempting to increase the supply of health care workers, to provisions aimed at increasing medical care for Native Americans, the PPACA is a very large and complicated piece of legislation. Key provisions that will have the most noticeable impact on the United States will be discussed in chronological order and analyzed in order to help garner a better understanding of the broad implications and changes made by the PPACA.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:28 AM
ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin
 
2013-03-25 11:47:32 AM

verbaltoxin: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.


That's not my argument at all. This will kill more people than it helps, and quality of care drops dramatically when reimbursement rates drop through the floor.
 
2013-03-25 11:47:40 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


DEATH PANELS!!!
 
2013-03-25 11:47:57 AM

kiwimoogle84: That pissed me off so much


I'll bet it did.

Felt good, didn't it.
 
2013-03-25 11:48:04 AM

HawaiiE: I've given up arguing about Obamacare. Three years of reading fark threads & Facebook posts have taught me that conservatives have no idea what the ACA does, and don't want to learn.

It's very odd behavior to me, if anyone has ever had a success story I'd love to hear it.


government

takeover


of


healthcare
 
2013-03-25 11:48:46 AM

kiwimoogle84: Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.


How does it feel to be such a lying liar who lies?
 
2013-03-25 11:48:48 AM

verbaltoxin: Medical device makers, health insurers, retailers and restaurants are waging what lobbyists call a coordinated effort to gain Senate Democratic support for overturning $130 billion in taxes that will be used to fund the new law, and repealing a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for full-time workers or pay a fine.

This right here is only feeding the oncoming demand for single-payer. The President couldn't wrangle single payer from blue dogs and teabaggers, so this was put into place. I said it once, and I'll say it again: PPACA was designed to suck just enough to make Americans finally cave and implement single payer.


And yet PPACA is still worlds better than the system we had before.

Which leads me to believe that, while single-payer/a public option might be inevitable, we're going to be living with PPACA for at least 15 more years. Barring some major change in the way healthcare works (independent of new law, I mean - something like a new scanner that can be MacGuyvered with household parts by a toddler with a learning disability and has 103% accuracy with a 3% error rate), it's far better than what we had, so most Americans will be fine with that for the time being.

Alternatively, we see how little things have changed, coupled with a new system (whether the new taxes and fees are higher or not, they'll seem higher - and people left and right will biatch about them, whether they're government fees or not), so people may be motivated to effect some real change.

// but then I put down the bong
// use take 1
 
2013-03-25 11:48:52 AM

Jackson Herring: HawaiiE: I've given up arguing about Obamacare. Three years of reading fark threads & Facebook posts have taught me that conservatives have no idea what the ACA does, and don't want to learn.

It's very odd behavior to me, if anyone has ever had a success story I'd love to hear it.

government

takeover


of


healthcare


best part


forever
 
2013-03-25 11:49:09 AM

Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin


Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.
 
2013-03-25 11:49:09 AM

kiwimoogle84: Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


Oh shiat, the death panels!!  OoooOOOoooOO~~~!!!!
 
2013-03-25 11:49:22 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!


That's not how anything works.  Go spout your insanity elsewhere.
 
2013-03-25 11:49:26 AM

Masta Kronix: Yeah another Obamacare thread!

Did a paper on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in College.

Here ya go for people who actually want to educate themselves!! Coming in 3 parts because it's looooonnnngggggg.


May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose, AW.
 
2013-03-25 11:49:53 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin

Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.


Ah, and a BSABSVR into the mix. Awesome.
 
2013-03-25 11:50:02 AM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


Well right now that call is made by a group of middle managers on a "recission Committee" who hope to get a promotion by showing the company how much money they've saved it by coming up with loopholes to deny claims and care to subscribers that the company would otherwise be legally obligated to pay for.

You might think that having the government do the same thing isn;t much of an improvement, but consider this: at least you get some say in who is running your government, unless you have the money to become its majority shareholder, you can't say the same thing about your insurance company.
 
2013-03-25 11:50:30 AM

FlashHarry: "thrid?"


www.thrid.com
 
2013-03-25 11:51:28 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin

Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.


both sides are bad, therefore death panels exist
 
2013-03-25 11:51:49 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.

DEATH PANELS!!!


ZOMGZ!!!! Socializms gonna kills da Stephen Hawkings!!!!!
 
2013-03-25 11:51:58 AM
Part 2 of 3


Currently in Effect


Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plans (PCIP)



Before the passage of PPACA insurance companies were able to deny an individual health insurance based on whether or not a pre-existing condition was a factor. What this means is that if a condition requiring medical attention is discovered before an individual purchases health insurance, insurance companies can then deny that individual health insurance due to already requiring medical care, i.e. having a pre-existing condition. The premise behind this is that it would be too costly to provide insurance for those who already require medical care. Individuals should purchase medical insurance before they require medical attention adding funds into the insurance pool before they take from it. This practice had a very serious consequence, it meant millions of Americans being unable to purchase health insurance and causing countless more to file for bankruptcy due to medical bills. In 2011 more than 60% of all bankruptcy filed were for outstanding medical bills according to The American Journal of Medicine (AJM).

               
Section 1101 of The Patient Protection and Care Act is aimed at providing what is called a "High-Risk Pool" health insurance program to individual with pre-existing conditions so that they are able to purchase health insurance. In order for an individual to be eligible to take part in this new "High-Risk Pool" they must have an established pre-existing condition and are not currently covered by any health insurance plans. This "High-Risk Pool" will be in effect until January 1, 2014 at which point health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny insurance coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and the rates charged as well as the type of coverage cannot be determined by whether or not a pre-existing condition is a factor. This is done in 2014 so that the initial shock of pre-existing condition patients being covered under private insurance companies will be softened. Individuals with pre-existing conditions will have already started their treatments or possibly completed their treatments under the High-Risk Pool program thereby absorbing the initial costs of treating them.


Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)


                Section 1181 (b) establishes the non-profit, independent health research organization The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Their goal will be to assist patients and physicians obtain the most up to date and efficient treatments available as well as conduct research to determine which treatments are the most cost effective. PCORI follows a "comparative clinical effectiveness" research protocol that compares for preventing disease and providing treatment and care. They aim to accomplish this by focusing on 4 goals:


Identifying national priorities for research

Creating research agenda based on identified priorities

Funding research consistent with these priorities and agendas.

Providing Patients and their caregivers with useful research information.


The first two goals will be the main focus of the final section for PCORI as it gives a brief but general understanding of how PCORI plans on achieving their stated goals.


Identifying National Priorities for Research


PCORI has created 5 national priorities that focus on providing patients and health care givers with as much information as possible.


1. Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options

ØDetermine which option(s) work most efficiently for distinct populations with specific health issues.

2. Improving the Health Care System

ØDetermine and establish effective and realistic programs that can help improve health care services.

3. Communication and Dissemination

ØDetermine the most effective way to provide reliable and accurate information to the patient.

4. Addressing Disparities

ØEnsure programs and methods of treatment are considered for all manner of patient populations. Certain treatments are not as effective on certain populations and needs to be taken into account.

5. Accelerating Patient-Centered and Methodological Research

ØDesign and create a way for patients and caregivers to be part of the research project in a quick, safe and efficient manner.


Creating research agenda based on identified priorities

PCORI has established their research agenda will not designate any specific disease or treatment criteria at first but reserves theright to do so in the future. Their first wave of research is aimed at improving any and all aspects of the Health Care System and their available treatments. There 5 focuses of research focus on the national priorities and can be described as follows:


1. Assessment of Treatment, Diagnosis and Treatment Options

ØClinical options with emphasis on patient-preference and decision-making.

ØBiological, clinical, social, economical, and geographic factors that may affect patient outcomes.

2. Improving the Health Care System

  ØUse of non-physician health-care providers, such as nurse and physician assistants, and the impact on patient   outcomes.

ØSystem-level changes that impact all populations, diseases, and health conditions.

3. Communication and Dissemination

ØStrategies to improve patient and clinical knowledge about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options.

ØMethods increase patient participation in care and decisions-making and the impact of health outcomes.

ØCommunications tools that enhance decision-making and achieve desired outcomes.

ØEnable the use of digital records ("e-health records") to support decision-making.

ØDetermine best practices for sharing research information.

4. Addressing Disparities

ØWays to reduce disparities in health outcomes

ØBenefits and risks of health options available across the population.

ØStrategies that address health care barriers that can affect patient preference and/or outcome.

5. Accelerated Patient-Centered and Methodological Research

ØImprove the usefulness and quality of clinical data in follow up studies.

ØMethods of combining analyzed critical data that follows patients over time.

ØUse of registries and clinical data networks to support research and patient-centered outcomes.

{ØStrategies to train researchers and enable patients and care givers to participate in patient-centered outcome research.


Removal of Life-Time Limit Insurance Caps


Section 2711 establishes new guidelines requiring all new insurance policies after January 1, 2014 to not have a life-time cap on health care expenditure. All plans, including those in affect prior to January 1, 2014 that have life-time spending caps, are to instead establish annual spending caps that set a limit on the dollar value of benefits the patient can receive.


Free Services for Preventative Care


Section 2713 is entitled "Coverage of Preventative Health Services" and outlines 4 new categories in preventative care that must be provided free of charge under insurance plans if they are deemed necessary by a care provider and patient, they are as follows with a few brief examples:


1. Evidence-based services and/or treatments outlined as Type 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendation of the United States Preventative Task Force.

ØDiabetes screening

ØDepression screening in adults and adolescence

ØBreast cancer screening and preventive care

ØCervical cancer screening

2.Immunizations recommended from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

ØPneumonia

Ø
 
2013-03-25 11:52:08 AM

kiwimoogle84: paying claims for the gov


do you even have any idea what "Obamacare" actually is i mean holy shiat
 
2013-03-25 11:52:18 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


Like private insurers do.

A law requiring insurers to spend a certain percentage (80, I believe) of their spending on actual medical care is a good thing.  Making it harder for insurers to drop people when they get sick (wtf is that) is a good thing.

Oh no, it's the government!  Who the fark cares?  Millions of people in this country die or go bankrupt because we're failing to provide them even the most basic care that EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY provides.

As to penalties for not being covered, those only kick in for single income earners if they're making 50k or more.  There aren't that many people making over 50k who don't have some sort of coverage in the first place.  Not that 50k is a whole lot of money or anything, but the majority of people who can't afford coverage and don't get it through work are under that bar.
 
2013-03-25 11:52:20 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin

Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.


Oh, You're so adorable! I just want to snuggle you!
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-25 11:52:45 AM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


*facepalm*

/no, that didn't even warrant a GIS
//no Picard for you
 
2013-03-25 11:53:33 AM

verbaltoxin: Medical device makers, health insurers, retailers and restaurants are waging what lobbyists call a coordinated effort to gain Senate Democratic support for overturning $130 billion in taxes that will be used to fund the new law, and repealing a mandate requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for full-time workers or pay a fine.

This right here is only feeding the oncoming demand for single-payer. The President couldn't wrangle single payer from blue dogs and teabaggers, so this was put into place. I said it once, and I'll say it again: PPACA was designed to suck just enough to make Americans finally cave and implement single payer.


Please be right. Please be right. Please be right.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:34 AM
I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.
 
2013-03-25 11:53:48 AM
In 2 years, how many on the TF left will still claim to have always supported Obama care? How many will somehow blame the right for it?
 
2013-03-25 11:54:52 AM
Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left
 
2013-03-25 11:55:11 AM

pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.


You must suck at business.
 
2013-03-25 11:56:06 AM

macadamnut: FlashHarry: "thrid?"

[www.thrid.com image 288x232]


Ring Kichard the Thrid?

/a shroe, a shroe, my dinkgom for a shroe
 
2013-03-25 11:56:11 AM

pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.


If you don't want healthy employees, then good riddance.
 
2013-03-25 11:56:22 AM

Sorry for the poor formatting of 2 of 3, trying best to transfer from Word to Forumn.

Part 3 of 3

Effective January 1, 2014

Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage


Chapter 48 Section 5000A begins the most controversial and most debated aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and is entitled "Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage". The Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage in essence declares that any "eligible" individual must purchase and possess "minimum" essential coverage for every "eligible" month that individual can afford to purchase said insurance as defined by PPACA starting January 1, 2013. If an "eligible" individual does not purchase the "minimum" level of required health insurance, that individual will then have a "tax penalty" placed on their yearly tax returns for every "eligible" month he or she has gone without purchasing "minimum" essential coverage. In order to better understand exactly how this process will work, the key aspects of the Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage will be broken down into three specific sections: Applicable Individuals, Applicable Minimum Essential Coverage Programs, and Tax Penalty.

Applicable Individuals

Any individuals who don't meet a PPACA Exemption will be required to purchase a Minimum Essential Coverage Program. The following regulations and guidelines have been set by the PPACA in order to determine exempt individuals with a brief description explaining the exceptions:

Religious Exemptions
Any recognized Religious sect or division with tenets and established teachings that would conflict with PPACA regulations and care.

Individuals Not Lawfully Present
Individuals who are not legal residents of the United States of America will not be required to participate in the program nor will they be able to participate if they choose to.

Incarcerated Individuals
Individuals who are incarcerated and/or detained by the state will have their medical care provided for them by the Prison System and will not be required to purchase insurance during the months of their incarceration.

Individuals Who Cannot Afford Coverage
Any individuals who falls below the 113th Poverty Line (~$18,000/annual income) will not be required to purchase Minimum Essential Coverage and will have their medical needs covered under Medicaid

Individuals Related To Employees
Individuals who are eligible and acquire a Minimum Essential Coverage Plan through their employer.

Members of Indian Tribes
As Religious Exemptions but relating to Indian Tribal Customs and Native Americans living on reserves.

Applicable Minimum Essential Coverage Plans

As defined by Section 5000A, Sub-section (b), Minimum Essential Coverage is any Health Insurance Plan that meets a Bronze Level of coverage. A Health Insurance Plan that meets the Bronze level of coverage is one in which the insurance company covers an average of 60% of the annual cost of average care and 40% covered by the individual.  These plans can be private, employer-sponsored, government sponsored, grandfathered health care plans and/or any other coverage that meets the Bronze level of coverage.

Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance

"Eligible" individuals who do not purchase a Minimum Essential Coverage Plan for "eligible" months will have a Tax Penalty attached to their tax returns for every "eligible" month they did not have the necessary plan for a given year. The Tax Penalty is a specific progressive tax over the next 3 years starting with a 1% tax for every month in the year 2014 (~$95), 2% tax for every month in the year 2015 (~$325), and a 2.5% tax for every month in the year 2016 (~695).  An individual will be required to pay 1/12 of the flat dollar amount for every month "eligible" insurance wasn't purchased. As an example, John Smith didn't purchase an "eligible" plan until May 2015 for himself and 2 other dependents. This mean Mr. Smith and 2 dependents were not covered by an "eligible" plan for a total of 4 "eligible" months during the year 2015. Mr. Smith would be charged ~ $27.08 (325/12) per individual not covered per month for a total of ~ $324.96 ([{325 / 12}*3]*4) at the end of the year. In doing this, PPACA hopes to curb the cost of care by taxing those who will eventually need Medical Services at some point in their life but choose not to purchase health insurance until they need it. For those calendar years beginning after 2016, the flat amount used will be $695 multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment. If the amount increased is not a multiple of $50, such increase will be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.

Effective January 1, 2017

State Sponsored Health Care Systems


                Waiver for State Innovation is the title of Section 1332 of the PPACA and provides for States to implement their own Health Care Plan for individuals of the State as long as it meets or exceeds the standards set forth by the PPACA.

Conclusion

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act has many more provisions and regulations that are currently affecting and will continue to affect the Health Care Industry. Whether or not these changes will result in more efficient and lower cost of care is something that will be determined in time. At the very least, the PPACA is a start in the direction of Health Care Reform in the United States. With the cost of care at ~ $7,000 per Capita (Annual Cost of Health Care / Population), the United States has the highest cost of care of all nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). If the United States hopes to gain control of its exponential growth of health care cost, Health Care Reform will need to be a continuous and concentrated effort; constantly monitoring and adjusting regulations and procedures in order to ensure best practices, cost efficient treatments and access to quality care will be accessible to all citizens of the United States.

Ressource and Reference

Economic History Association - "Health Insurance in the United States" (Melissa Thomasson, Miami University)
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

Yale Journal of Medicine - "The History of Medical Insurance in the United States" (Katherine Zhou)
http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2009/11/the-history-of-medical-insurance -in- the-united-states/

The Library of Congress - 111th Congress H.R. 3950 (PPACA) Full Text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:/

Urban Institute - "How Will PPACA Impact Individuals and Small Group Premiums in the Short and Long Term?"
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412128-PPACA-impact.pdf

The Health Policy Monitor (Bertelsmann Stiftung) - "Pre-Existing Condition Coverage Post-Health Reform"
http://www.hpm.org/us/b16/1.pdf

U.S. Preventative Services Task Force - USPSTF A and B Recommendations
http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsabrecs.htm

Healthcare.gov - Comprehensive Guidelines Supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/prevention/rec omme ndations.html

Healthcare.gov - Health Resources and Services Administration-Supported Women's Preventive Services
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/womenspr evention.h tml

Bright Future - Recommendations for Preventative Pediatric Health Care
http://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/AAP%20Bright%20Futures%20Periodi city %20Sched%20101107.pdf

American Cancer Society - Plan Levels and Standardization of Coverage
http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcare/implementation/background/Pla nLev elsStandardizationofCoverage.pdf
 
2013-03-25 11:56:26 AM

kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left


We'll all come and ask you for your totally expert and not at all ignorant as shiat opinion when there is any government health plan to speak of instead of a massive private insurance expansion. Also DEATH PANELS.
 
2013-03-25 11:56:46 AM

kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left


Good riddance!
 
2013-03-25 11:57:20 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: kiwimoogle84: I'm against it because I don't want to be dependent upon the government

So...don't become dependent on the government.


The line of reasoning people use in not wanting to become "dependent on government" is so silly because EVERYONE in a modern society is dependent on government. There's no way NOT to be. Businesses use the money issued by governments and the public infrastructure to make a profit. FARKING WELFARE QUEENS
 
2013-03-25 11:57:31 AM

kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left


How can we ignore something that only exists in your imagination?
 
2013-03-25 11:58:00 AM

kiwimoogle84: /exits stage left


Try not to become dependent on the government on your way out.
 
2013-03-25 11:58:23 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin

Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.


Having also wrked in healthcare, my experience was that private insurers like to dick around, but government likes to get people treated. I had a kid whose private insurance would rather pay for a MONTH in an acute care facility (about 4-10x more expensive than long-term care, depending; typical stay with us was 4-7 DAYS) than a year somewhere else - "somewhere else" having the caregivers better situated for him than us - because they were bickering with some OTHER entity (or entities) over who footed the bill and who was on whose network. Talk about coming between you and your doctor.

Also, "end of life consultations" = a conversation my dad had with my granddad's doctor (my grandfather had been living on machines for 4 months, had some advance directives and also a girlfriend, but had just taken a very serious turn) about their options:
1) Keep him alive indefinitely. It's expensive as hell and there's little hope, but yay he's alive.
2) Keep him on just those machines that do X, but not Y. No pain, and he stays around longer, but he gets to go in peace.
3) Shut down everything. It's not like he's suddenly going to wake up and dance the hora.

I won't bore you with the details, but that should be an hours-long conversation with a doctor (or two). Who pays for their time?
 
2013-03-25 11:58:42 AM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


You work in health care and don't understand what end of life counseling is?

1) It's optional.  Health insurers are required to cover it, you aren't required to have it.
2) It's informational. You meet with a doctor and a nurse to talk about your treatment options, which includes but is not limited to stopping treatment if you don't want it.
3) I don't even think it made it to the final bill because idiots thought it was a bad thing.
 
2013-03-25 11:59:06 AM

thurstonxhowell: kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left

How can we ignore something that only exists in your imagination?


don't you get it? with Obamacare everyone is going to be on government health insurance therefore death panels and reimbursing hospitals pennies on the dollar! also my little pony is a documentary
 
2013-03-25 12:00:25 PM

Masta Kronix: Whether or not these changes will result in more efficient and lower cost of care is something that will be determined in time.


You post all that for a conclusion that says "eh, who knows." I hope you got an F on that project.
 
2013-03-25 12:00:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

Isn't it really your health care providers who decide whether you live or die?


That depends. Can you get coverage in the first place? If the answer's "no," then you're pretty much f*cked if you have any condition requiring long term care. You're doubly f*cked if it's an emergency that requires additional, in-patient treatment. If you can't pay, a health care provider might never even see you.

Suffice to say, at this point it's insane to say the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France and a whole host of other nations can run a single payer healthcare program, and we can't. The largest economy in the world with the planet's reserve currency can't operate and fund single payer?

Really?

Really?

Really?
 
2013-03-25 12:00:50 PM

kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left


The government has statutes in place making sure that the stage is structurally sound, you damn socialist.
 
2013-03-25 12:01:16 PM
I honestly had forgotten that there are people in the real world who earnestly believe that Obamacare is some sort of government health insurance
 
2013-03-25 12:01:16 PM

pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.


www.mountainside-medical.com
 
2013-03-25 12:02:42 PM
I'm not too worried. I have an insider tip that the House of Representatives is going to repeal the whole thing anyways.
 
2013-03-25 12:02:49 PM
What's at "thrid"?

heystupid.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-25 12:03:03 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

That's not my argument at all. This will kill more people than it helps, and quality of care drops dramatically when reimbursement rates drop through the floor.


Yes that's why people in Canada are dying by the thousands each day, because of no access to healthcare.

Wait a sec....that's not how it's happening at all!
 
2013-03-25 12:03:20 PM

Cletus C.: Masta Kronix: Whether or not these changes will result in more efficient and lower cost of care is something that will be determined in time.

You post all that for a conclusion that says "eh, who knows." I hope you got an F on that project.


Until you realize the point of the paper was to inform the reader as to what the bill actually did.
 
2013-03-25 12:05:03 PM
I'd like to add that I don't want to be dependent on the government to ensure the safety of the food that I buy. If you don't inspect and slaughter the animal yourself, that's pure, unadulterated, Maoist, communism.
 
2013-03-25 12:05:04 PM

pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.


One more reason we should have single payer. I'm going to keep repeating it, because it's f*cking true.
 
2013-03-25 12:05:04 PM

verbaltoxin: The largest economy in the world with the planet's reserve currency can't operate and fund single payer?

Really?


THE US IS SOOOOO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE GUYS!  We're at least 3 tiems larger!
 
2013-03-25 12:06:09 PM

kiwimoogle84: IN THE BILL


Why is that in there?  Because A) a REPUBLICAN congressman asked for it and B) its a very good idea.  People die, you see, and Modern American medicine is very good at treating and alleviating symptoms, but sucks at helping a patient manage their life, in particular, the end of it.  As my very soon to be 75-year old mother the nurse has been known to snap at young interns who order whole batteries of tests to determine "what is wrong" witht he 90-year old man admitted with congestive heart failure  "what's wrong with him is that he is dying, and it's your job to make that as comfortable and dignifed as possible, not  to make his reamining hours a living hell as you poke and prod him to treat things that won't matter in a week anyway"
 
2013-03-25 12:06:21 PM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: ahh ok I get the joke now, you are literally sarah palin

Oh dear christ. Look, I'm neither republican nor democrat. I see the flaws in both sides. BUT I WORK IN HEALTHCARE. I have SEEN firsthand what happens when it comes to paying claims for the gov. It's a mess, it's cheap since so many people have it, and the reibmursement rates absolutely blow.


I'm a nurse and I've seen about 10 of my patients die this year. Never did the government intervene. Most of these people were on Medicare. The choice is up to patients or family or the result of being too poor/uneducated to manage illness so they get too sick at home and come to us unfixable.

TL;DR: you are full of shiat
 
2013-03-25 12:06:32 PM

Dr Dreidel: Having also wrked in healthcare, my experience was that private insurers like to dick around, but government likes to get people treated. I had a kid whose private insurance would rather pay for a MONTH in an acute care facility (about 4-10x more expensive than long-term care, depending; typical stay with us was 4-7 DAYS) than a year somewhere else - "somewhere else" having the caregivers better situated for him than us - because they were bickering with some OTHER entity (or entities) over who footed the bill and who was on whose network. Talk about coming between you and your doctor.


I actually worked for a while (admittedly, tangentially, but up to my neck in the financials) in the Yukon Territory health care system. A mostly-socialized system (government-owned hospitals and clinics as well as insurance) with some private clinics. Neither the doctors nor the patients were anything but happy with the system as presented - something like an 80% public approval rate, higher than the Canadian average and even higher among healthcare workers - and there were more than adequate facilities, equipment and supplies available. Wait times lower than the American average.

By every metric I can think of, the Yukon health care system (not Canadian, Canadian health care is managed differently by province and territory, and unsurprisingly the more heavily-privatized systems are rated most poorly) is vastly superior to anything in the US. But we probably had to make Eagle Jesus cry to do it, so there is that.
 
2013-03-25 12:08:21 PM

Jackson Herring: I honestly had forgotten that there are people in the real world who earnestly believe that Obamacare is some sort of government health insurance


Where do I sign up for this Obamacare? Because farking Premera sucks.
 
2013-03-25 12:09:36 PM

verbaltoxin: Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.


You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.
 
2013-03-25 12:10:31 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.


You've got some drool on your chin.
 
2013-03-25 12:10:33 PM

Bravo Two: Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.


Be sure to stay off our roads.
 
2013-03-25 12:12:09 PM

Bravo Two: if you'll excuse me


There is no excuse for you.
 
2013-03-25 12:12:48 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.


And those same people, in defiance of your hopeless cynicism, rose above their self-interests long enough to ratify the US Constitution, build rocket ships to the Moon, and in other countries, set up a publicly-funded healthcare structure - because, as it turns out, giving a f*ck or two about people you don't know goes a long way towards your own betterment.

But keep on keepin' on there, while people crowd our emergency rooms for health care, getting those costs passed along to you via your insurer.
 
2013-03-25 12:13:20 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.


Be careful! You may have to use Roads, Electricity and Sewage during your work day!

Wouldn't want to use any of those darn "Socialized" dangerous programs to assist you in your daily life!
 
2013-03-25 12:25:13 PM

Bravo Two: You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.


Exactly.  We are beasts, and roll around in our own filth on what is almost certainly a prison ship.  Humanity is a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analog nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.  You must fight without honor for whatever worthless creed drives you, for what is honor or honesty, beyond weakness we have agreed to indulge?
 
2013-03-25 12:25:15 PM

kiwimoogle84: I'm just against this whole idea that everyone gets the same care


I just wanted to quote this as something someone actually said.
 
2013-03-25 12:27:56 PM

kiwimoogle84: That's not my argument at all. This will kill more people than it helps, and quality of care drops dramatically when reimbursement rates drop through the floor.


History farts in your general direction, silly American person. Your mother was a humpster and your father smelled of elderberries.

These are EXACTLY the same arguments used against the NHS when it was launched in the U.K. History has shown these arguments to be, of course, completely wrong. Ditto for Canada, although there have been a few bad burps there along the way, but Canada now seems to have cleaned up their act quite a bit.
 
2013-03-25 12:29:34 PM

hillary: History farts in your general direction, silly American person. Your mother was a humpster and your father smelled of elderberries.


Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
 
2013-03-25 12:29:39 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


Look, I don't think you are a troll.  At a minimum, the amount of effort you have to expend to keep the arguments up mean you aren't a successful troll, and it seems like you are earnest.

Unfortunately, you are also horribly misguided.  Under the current law, you can purchase your own insurance.  That insurance will place it's own requirements on what it will pay doctors.  You want premium coverage, you can pray a premium penny to get it.  You get to decide, based on your income, whether you live or die.

What the government has placed in the ACA is a coverage floor, minimum requirements for plans to pass the new insurance credits on income tax.  If you don't meet that, you don't get the credit and have to pay higher taxes.  That's the way the mandate has been structured from day one, it's why the IRS is the enforcement agency, and the Supreme Court agreed.  Businesses have similar tax credits they can qualify for.

Non of this places an additional strain on the providers.  Yes, there are some poorly informed, paranoid, conservative doctors that have come out saying it will hurt their business, but it will actually place a positive pressure on demand due to the additional preventative care coverage and increase in the number of insured.  The negative pressure will mostly be against insurance, which is why they have been a leading lobbyist against the ACA, and those who will fund the measure with increased taxes.

Nobody likes increased taxes, but the truth is that the taxes don't actually place pressure do decrease jobs.  That's not how health care taxes work, or any economic industry with entrenched demand (like food production).  Instead, the econometrics show quite clearly that those taxed will have the same demand and thus pass charges across the industry, which will rebalance costs to fill the drain.  This is how most economists, including the CBO, measure the effects here.  And this actually shows that once balanced, the industry will have a slower growth rate than currently.  Why?

Back to insurers.  They are the ones most likely to lose jobs here.  They do not add value to the service and drain the system for profits.  Low value insurance will move to the state-run pools over time, which will have the profit motive mostly removed.  If we had moved to single-payer, it would be completely removed, and since net take after payout would not drain much in either system, year-over-year, the allocations to risk will grow and total cost to consumer will actually fall.

Everything you have said in this thread appears to have been filtered through Fox News or a similar entertainment source geared towards misrepresentation in the name of conservatism.  It is not acceptable to lie about something this important, and you should really feel quite ashamed of yourself.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-03-25 12:30:58 PM

kiwimoogle84: I'm just against this whole idea that everyone gets the same care and Uncle Sam decides exactly what that care entails.


Then quit telling people you've read the bill.
 
2013-03-25 12:31:43 PM

verbaltoxin: Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.

And those same people, in defiance of your hopeless cynicism, rose above their self-interests long enough to ratify the US Constitution, build rocket ships to the Moon, and in other countries, set up a publicly-funded healthcare structure - because, as it turns out, giving a f*ck or two about people you don't know goes a long way towards your own betterment.

But keep on keepin' on there, while people crowd our emergency rooms for health care, getting those costs passed along to you via your insurer.


To be fair, I've been arguing since the beginning that Fixing healthcare would take a major overhaul of everything from the way companies are allowed to price equipment to the way pharmaceutical companies are granted patents and patent extensions, an overhaul of the patent system itself, tort reform, and everything in between.

It's also going to have to have a major change in the attitudes Americans have towards medical care in general, and a shift from using healthcare systems as a mechanic to fix everything that's wrong with you while you abuse yourself towards understanding that it's your responsibility to take care of your body and only use medical services when absolutely necessary.

Single payer may be more efficient, but when you have so many bottom-feeders raping the system before it even gets to the consumer, It's going to turn into a giant flustercluck.

Effecting a lifestyle change is going to be difficult, and not the least bit because of the American Way of Life™ and our propensity for fast food and poor habits fed by companies that push vices via our Nanny Box.

Case in point: I gave up fast food and soda, and most prepackaged, prepacked foods in favor of making shiat myself and learning to drink water. It was a huge change, but even after only 6 months, I feel better, I look better, and I can't stand the taste of processed foods and crap.  It can be done, but I had to want it.

Yeah, yeah, I know, CSB. Anyway, my bottom line, as much as you guys like to malign me for it, is that the fix that will benefit most Americans can't be accomplished by legislation and bandaids, it will take a huge shift in society and the way just about everything is done related to health and well-being. Also, while we're on the topic of social shifts, the "fark you I got mine" attitude can also be extended to this farked up ideal we have that puts self above family and leads to people not knowing how to relate to each other or work together to make shiat work. 

Oh well, I'll go back to snarking and making sarcastic remarks since everyone is able to biatch about no one working together until they have to recognize first their own culpability.
 
2013-03-25 12:32:10 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: That's not how anything works. Go spout your insanity elsewhere.


So it doesn't:
1) fine people that dont have healthcare
2) force people without healthcare into Medicare
3) increase taxes on the medical field
4) force insurance companies to make bad business decisions (ie: insure people they know will cost more then they'll ever bring in)

If it doesn't do that, what does it do??
 
2013-03-25 12:33:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The Heritage Foundation/Republican Party's health care plan from 1995 is a big corporate giveaway? I'm farking shocked. But thanks to our conservative politicians on both sides of the aisle, a real solution was never forthcominG



Exactly. I feel like I only defend Obamacare because of the stupid myths I hear about it like "It's Socialism" or whatever other nonsense Fox News has crammed Into their viewership's weak brains--I honestly have to remind myself often it isn't the plan I really even advocate.
 
2013-03-25 12:33:28 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


But you're A-OK with an insurance company deciding that?  Amazing.  And before you say that they would never do that, take a look at the stories out there of people being dropped from their insurance once they REALLY need it and/or being told their policy doesn't cover whatever life saving treatment may be out there.
 
2013-03-25 12:34:59 PM

Bravo Two: Single payer may be more efficient, but when you have so many bottom-feeders raping the system before it even gets to the consumer, It's going to turn into a giant flustercluck.

Effecting a lifestyle change is going to be difficult, and not the least bit because of the American Way of Life™ and our propensity for fast food and poor habits fed by companies that push vices via our Nanny Box.


This line is pushed by people who are against doing anything in the face of the fact that Americans are not unique in this, but somehow fat white people drinking soda and eating poutine does not make public health care in Canada not work.

Half of it's a chicken and egg problem; these pervasive health problems are health problems and having reasonable access to health care - which many of the people who are most affected by these "lifestyle" issues do not - is an important step to alleviating them. In other words, you're backwards.
 
2013-03-25 12:35:32 PM

verbaltoxin: BarkingUnicorn: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

Isn't it really your health care providers who decide whether you live or die?

That depends. Can you get coverage in the first place? If the answer's "no," then you're pretty much f*cked if you have any condition requiring long term care. You're doubly f*cked if it's an emergency that requires additional, in-patient treatment. If you can't pay, a health care provider might never even see you.

Suffice to say, at this point it's insane to say the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France and a whole host of other nations can run a single payer healthcare program, and we can't. The largest economy in the world with the planet's reserve currency can't operate and fund single payer?

Really?

Really?

Really?


But.. Immigrants, or something!
 
2013-03-25 12:35:44 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 4) force insurance companies to make bad business decisions (ie: insure people they know will cost more then they'll ever bring in)


Actually simply having insurance has shown to reduce the cost of care.

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2007/anderson-hospital-charg es .html

Hospitals do not charge every patient the same price for medical care. Uninsured patients and those who pay with their own funds are charged 2.5 times more for hospital care than those covered by health insurance and more than 3 times the allowable amount paid by Medicare, according to a study byhttp://faculty.jhsph.edu/?F=Gerard&L=Anderson" style="-webkit-transition: background-color 0.1s linear, border-color 0.1s linear, color 0.1s linear, opacity 0.1s linear; word-wrap: break-word; color: rgb(27, 71, 129); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: proxima-nova, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Gerard F. Anderson, PhD, a health economist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
 
2013-03-25 12:36:12 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.


Tell that to the millions of people that are now able to get insurance or stay on their parents' insurance that otherwise were not able to.
 
2013-03-25 12:36:59 PM

TimonC346: A Dark Evil Omen: The Heritage Foundation/Republican Party's health care plan from 1995 is a big corporate giveaway? I'm farking shocked. But thanks to our conservative politicians on both sides of the aisle, a real solution was never forthcominG


Exactly. I feel like I only defend Obamacare because of the stupid myths I hear about it like "It's Socialism" or whatever other nonsense Fox News has crammed Into their viewership's weak brains--I honestly have to remind myself often it isn't the plan I really even advocate.


It's an improvement over the status quo ante, and that's all. I don't accept that it's this abomination of Communism that will doom your grandmother to the death panels and FEMA camps, but neither is it any more than a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.
 
2013-03-25 12:38:16 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The My Little Pony Killer: That's not how anything works. Go spout your insanity elsewhere.

So it doesn't:
1) fine people that dont have healthcare
2) force people without healthcare into Medicare
3) increase taxes on the medical field
4) force insurance companies to make bad business decisions (ie: insure people they know will cost more then they'll ever bring in)

If it doesn't do that, what does it do??


Medicare? I thought it expanded Medicaid, not Medicare?
 
2013-03-25 12:38:43 PM

wholedamnshow: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.

Tell that to the millions of people that are now able to get insurance or stay on their parents' insurance that otherwise were not able to.


He's talking about the insurance industry who otherwise would be happy to let these folks die if they don't contribute to the bottom line.
 
2013-03-25 12:38:54 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Bravo Two: You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.

Exactly.  We are beasts, and roll around in our own filth on what is almost certainly a prison ship.  Humanity is a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analog nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.  You must fight without honor for whatever worthless creed drives you, for what is honor or honesty, beyond weakness we have agreed to indulge?


I have you farkied as "I can't remember if he's retarded or not" and every time I see you post it does nothing to clarify the situation. WHICH IS IT DAMMIT?!
 
2013-03-25 12:38:59 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

That's not my argument at all. This will kill more people than it helps, and quality of care drops dramatically when reimbursement rates drop through the floor.


It's really clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-25 12:39:39 PM

Masta Kronix: Actually simply having insurance has shown to reduce the cost of care.


That's not exactly the right way to look at it, really.  The hospitals charge less for insured patients because they'll get paid.  They charge more for uninsured patients because most of them won't pay, and the ones that do pay pay more to make up the difference.  Probably this discrepancy will even out when everyone has insurance, one way or the other.  Accounting for hospitals will probably get some degree easier.

But it does reduce the cost of care simply by making preventative care and regular family doctor care possible for millions who simply went to the goddam ER when they got sick.
 
2013-03-25 12:39:40 PM

pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.


Do you always blame the government for your failures and shortcomings?
 
2013-03-25 12:40:30 PM

evilmrsock: I have you farkied as "I can't remember if he's retarded or not" and every time I see you post it does nothing to clarify the situation. WHICH IS IT DAMMIT?!


Not retarded ;)
 
2013-03-25 12:41:01 PM
Bravo Two:

TL;DR:

I am working on being perfect and all the rest of you flawed motherfarkers can just die.  It's your fault I have to pay for anything and if all you stupid motherfarkers would be all healthy or off yourselves, my life would be great.  But it's all your fault.  Now excuse me whilst I sweep my robes about me and make to the office.  Fark you, I got mine.
 
2013-03-25 12:41:07 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 2) force people without healthcare into Medicare


First, you mean health insurance, not healthcare. Second, why would a person without health insurance need to be forced into Medicare? Were I uninsured, I would run at full speed directly to whatever office could get me on Medicare if that was an option. Third, no. PPACA doesn't do that.
 
2013-03-25 12:41:09 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The My Little Pony Killer: That's not how anything works. Go spout your insanity elsewhere.

So it doesn't:
1) fine people that dont have healthcare
2) force people without healthcare into Medicare
3) increase taxes on the medical field
4) force insurance companies to make bad business decisions (ie: insure people they know will cost more then they'll ever bring in)

If it doesn't do that, what does it do??


1)  Only if you make a bunch of money.  The bar is at 50k for a single earner.  If you make less than 50k, no fine.

2)  Uh, no.  It expands eligibility for MedicAID.  Which is different from MedicARE.  It doesn't "force" anyone into anything.

3)  Sure, though "the medical field" is pretty vague.

4)  Lots of people cost more than they'll bring in.  It's pooled risk.  Being forced to not drop people once they get sick is a good thing.  Otherwise, what the fark is insurance good for?
 
2013-03-25 12:42:26 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Masta Kronix: Actually simply having insurance has shown to reduce the cost of care.

That's not exactly the right way to look at it, really.  The hospitals charge less for insured patients because they'll get paid.  They charge more for uninsured patients because most of them won't pay, and the ones that do pay pay more to make up the difference.  Probably this discrepancy will even out when everyone has insurance, one way or the other.  Accounting for hospitals will probably get some degree easier.

But it does reduce the cost of care simply by making preventative care and regular family doctor care possible for millions who simply went to the goddam ER when they got sick.


So since more patients will have insurance, the hospitals will charge less since they know they'll get paid, hence lowering the overall cost of care since they won't be charging the higher rates as often or at all.
 
2013-03-25 12:43:09 PM

verbaltoxin: kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Probably not, but who cares? Either way it sums up the opposition to single payer: f*ck you, got mine.

That's not my argument at all. This will kill more people than it helps, and quality of care drops dramatically when reimbursement rates drop through the floor.

Yes that's why people in Canada are dying by the thousands each day, because of no access to healthcare.

Wait a sec....that's not how it's happening at all!


Bachmann said it will literally kill people.  If she said it, then it must be true.  Or is it the other way around?
 
2013-03-25 12:45:44 PM

Masta Kronix: So since more patients will have insurance, the hospitals will charge less since they know they'll get paid, hence lowering the overall cost of care since they won't be charging the higher rates as often or at all.


Yes.  Though if the hospital charges it but the patient doesn't pay, does it count as a cost?

Part of the problem is that all these dollars are very shell-gamey.  Shoot, most insurance pays a DRG (which is a flat fee for an admission reason) and so what goes on the hospital bill basically means squat.  You go in for a CABG, hospital gets $35k, no more no less.
 
2013-03-25 12:46:06 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Bravo Two: Single payer may be more efficient, but when you have so many bottom-feeders raping the system before it even gets to the consumer, It's going to turn into a giant flustercluck.

Effecting a lifestyle change is going to be difficult, and not the least bit because of the American Way of Life™ and our propensity for fast food and poor habits fed by companies that push vices via our Nanny Box.

This line is pushed by people who are against doing anything in the face of the fact that Americans are not unique in this, but somehow fat white people drinking soda and eating poutine does not make public health care in Canada not work.

Half of it's a chicken and egg problem; these pervasive health problems are health problems and having reasonable access to health care - which many of the people who are most affected by these "lifestyle" issues do not - is an important step to alleviating them. In other words, you're backwards.


I never said that it made public healthcare not work, nor did I argue that it would fail if lifestyle changes weren't enacted.

What I was trying to get at is the single-payer health care system would have problems here because of all of the issues mentioned above:

- Pharmaceutical companies that take advantage of a broken patent system to block the production of cheaper medications In favor of profits
- Medical equipment companies that overprice their equipment because it's medical
- The resultant total cost of running medical systems and services passed along and imposed on insured and uninsured Consumers in an uneven manner due to volume-negotiated prices
- The cost of medical malpractice insurance
- The methods by which people have access to and expect to use healthcare services (Let's face it, if you have the flu, going to the doctor and demanding tests for everything from HIV to Down Syndrome just because you want your doctor to be thorough or you'll sue! doesn't help things.)
- The general availability and attitudes towards medical care in general

etc. etc. etc.

Existing issues with lifestyles and the way humans tend to behave with addicting foods/substances that harm their health are a related topic to that of providing healthcare simply because the more we can reduce the need for lifestyle-related medical issues, the less burden is on the system as a whole, and the more we can free up medical care to tend to those who really need it for non-self-induced problems.

It's sort of a chicken and the egg problem, except that there are dozens of facets to it that need to all be addressed comprehensively. Just duct-taping the system by mandating insurance and so on is ultimately going to be a bit like having five guys bailing water on the titanic.
 
2013-03-25 12:46:10 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: TimonC346: A Dark Evil Omen: The Heritage Foundation/Republican Party's health care plan from 1995 is a big corporate giveaway? I'm farking shocked. But thanks to our conservative politicians on both sides of the aisle, a real solution was never forthcominG


Exactly. I feel like I only defend Obamacare because of the stupid myths I hear about it like "It's Socialism" or whatever other nonsense Fox News has crammed Into their viewership's weak brains--I honestly have to remind myself often it isn't the plan I really even advocate.

It's an improvement over the status quo ante, and that's all. I don't accept that it's this abomination of Communism that will doom your grandmother to the death panels and FEMA camps, but neither is it any more than a bandaid over a sucking chest wound.


It's a shame that much of this country is so brainwashed into fearing single-payer systems.  It would have been nice to circumvent Obamacare and avoid that growing pain altogether.
 
2013-03-25 12:48:20 PM

kiwimoogle84: vpb: The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!

So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare?  You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Actually, he's not wrong. Hospitals and doctors are going to be reimbursed at contracted government rates, which is pennies on the ten dollars. And since it'll be a law that they are FORCED to accept it, quality of care is going to suffer. Everyone will get basic services but will either have to have costshare in order to have more expensive services, or if you're really sick or over a certain age, you'll just get "end of life" counseling if covering your care is more expensive than it's worth.

I've read the bill. It's not going to end well for ANYONE, except maybe the government.


My doctor was not happy when she began to make the changes she had to make.  She didn't go into detail, but her normally happy demeanor disappeared, she was all business and couldn't believe how difficult it ended up being on her and her staff.

She also posted a letter to her patients, warning them that threats to the staff will be reported to authorities and those who make them can find another physician.

She's a board certified internist.  Shame, really.

/don't know the details
 
2013-03-25 12:48:53 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two:

TL;DR:

I am working on being perfect and all the rest of you flawed motherfarkers can just die.  It's your fault I have to pay for anything and if all you stupid motherfarkers would be all healthy or off yourselves, my life would be great.  But it's all your fault.  Now excuse me whilst I sweep my robes about me and make to the office.  Fark you, I got mine.


Bravo, Bravo!

Now, remind me how we as a species managed to survive for the past 10+ thousand years without...

You know, I actually have to say, as I go back and reread and consider history, the more I am reminded that humankind, like other species, has always tended towards social packs/tribes of like-minded folk that are interdependent, so I guess I'm wrong on that account anyway.

Carry on.
 
2013-03-25 12:51:28 PM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you

wow overt lying on fark dot com, must be a day

He's actually correct. If small business employers can't afford the plans that they are being forced to offer, they can opt out and pay a penalty instead.


We have a different definition of small business.
 
2013-03-25 12:52:01 PM

Counter_Intelligent: kiwimoogle84: Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.

Oh shiat, the death panels!!  OoooOOOoooOO~~~!!!!


imanewbie.com
 
2013-03-25 12:57:18 PM

Bravo Two: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two:

TL;DR:

I am working on being perfect and all the rest of you flawed motherfarkers can just die.  It's your fault I have to pay for anything and if all you stupid motherfarkers would be all healthy or off yourselves, my life would be great.  But it's all your fault.  Now excuse me whilst I sweep my robes about me and make to the office.  Fark you, I got mine.

Bravo, Bravo!

Now, remind me how we as a species managed to survive for the past 10+ thousand years without...

You know, I actually have to say, as I go back and reread and consider history, the more I am reminded that humankind, like other species, has always tended towards social packs/tribes of like-minded folk that are interdependent, so I guess I'm wrong on that account anyway.

Carry on.


Joke


You.

That's what YOU sound like.  To paraphrase even further,


Bravo Two thinks that all health problems are brought on by the people themselves.  People that don't take care of themselves are solely responsible for every single health care cost.  If ONLY people would be perfect like me, this wouldn't happen.  Fark you I got mine.


Got it now?
 
2013-03-25 12:57:58 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?)


no it doesn't that work that way at all. If you can afford it you are not fined and your insurance gets subsidized. You are wrong.
 
2013-03-25 12:58:49 PM

EyeballKid: pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.

Do you always blame the government for your failures and shortcomings?


This is the third time I've seen such wise-ass dismissal of a business' problem in this thread.  It's in every thread about the ACA.  It's no different from the "fark you if you can't afford your own health care or food" bullshiat. Work harder and smarter; learn to manage money better, etc.; and if you can't, we don't need you and you can just DIAF.

Works fine if you're one of the people who doesn't need that employer.

I hope we eventually get health care off the backs of employers.  That will the biggest business tax break ever.
 
2013-03-25 01:03:11 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two:

TL;DR:

I am working on being perfect and all the rest of you flawed motherfarkers can just die.  It's your fault I have to pay for anything and if all you stupid motherfarkers would be all healthy or off yourselves, my life would be great.  But it's all your fault.  Now excuse me whilst I sweep my robes about me and make to the office.  Fark you, I got mine.

Bravo, Bravo!

Now, remind me how we as a species managed to survive for the past 10+ thousand years without...

You know, I actually have to say, as I go back and reread and consider history, the more I am reminded that humankind, like other species, has always tended towards social packs/tribes of like-minded folk that are interdependent, so I guess I'm wrong on that account anyway.

Carry on.

Joke


You.

That's what YOU sound like.  To paraphrase even further,


Bravo Two thinks that all health problems are brought on by the people themselves.  People that don't take care of themselves are solely responsible for every single health care cost.  If ONLY people would be perfect like me, this wouldn't happen.  Fark you I got mine.


Got it now?


I got it, but that wasn't the intention of what I was saying as I outlined in previous posts.  The two are separate. People need to take care of themselves, AND we need to stop people from raping the system.  Make more sense now?
 
2013-03-25 01:10:55 PM

Bravo Two: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two:

TL;DR:

I am working on being perfect and all the rest of you flawed motherfarkers can just die.  It's your fault I have to pay for anything and if all you stupid motherfarkers would be all healthy or off yourselves, my life would be great.  But it's all your fault.  Now excuse me whilst I sweep my robes about me and make to the office.  Fark you, I got mine.

Bravo, Bravo!

Now, remind me how we as a species managed to survive for the past 10+ thousand years without...

You know, I actually have to say, as I go back and reread and consider history, the more I am reminded that humankind, like other species, has always tended towards social packs/tribes of like-minded folk that are interdependent, so I guess I'm wrong on that account anyway.

Carry on.

Joke


You.

That's what YOU sound like.  To paraphrase even further,


Bravo Two thinks that all health problems are brought on by the people themselves.  People that don't take care of themselves are solely responsible for every single health care cost.  If ONLY people would be perfect like me, this wouldn't happen.  Fark you I got mine.


Got it now?

I got it, but that wasn't the intention of what I was saying as I outlined in previous posts.  The two are separate. People need to take care of themselves, AND we need to stop people from raping the system.  Make more sense now?


Well obviously you're not suggesting that everyone obtains medical certification. So it's implicit in your suggestion that people take care of themselves do so - to some extent - by relying on others. The difference is where we draw our lines on what's an acceptable level of reliance.
 
2013-03-25 01:13:47 PM

Bravo Two:  People need to take care of themselves, AND we need to stop people from raping the system.  Make more sense now?


Yes and no.  Those two things have ALWAYS been issues with providing healthcare.  However, "people raping the system" is a very small part compared to the poor and un/under educated being forced to use ERs for treatment, forced to have negligible to non-existent healthcare, and no prospects for getting either other than 'hurr durr get a jerb moran'.  Even MORE disturbing are the number of mid range households forced into poverty because they couldn't get coverage for a pre-existing condition which then required treatment and took everything they worked for before medicaid would kick in.  Is that ok with you?  Good working class people having to give up and sell of everything they have to meet poverty levels just because they are sick?  What if it's brain cancer?  Do you think their family doesn't suffer enough just to deal with that?

Your two pronged focus is off the mark.  Healthcare should be made available to everyone regardless, and after we start helping the people in this country STAY ALIVE, then we can focus on HOW they make a living.  The two are not mutually exclusive, but one IS more important than the other.  The way I'm reading your statement is it's mainly welfare queens and them nig**rs/messicans/anyone who isn't YOU that's the problem.

Any you're wrong.
 
2013-03-25 01:23:57 PM
Bah! You motherfarkers! You scared off kiwimoogle!

That guy was amazing.

Perhaps he met his demise at the hands of...

...the Death Panels!
 
2013-03-25 01:26:27 PM

Masta Kronix: Actually simply having insurance has shown to reduce the cost of care.

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2007/anderson-hospital-charg es .html

Hospitals do not charge every patient the same price for medical care. Uninsured patients and those who pay with their own funds are charged 2.5 times more for hospital care than those covered by health insurance and more than 3 times the allowable amount paid by Medicare, according to a study byhttp://faculty.jhsph.edu/?F=Gerard&L=Anderson" style="-webkit-transition: background-color 0.1s linear, border-color 0.1s linear, color 0.1s linear, opacity 0.1s linear; word-wrap: break-word; color: rgb(27, 71, 129); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: proxima-nova, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Gerard F. Anderson, PhD, a health economist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.



Hospitals != Insurance companies. And there were much cheaper ways of fixing this.

Dafatone: 1) Only if you make a bunch of money. The bar is at 50k for a single earner. If you make less than 50k, no fine.


So it'll increase the cost of Medicad. We got the money. right?

Dafatone: 2) Uh, no. It expands eligibility for MedicAID. Which is different from MedicARE. It doesn't "force" anyone into anything.


Ok you got me there. I flip those all the time. My bad. And no it doesn't force you, you can pay the fine. So I guess the word force is wrong. Let's try punish

Dafatone: 3) Sure, though "the medical field" is pretty vague.


Would you like healthcare field better? It is pretty vague but so is the law. And you are admitting it will increase costs?! Is that what "sure" means?

Dafatone: 4) Lots of people cost more than they'll bring in. It's pooled risk. Being forced to not drop people once they get sick is a good thing. Otherwise, what the fark is insurance good for?


Pooled risk is a wonderful thing. I understand that but it doesn't help when you know that a group of people are going to be a negative! And paying a fine to the government isn't going to offset the costs of people waiting till they need insurance to go buy it. Insurance for people is just hedging your bets. I plan on being healthy but I'm not about to risk everything on the roll of the dice that I will always be healthy. And "you'll just get dropped" is bs. Yes there are people who get dropped and yes you hear about them but that nothing compared to the millions of people that insurance works for every day. I'll put Big Insurance's record up against the VA's record any day.

Yes there are people out there that need help and I'm all for helping them. This just wasn't the way.
 
2013-03-25 01:26:53 PM
Yes and once its in full swing no Republican will ever get elected by threatening to shut it down.

Make hay while the sun shines boys...
 
2013-03-25 01:28:04 PM

BarkingUnicorn: EyeballKid: pinual: I work for a small business with many VH employees and a small staff of salaried employees.

We are just going to end up paying the fines because it works out cheaper then trying to ensure everyone. At least for the first few years. The fact that they tied the fine to insurance premium cost probably means in a few years the fine will be three or four times as high. Then we will just close out doors.

Do you always blame the government for your failures and shortcomings?

This is the third time I've seen such wise-ass dismissal of a business' problem in this thread.  It's in every thread about the ACA.  It's no different from the "fark you if you can't afford your own health care or food" bullshiat. Work harder and smarter; learn to manage money better, etc.; and if you can't, we don't need you and you can just DIAF.

Works fine if you're one of the people who doesn't need that employer.

I hope we eventually get health care off the backs of employers.  That will the biggest business tax break ever.


Why aren't businesses in favor of single-payer for this very reason?

I honestly don't know why the business community isn't the one advocating for single payer to free them to focus on their business.
 
2013-03-25 01:30:36 PM
kiwimoogle84:

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

This is some funny shiat right here.
 
2013-03-25 01:32:52 PM
As a medical underwriter who will be losing his job by 01/01/2014 due to this new healthcare law, I'm getting a kick...
 
2013-03-25 01:41:09 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


I'm not OK with weapons grade idiocy.

The difference between us is that I'm actually having to deal with it.
 
2013-03-25 01:41:55 PM

HawaiiE: I hope we eventually get health care off the backs of employers. That will the biggest business tax break ever.

Why aren't businesses in favor of single-payer for this very reason?

I honestly don't know why the business community isn't the one advocating for single payer to free them to focus on their business.


What makes you think businesses don't favor single-payer?  Even Forbes mag has been beating the single-payer drum since last year. But it's a much bigger lightning rod than gay marriage, a subject upon which most businesses still keep their mouths shut.

Also, health insurance is still a significant recruiting and retention tool, if your business can afford it.
 
2013-03-25 01:43:33 PM

Badafuco: As a medical underwriter who will be losing his job by 01/01/2014 due to this new healthcare law, I'm getting a kick...


You can always get a job culling wildlife, can't you?
 
2013-03-25 01:51:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: What makes you think businesses don't favor single-payer? Even Forbes mag has been beating the single-payer drum since last year. But it's a much bigger lightning rod than gay marriage, a subject upon which most businesses still keep their mouths shut.

Also, health insurance is still a significant recruiting and retention tool, if your business can afford it.



Actually that's one of the reasons you get a job at a megacorp. Yeah the pay is low but the benefits rock. That's why my first job out of college was WorldCom.

Do you want to know how that worked out for me?

Owning a small business I can see where single payer would be a wonderful thing, for my business. However I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!
 
2013-03-25 01:55:22 PM
The health care system won't be fixed until the consumer is also the paying customer, which means we must end this practice of co-pay healthcare for every minor thing, and then crack down on blatantly unethical billing practices such as the $80 box of facial tissues and $7 per pill acetaminophen.

Telling everyone to get medical insurance won't fix the problem. Especially since the companies get to keep up to 20% of premiums for themselves. Don't you get it? If they are incentivized to pay more to the healthcare providers they're going to make the whole thing cost more. And even if you have a few mutual companies try to buck the trend they're still going to have to buy services from hyper inflated players.

Oh, and an MRI costs $160 in Japan, versus at least $2000 in the USA, because fark you, that's why.
 
2013-03-25 01:55:53 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: However I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!


Look how stupid you are.
 
2013-03-25 01:55:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: HawaiiE: I hope we eventually get health care off the backs of employers. That will the biggest business tax break ever.

Why aren't businesses in favor of single-payer for this very reason?

I honestly don't know why the business community isn't the one advocating for single payer to free them to focus on their business.

What makes you think businesses don't favor single-payer?  Even Forbes mag has been beating the single-payer drum since last year. But it's a much bigger lightning rod than gay marriage, a subject upon which most businesses still keep their mouths shut.

Also, health insurance is still a significant recruiting and retention tool, if your business can afford it.


A business Forbes gives a sh*t about can afford it. They can also afford to support passage of single payer, yet I don't see anyone on the Fortune 500, or anyone ranked on the S&P index cracking a whip on their liveried Republican servants to get going on it. These companies could off-load that "benefit" and recruit talent by paying their workers more. (That's bullsh*t, by the way; if it's become vital to one's well-being then it's no longer a benefit. It's basically a wage in service form, and a sh*tty one at that.)

But no Fortune 500 company wants to do this. They'll swallow the cost of private insurance and defer paying their workers better wages and salaries, leading to the continuation of a near-40 year stagnation of middle class pay. All for what, you ask? A quarterly stock report reflecting "growth."

Forbes may have a tangential interest in single payer, I'm not sure. They aren't serious about it though, and nobody in business is doing anything but screaming about their taxes going up a couple percentage points.
 
2013-03-25 01:59:55 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two:  People need to take care of themselves, AND we need to stop people from raping the system.  Make more sense now?

Yes and no.  Those two things have ALWAYS been issues with providing healthcare.  However, "people raping the system" is a very small part compared to the poor and un/under educated being forced to use ERs for treatment, forced to have negligible to non-existent healthcare, and no prospects for getting either other than 'hurr durr get a jerb moran'.  Even MORE disturbing are the number of mid range households forced into poverty because they couldn't get coverage for a pre-existing condition which then required treatment and took everything they worked for before medicaid would kick in.  Is that ok with you?  Good working class people having to give up and sell of everything they have to meet poverty levels just because they are sick?  What if it's brain cancer?  Do you think their family doesn't suffer enough just to deal with that?

Your two pronged focus is off the mark.  Healthcare should be made available to everyone regardless, and after we start helping the people in this country STAY ALIVE, then we can focus on HOW they make a living.  The two are not mutually exclusive, but one IS more important than the other.  The way I'm reading your statement is it's mainly welfare queens and them nig**rs/messicans/anyone who isn't YOU that's the problem.

Any you're wrong.


Then you'd be reading my statements incorrectly.

Basic healthcare should be available to everyone, and how we provide it should change. But that doesn't change the fact that until we do something about the costs involved in PROVIDING healthcare, and the attitudes all around, all you end up doing is setting up a system that basically pays mostly what is asked by whomever, which then must in turn be recouped from taxes and other sources, thus making it so that instead of people paying whatever price they can get that's the best for them on the open market, they're taxed a fixed amount that the government figures is right for their coverage, since we have a huge debt and military burden we have to shoulder already.

So, while I do agree with your sentiments, I don't agree that a system that focuses only on coverage without equally reducing the costs as much as possible for the equipment/medicine/services being provided so as to minimize the impact in terms of new taxes.

Plus, as we've proven several times over the years, we're not so great at setting aside funds to cover just about anything, from the moving of Social Security to the general fund to then diverting funds meant for Social Security into other programs in lieu of an IOU that lead to some of the issues we're having right now with those programs.

Personally, I want to believe that medical offerings should be available such that I can see my Primary Care doctor for yearly physicals, go to a clinic if I have a nonemergency issue, and have emergency care that doesn't leave me sitting in a lobby for four hours, all basically free for most things, that would be a good thing.

Or, alternatively, that healthcare comes to a point where everyone publishes their rates for whatever needs doing, and I can shop around for most of my basic care and get honest pricing, and leaving the concept of insurance and co-ops behind or in a radically different state where they were separate and had no influence on the healthcare industry save for acting as "Group-buy" accounts that you pay into and can take advantage of should you need it (or, basically, a community-agreed-upon trust system whereby everyone contributes to the trust, and everyone is entitled to withdraw up to a limit from the trust in cases of medical necessity, such as paying for major medical treatments).

As it stands, however, I look at the way our government has handled managing funds for things like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, the former having been moved from having a separate, isolated fund to being part of the general funds in order to allow the government to use the equity there on other things in lieu of future returns, and the way our government handles waste, excessive spending on contractors and such, and the whole farked up system that is our healthcare industry with this mishmash of private entities, corporate interests, and federal laws all that end up leaving us with a morass of impossible complications, and I figure that maybe it's better that I find a way to deal with some stuff on my own than to expect a reliable, expedient government program.
 
2013-03-25 02:03:52 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.




"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are
 
2013-03-25 02:04:44 PM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


That isn't in the bill.

One of my Senators, Johnny Isakson added language to the bill for coverage of living will appointments by Medicare. Simply put if someone is unable to provide consent to care, their doctor can be sued for malpractice for failure to provide care that could save their lives regardless of the chances of success or concerns for their wellbeing as a result of effective treatment. You have someone in a coma with a deginerative disease, it becomes more and more expensive to take care of them and unless you have someone with power of attorney who wants to pull the plug the costs mount. A large percent of people will tell you that in that situation that they would not continue treatment at that threshold: they would rather face death with dignity than continue to cling to a marginally enjoyable (if enjoyable at all). Others would want every option exhausted before they gave up.

Living wills fix this. People sit down with their doctor well before they are struck with an illness and discuss options of care with details of efficacy and side effects of each possible treatment discussed. It really isn't in the doctor's interest to urge more or less care: the doctor gets paid for whatever care they provide, but at the same time not providing unwanted care saves them time. In general though, knowing the patient agreed to a procedure in advance gives them a level of security in how they choose to act that things like a malpractice caps would do without actually protecting doctors who do fail to provide proper care from paying for their own negligence. Living wills already exist and greatly help families of those who are struck by tragedy by placing the choices in the hands of the individual and not those left to assume what the individual would have chosen. Meanwhile Medicare pays a little more up front to get rid of wasted care (that care the patient would not want if given the choice) on the back end, which ends up saving money.

Then "death panels" became a household word and the section on living will consultations were removed from the bill as a concession to help get the bill passed.

It's a damn good idea that saves money and would lead to more choice in senior healthcare. But it had to be removed because people convinced low-information voters that it was a coordinated effort to have them and their loved ones killed off. This is the part of politics that disgusts me, when good ideas are victims of disinformantion campaigns.
 
2013-03-25 02:05:52 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.



"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are


Lets compare number of bankruptcies due to medical bills.
 
2013-03-25 02:05:58 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are


Let's see...deal with a fairly poor process because I don't have to pay for it, or pay for something that's better...considering how broke I am, I'll deal with one or two "misplaced" surgical instruments and discount mexican drugs because I can't afford better.
 
2013-03-25 02:08:51 PM

kiwimoogle84: I've read the bill. It's not going to end well for ANYONE, except maybe the government.


Perhaps consider what is in the bill vs. what boogeyman FW: FW: FW: nonsense you read that you THINK is in the bill.

Before the ACA there WAS a lifetime limit that insurance companies could stipulate. AFTER ACA those limits are NOT allowed:

Lifetime & Annual LimitsThe Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on most benefits you receive. The law also restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits a health plan can place on most of your benefits - and does away with these limits entirely in 2014.
 
2013-03-25 02:09:04 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are


Well, I'm Canadian and by every metric health care in the US has been worse than it was back up north, so... I guess you're still stupid.
 
2013-03-25 02:09:52 PM

Clutch414: The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are

Lets compare number of bankruptcies due to medical bills.


Let's compare Pay rates for doctors, average cost of medications and equipment, and any laws governing the prices companies are allowed to charge for drugs and such in those nations.

Part of why shiat's so expensive here in the US is because those companies have to make their obscene profits somewhere, if the other major nations won't allow them to charge whatever the market will bear and cap their costs...

/France, I know, has laws that restrict the amount of money companies are allowed to charge for drugs, medical equipment, etc.
 
2013-03-25 02:10:32 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dafatone: 2) Uh, no. It expands eligibility for MedicAID. Which is different from MedicARE. It doesn't "force" anyone into anything.

Ok you got me there. I flip those all the time. My bad. And no it doesn't force you, you can pay the fine. So I guess the word force is wrong. Let's try punish


The eligibility window for Medicaid shifts from people making like... 4-digit incomes to something around 20k.  Both of these are way below the 50k bar for fines.  Nobody who is eligible for Medicaid is paying any fines.

That's the biggest thing people aren't listening to.  If you're poor*, you're not being fined by Obamacare.  End of story.

*okay, depending on where you live and your background and whatnot, you can make over 50k and still be poor.  But everyone I know who has complained about how they can't afford Obamacare fines makes under this.
 
2013-03-25 02:10:54 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are

Well, I'm Canadian and by every metric health care in the US has been worse than it was back up north, so... I guess you're still stupid.


Based on your perception or objective, independent studies?
 
2013-03-25 02:12:46 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are

Well, I'm Canadian and by every metric health care in the US has been worse than it was back up north, so... I guess you're still stupid.

Based on your perception or objective, independent studies?


This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.
 
2013-03-25 02:14:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.


Well, in gun threads people like you dismiss anecdotal evidence and demand studies. I didn't realize that that didn't equally apply to every discussion of the involvement of government in some aspect of our lives.
 
2013-03-25 02:15:51 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: However I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!


Even you don't believe this. Stop trolling.
 
2013-03-25 02:16:09 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.

Well, in gun threads people like you dismiss anecdotal evidence and demand studies. I didn't realize that that didn't equally apply to every discussion of the involvement of government in some aspect of our lives.


I linked that information upthread. Are you retarded?
 
2013-03-25 02:17:32 PM
I am very much looking forward to it because:

1. I can keep the same plan I have.
2. It will cost $2,500 a year less.

Unless I was lied to of course.
 
2013-03-25 02:19:28 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.


Also, calling me ignorant because i have different opinions than you do (mainly I believe that single-payer is a nigh-impossible task without a LOT of crap changing, despite the fact that the system we have no being a major shiathole that I've had the displeasure of dealing with for the past few years that needs to change right farking now) doesn't help people agree with you. it just makes you look hostile and judgmental towards people that have a different perspective that you don't agree with.

If the US implemented nothing else than single payer right now, can you tell me that there wouldn't be at least a couple of years of major screaming and calamity as Medicare/Medicaid systems dealt with the sudden influx of a vastly larger population and medical systems dealt with the sudden drop in income such a change would cause?

I can see a gradual shift, or a planned transition being successful, whereby the burden was slowly shifted off of our patchwork system now towards a universal SPS, but a sudden, dramatic shift i think would be worse than what we have now until the rest of the systems caught up.
 
2013-03-25 02:20:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: I linked that information upthread. Are you retarded?


No, I simply missed it scanning through the thread. My apologies. That doesn't warrant you calling me retarded however.
 
2013-03-25 02:20:24 PM
Bravo Two

Basic healthcare should be available to everyone, and how we provide it should change. But that doesn't change the fact that until we do something about the costs involved in PROVIDING healthcare, and the attitudes all around, all you end up doing is setting up a system that basically pays mostly what is asked by whomever, which then must in turn be recouped from taxes and other sources, thus making it so that instead of people paying whatever price they can get that's the best for them on the open market, they're taxed a fixed amount that the government figures is right for their coverage, since we have a huge debt and military burden we have to shoulder already.

So, while I do agree with your sentiments, I don't agree that a system that focuses only on coverage without equally reducing the costs as much as possible for the equipment/medicine/services being provided so as to minimize the impact in terms of new taxes.


You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about a national healthcare system. We have UK, Australian and Canadian farkers. If you want to know how they're actually run, you could ask them, or look into it yourself.

Plus, as we've proven several times over the years, we're not so great at setting aside funds to cover just about anything, from the moving of Social Security to the general fund to then diverting funds meant for Social Security into other programs in lieu of an IOU that lead to some of the issues we're having right now with those programs.

Ah, this old chestnut again. Read "5 Huge Myths about Social Security."

Personally, I want to believe that medical offerings should be available such that I can see my Primary Care doctor for yearly physicals, go to a clinic if I have a nonemergency issue, and have emergency care that doesn't leave me sitting in a lobby for four hours, all basically free for most things, that would be a good thing.

The PPACA already mandates that preventative care not be charged to you. Your provider has to cover your physical. If you want the ER unclogged, then single payer is the way to do that. If people aren't worried about being bankrupted, then they are more likely to actually see the doctor before it's a last resort. That's what we keep telling you, but you continually ignore it. Also if you want cost controls, then imagine what happens when sick people have an incentive to get preventative care (As they do now, under current law), and healthier people aren't worried about a high doctor bill for something like a physical.

This part of the law is already in effect too. My physical cost me nothing. I only paid for laboratory work on my blood analysis. There is already incentive for me to go get my physical this year.

(or, basically, a community-agreed-upon trust system whereby everyone contributes to the trust, and everyone is entitled to withdraw up to a limit from the trust in cases of medical necessity, such as paying for major medical treatments).

That is what the public option was: everyone paid into it, and could use it for their medical treatment. That's what got axed from the early version of the PPACA. In single payer, you have a system where, again, everyone pays into it, and then it negotiates with health care providers for an affordable price. The provider gets paid regardless, and there is actually security in that. This can in turn save money, because nobody can skip on their bill. Everyone has already paid up-front through their taxes.

I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.

As it stands, however, I look at the way our government has handled managing funds for things like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, the former having been moved from having a separate, isolated fund to being part of the general funds in order to allow the government to use the equity there on other things in lieu of future returns, and the way our government handles waste, excessive spending on contractors and such, and the whole farked up system that is our healthcare industry with this mishmash of private entities, corporate interests, and federal laws all that end up leaving us with a morass of impossible complications, and I figure that maybe it's better that I find a way to deal with some stuff on my own than to expect a reliable, expedient government program.

The reason it's f*cked up is because our insurance is tied to a bottom line, and not keeping people from dying. Medicaid was "reformed" 20 years ago, and those reforms effectively punish you for even drawing from it. It's a pain in the ass to obtain, and a huge pain the ass to keep.

Medicaid is nothing like a universal healthcare program, and neither is Medicare. They are limited, restricted programs set up that way on purpose, because people like you are afraid of "moochers" ripping off the system. It's actually cheaper for you, yes, you personally, if everyone has to pay into the same thing and is guaranteed coverage and access. SSI, Medicaid and Medicare not those things. They act as contingency benefits. A universal system covers everyone, regardless of age, class or condition.
 
2013-03-25 02:20:33 PM
So shut your pieholes and tell your US House Rep and Senators to support a single-payer, universal, primary-care health insurance system.  That's what Obama would love to jump to but he knew that you corporate-dick-gobbling goatfarkers would never go for it, and was stuck with making a deal with the devil. A bunch of douchebags -- who keep getting elected *BY YOU* -- are holding up the inevitable switch to the most efficient delivery of the aforementioned.  Meanwhile ~3/4 trillion bucks a year is misallocated to said private insurers, where they can grift off the top by denying essential claims and profiting on the back of others' prolonged misery, if not their ultimate deaths.

YOU jammed us in this position, so shut the fark up.

farking retarded voters in this country...

/AND NO, MORE PRIVATIZATION OF A PUBLIC GOOD/SERVICE WILL NOT HELP
//IT WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM
/SO STFU YOU DUMBASS, KNOW-NOTHING, REASON.COM-READING JACKHOLES
 
2013-03-25 02:21:23 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.

Also, calling me ignorant because i have different opinions than you do (mainly I believe that single-payer is a nigh-impossible task without a LOT of crap changing, despite the fact that the system we have no being a major shiathole that I've had the displeasure of dealing with for the past few years that needs to change right farking now) doesn't help people agree with you. it just makes you look hostile and judgmental towards people that have a different perspective that you don't agree with.


Actually, I'm calling you ignorant because you're being deliberately ignorant and doing things like petulantly demanding information that was already provided. As for the rest, any economic change can be a shock; saying it's too disruptive so we shouldn't do it smacks of Luddism.
 
2013-03-25 02:21:50 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: BarkingUnicorn:

Owning a small business I can see where single payer would be a wonderful thing, for my business. However I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!


I don't know why anyone who isn't in the insurance business would want to make it work.  Competition is not the only way to drive costs down, and it isn't the best way in this case.  Innovation will continue without lots of insurance companies, and it might even be focused on health care instead of just cost control. A choice of insurers, to me, is about as important as a choice of toilet paper; they all work the same except for the petty comfort factor.
 
2013-03-25 02:23:38 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: I linked that information upthread. Are you retarded?

No, I simply missed it scanning through the thread. My apologies. That doesn't warrant you calling me retarded however.


I called you retarded because I SAID I linked it in the post you replied to. Scrolling up, however, it seems I typed "link" as "like". I would assume that the rest of the post makes it clear what I was talking about, but maybe not.
 
2013-03-25 02:24:36 PM

kiwimoogle84: verbaltoxin: At issue are a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices valued at $30 billion over the next 10 years, a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.

*Sighs* That's because your ability to see a doctor shouldn't be dependent upon your boss' ability to buy an insurance plan! People cry "Socialism!" but are seriously okay with actuaries, shareholders, and their own f*cking boss deciding whether you live or die?

I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.


But insurance companies have your best interest at heart, right? That's why they allow all those people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare ANYway!

/Insurance Companies: Heroes of the Common Man!!
 
2013-03-25 02:24:40 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: This is great, I like mass surveys and Stealth Hippo demands anecdotes. I provide an anecdote and you demand a mass survey. Tag-team ignorance, it's awesome.

Also, calling me ignorant because i have different opinions than you do (mainly I believe that single-payer is a nigh-impossible task without a LOT of crap changing, despite the fact that the system we have no being a major shiathole that I've had the displeasure of dealing with for the past few years that needs to change right farking now) doesn't help people agree with you. it just makes you look hostile and judgmental towards people that have a different perspective that you don't agree with.

Actually, I'm calling you ignorant because you're being deliberately ignorant and doing things like petulantly demanding information that was already provided. As for the rest, any economic change can be a shock; saying it's too disruptive so we shouldn't do it smacks of Luddism.


I'll quote myself on this one:

I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.
 
2013-03-25 02:25:07 PM

verbaltoxin: I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.


I think that about sums it up. I have nothing but bad experience dealing with healthcare systems privately, bad experiences dealing with healthcare systems from the government, and very little trust or desire to see the government responsible for yet another thing.
 
2013-03-25 02:26:15 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.

I think that about sums it up. I have nothing but bad experience dealing with healthcare systems privately, bad experiences dealing with healthcare systems from the government, and very little trust or desire to see the government responsible for yet another thing.


Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.
 
2013-03-25 02:28:25 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.


That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.
 
2013-03-25 02:31:19 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.


Okay, but Dr. Peterson from Mayberry is not actually an option in a capitalist economy.
 
2013-03-25 02:32:01 PM
Original link was about role of loobyists

I realize this thread has jacked off into the same irrelevant debate that bedevils the House, over whether Obamacare is good or bad (shouldn't you be arguing as to whether it is better than what the country had before, as judged by how it compares to other Western countries?)

Anyone interested in discussing why US has to have a political system where legislators need so much funding for campaign advertising that they are forced to kowtow to Big Business lobbyists?
 
2013-03-25 02:34:14 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.

I think that about sums it up. I have nothing but bad experience dealing with healthcare systems privately, bad experiences dealing with healthcare systems from the government, and very little trust or desire to see the government responsible for yet another thing.


If that's the case then you are at a huge disadvantage at explaining just why we shouldn't adopt such a program.The reasons our our government programs are so f*cked up are they're designed that way, because Medicare, Medicaid and SSI are NOT intended to care for everyone indefinitely, for they are insurance policies; and we have to compromise with groups who are against government doing anything useful. That's why our healthcare industry is a titanic clusterf*ck of semi-private orgs with one foot in corporate graft, and one foot in government waste.

I'm trying not to make single payer look like this cure-all, because it will have problems and will cost a lot of money, but also helps in smoothing a lot of this half-hearted bullsh*t out. It also takes the actuary, your boss, and shareholders out of the chain between you and a doctor. It is one, single price negotiator charged with getting the best rate for its customers; i.e. you, me and every other American taxpayer.

There's also a mountain of empirical evidence just across our Northern border showing that this system works. At this point opposition is basically what you're saying: you don't like it because, government bad. If that's what you have, then that's pretty facile.
 
2013-03-25 02:40:50 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.


So you prefer something that doesn't exist, then? Deregulate and make our health industry wholly private, and all that freed-up capital is going to go somewhere, and it sure as sh*t won't be to Dr. Homespun and his Anytown, USA clinic. Alegant, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Blue Cross/Blue Shied and others would gobble everything right up.

At the very least with a government program, you can fire the people who control it (Congress, the President), and elect people who can put new administrators in charge. With a corporation, you get nothing. They don't need you. They already have, by government mandate, 300 million other customers waiting in line.
 
2013-03-25 02:41:20 PM

mjjt: Original link was about role of loobyists

I realize this thread has jacked off into the same irrelevant debate that bedevils the House, over whether Obamacare is good or bad (shouldn't you be arguing as to whether it is better than what the country had before, as judged by how it compares to other Western countries?)

Anyone interested in discussing why US has to have a political system where legislators need so much funding for campaign advertising that they are forced to kowtow to Big Business lobbyists?


Wealth redistribution every two years.
 
2013-03-25 02:43:13 PM
kiwimoogle84:

I'm against it because I don't want to be dependent upon the government, .


But it's totally cool to be dependent on a private health insurance corporation or on some employer who may or may not make changes to your benefits and job as they see fit whenever they see fit. Cuz they have your best interests in mind.  Clearly. Out of the good nature of their blessed hearts.

/"the condition of man in a state of nature is a condition of war, a war of everyone against everyone" - Thomas Hobbes
 
2013-03-25 02:49:29 PM
 kiwimoogle84: At issue ... a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.


Sure, opponents say that, but they don't listen to the proponents who say ACA could make us all magically poop gold!  And all that gold will pay off the fines plus cover the collatoral for their next small business loan!

Seriously, you guys make enough strawmen I'm surprised there's anything left for the scarecrows in the fields!
 
2013-03-25 02:50:53 PM

verbaltoxin: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.

So you prefer something that doesn't exist, then? Deregulate and make our health industry wholly private, and all that freed-up capital is going to go somewhere, and it sure as sh*t won't be to Dr. Homespun and his Anytown, USA clinic. Alegant, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Blue Cross/Blue Shied and others would gobble everything right up.

At the very least with a government program, you can fire the people who control it (Congress, the President), and elect people who can put new administrators in charge. With a corporation, you get nothing. They don't need you. They already have, by government mandate, 300 million other customers waiting in line.


I realize that I have to accept the government involved in some parts of my life. I guess I bristle most at the idea of being dependent on the government for core services of life. I can still get around without roads, I can still live without electricity (I have my own well and septic system, don't use city water/sewer), I can grow my own food and raise my own beef, build my own stuff, and own enough acreage and tools to do everything, basically.

It's frustrating to believe that we willingly want to abdicate portions of our lives to the responsibility of others.
 
2013-03-25 02:54:06 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.

So you prefer something that doesn't exist, then? Deregulate and make our health industry wholly private, and all that freed-up capital is going to go somewhere, and it sure as sh*t won't be to Dr. Homespun and his Anytown, USA clinic. Alegant, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Blue Cross/Blue Shied and others would gobble everything right up.

At the very least with a government program, you can fire the people who control it (Congress, the President), and elect people who can put new administrators in charge. With a corporation, you get nothing. They don't need you. They already have, by government mandate, 300 million other customers waiting in line.

I realize that I have to accept the government involved in some parts of my life. I guess I bristle most at the idea of being dependent on the government for core services of life. I can still get around without roads, I can still live without electricity (I have my own well and septic system, don't use city water/sewer), I can grow my own food and raise my own beef, build my own stuff, and own enough acreage and tools to do everything, basically.

It's frustrating to believe that we willingly want to abdicate portions of our lives to the responsibility of others.


Okay, Gary, then don't go to the doctor, I guess? No one's forcing you.
 
2013-03-25 02:54:59 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.


There are some of these popping up, and coupled with a catastrophic insurance plan may be what you are after.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concierge_medicine

/I'm interested in working for or starting one of these someday.
//maybe
 
2013-03-25 02:55:46 PM

Bravo Two: It's frustrating to believe that we willingly want to abdicate portions of our lives to the responsibility of others.


Oh, and we have a term for this: Society. Even if you have the biggest bootstraps in the world, if the rest of us vanished you'd suddenly find it really hard to maintain your little survivalist shack.
 
2013-03-25 02:58:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, Gary, then don't go to the doctor, I guess? No one's forcing you.


Gary?

I do go to the doctor, but I usually pay him his office rates to see me when I need it.

Look, I may not LIKE the process, or want to accept such a system, but if it's better than what we got, I'm OK with that.  I'm not much of a modernist when it comes to asking the government to provide for everyone.
 
2013-03-25 03:01:03 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, and we have a term for this: Society. Even if you have the biggest bootstraps in the world, if the rest of us vanished you'd suddenly find it really hard to maintain your little survivalist shack.


*laughs*  Well, yeah, it's true, i'd have a hard time mining and smelting my own steel and all the other raw materials that would be needed that I can't mine on my own. I can make my own boards and everything, but I'd be stuck without some raw materials.
 
2013-03-25 03:01:08 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, Gary, then don't go to the doctor, I guess? No one's forcing you.

Gary?

I do go to the doctor, but I usually pay him his office rates to see me when I need it.

Look, I may not LIKE the process, or want to accept such a system, but if it's better than what we got, I'm OK with that.  I'm not much of a modernist when it comes to asking the government to provide for everyone.


That's the capitalist system for you. Things are either under a public (ie, government) umbrella, or they're under a corporate umbrella. Those are the options. Don't like it? Want there to be a third option? Welcome to anti-capitalism.
 
2013-03-25 03:05:08 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, Gary, then don't go to the doctor, I guess? No one's forcing you.

Gary?

I do go to the doctor, but I usually pay him his office rates to see me when I need it.

Look, I may not LIKE the process, or want to accept such a system, but if it's better than what we got, I'm OK with that.  I'm not much of a modernist when it comes to asking the government to provide for everyone.


Are you rural or urban?
 
2013-03-25 03:07:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, I'm Canadian and by every metric health care in the US has been worse than it was back up north, so... I guess you're still stupid.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/12/12/wait-times-surgery-fra s er.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/06/19/wait-times.html
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/g6-08- 0 2.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&c ontainerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/he alth_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/g6-08- 0 1.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&c ontainerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/he alth_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html

So yeah you're still the stupid one.

So yeah you're still wrong.

/not going to continue the name calling.
 
2013-03-25 03:09:01 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, and we have a term for this: Society. Even if you have the biggest bootstraps in the world, if the rest of us vanished you'd suddenly find it really hard to maintain your little survivalist shack.


There's also a term for self-described "libertarians" who take everything civilization has built handed to them on a silver platter and turn up their noses and say "phooey, who needs your society" : spoiled, selfish brats.
 
2013-03-25 03:09:15 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: That's the capitalist system for you. Things are either under a public (ie, government) umbrella, or they're under a corporate umbrella. Those are the options. Don't like it? Want there to be a third option? Welcome to anti-capitalism.


Forgive me if I missed a tick, but I thought the idea of capitalism was that individuals could start competing businesses and provide the services at the lowest cost to consumers, who chose the lowest cost available by simple fact of elimination?

I mean, I realize that this sets up an inherent anti-individual system whereby the larger you are, the more you can offer at a lower price, but doesn't this suppose that under a true capitalist system, healthcare costs are regulated by virtue of competition and therefor reduced prices and improved services?
 
2013-03-25 03:11:19 PM

Doc Lee: Are you rural or urban?


Rural. I live on an 80 acre partial farm/partial woodlot surrounded by lots of large farmland with sporadic houses. Closest town is about 8 miles, closest town with more than a general store, gas station, and post office is 25 miles, and closest town with a walmart is 57 miles.

Didn't build my house, My ancestors did about 200 years ago, but I build the barn with self-milled lumber and pretty much raise anything and everything I can, or buy it from neighbors.
 
2013-03-25 03:11:31 PM

Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Why are huge, unaccountable corporations better, though? There seems to be a gap in your argument here.

That implies that I think they are. I rather like a local doctor who has prices based on services rendered, like a small auto shop. I pay for what I use, and it's all local.

Huge corporations are no different than governments, just with less checks and balances, and a far smaller group of people with voting rights.


verbaltoxin: Bravo Two: verbaltoxin: I'm inclined to believe at this point you just don't know what you're arguing against; you're just against it because it's a government program.

I think that about sums it up. I have nothing but bad experience dealing with healthcare systems privately, bad experiences dealing with healthcare systems from the government, and very little trust or desire to see the government responsible for yet another thing.

If that's the case then you are at a huge disadvantage at explaining just why we shouldn't adopt such a program.The reasons our our government programs are so f*cked up are they're designed that way, because Medicare, Medicaid and SSI are NOT intended to care for everyone indefinitely, for they are insurance policies; and we have to compromise with groups who are against government doing anything useful. That's why our healthcare industry is a titanic clusterf*ck of semi-private orgs with one foot in corporate graft, and one foot in government waste.

I'm trying not to make single payer look like this cure-all, because it will have problems and will cost a lot of money, but also helps in smoothing a lot of this half-hearted bullsh*t out. It also takes the actuary, your boss, and shareholders out of the chain between you and a doctor. It is one, single price negotiator charged with getting the best rate for its customers; i.e. you, me and every other American taxpayer.

There's also a mountain of empirical evidence just across our Northern border showing that this system works. <b>At this point opposition is basically what you're saying: you don't like it because, government bad. If that's what you have, then that's pretty facile.

</b>

Yes, it's all they have.  That and lying--like the guy upthread who tried to conflate reimbursing providers for end-of-life counseling with pulling the plug on grandma.
 
2013-03-25 03:12:18 PM

Bravo Two: but doesn't this suppose that under a true capitalist system, healthcare costs are regulated by virtue of competition and therefor reduced prices and improved services?


it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.
 
2013-03-25 03:13:17 PM

partisan222: kiwimoogle84: At issue ... a $100 billion health insurance premium tax and the employer mandate, which opponents say could cripple many small business with costly fines.


Sure, opponents say that, but they don't listen to the proponents who say ACA could make us all magically poop gold!  And all that gold will pay off the fines plus cover the collatoral for their next small business loan!

Seriously, you guys make enough strawmen I'm surprised there's anything left for the scarecrows in the fields!


Seriously, do you think there will be no unwanted consequences from a major change like this?  I'm not saying that's a reason not to change. But to expect only goodness from it is irrational.

Optimism is believing that things will work out for the best.  Confidence is knowing what you'll do when they don't.
 
2013-03-25 03:13:53 PM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


You are such a liar.  How do you live with yourself?
 
2013-03-25 03:13:58 PM

Headso: it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.


If I'm a doctor servicing a town of, say, 20,000 people, wouldn't it basically be the cost of living plus office expenses divided by 20,000, plus the costs incurred by any extra/special services?
 
2013-03-25 03:16:26 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A Dark Evil Omen: Look how stupid you are.

"significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare"

we'll it ain't the greatest but it's free. And we all know that people's perception is reality.

Let's compare wait times for major surgery.


See how stupid *you* are


Ok what's the wait time for surgery with someone who has no money in the US and has no insurance compared to someone in a country where they have universal single payer.

Opps you lost again.
 
2013-03-25 03:18:15 PM

Bravo Two: Headso: it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.

If I'm a doctor servicing a town of, say, 20,000 people, wouldn't it basically be the cost of living plus office expenses divided by 20,000, plus the costs incurred by any extra/special services?


plus security expenses to keep the poor sick people away, maybe cost of a wall and a moat to go around your office...
 
2013-03-25 03:21:17 PM

Wooly Bully: There's also a term for self-described "libertarians" who take everything civilization has built handed to them on a silver platter and turn up their noses and say "phooey, who needs your society" : spoiled, selfish brats.


I suppose that depends on how you look at it. I build or grow or do as much for myself as I can, not because I have issues with society but because I like to provide for myself as much as possible.

I pay taxes on my income, I pay taxes on my property, I pay taxes on the things I buy, I pay taxes for my fuel, and so on. I make enough money that I don't receive more than a very partial rebate, so anything that I use that society has built, I pay for.

Electricity is nice, but I've had to live without it. Running water is nice, but I've had to pump it by hand. FLush toilets are nice, but I've had to use an outhouse.

It assumes a lot that people like me don't want government to be involved because we don't have much in the way of experience with it, other than bad experiences. I was brought up to pay my way for everything, and live as close to zero debt as I can, so I owe no one anything.

I don't expect my neighbor to come over and help me fix my truck, and if he does, I repay him by helping him with something of his. I buy grain from my neighbor even though he'd give it to me for helping at harvest time because I feel he earned it.  I was brought up this way, by parents who grew up in depression era households that don't believe in dependency on anyone for anything if they can avoid it.

Why is it so hard to believe that people exist in such a way that depending on someone else for something is fairly alien and unwelcome?
 
2013-03-25 03:22:22 PM

Headso: Bravo Two: Headso: it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.

If I'm a doctor servicing a town of, say, 20,000 people, wouldn't it basically be the cost of living plus office expenses divided by 20,000, plus the costs incurred by any extra/special services?

plus security expenses to keep the poor sick people away, maybe cost of a wall and a moat to go around your office...


By that logic, it seems surprising that our civilization advanced as far as it did without this massive society there to provide for it.
 
2013-03-25 03:25:51 PM

Headso: Bravo Two: Headso: it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.

If I'm a doctor servicing a town of, say, 20,000 people, wouldn't it basically be the cost of living plus office expenses divided by 20,000, plus the costs incurred by any extra/special services?

plus security expenses to keep the poor sick people away, maybe cost of a wall and a moat to go around your office...


Plus the cost of putting up with patients and the insurance system.

You guys are assuming robotic doctors, or maybe slave doctors.
 
2013-03-25 03:25:58 PM
I love it when people claim they've "actually read the bill!"  The ACA is nearly 1000 pages of legalese.  I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm just highly skeptical.  Also, reading is not the same thing as understanding, not by a long shot.  I'm guessing that most people who claim to have "read the bill" actually have read a few talking points about it, with a couple of excerpts quoted out of context.

\drtfb
 
2013-03-25 03:31:05 PM
Bravo Two: (truncated)So, while I do agree with your sentiments, I don't agree that a system that focuses only on coverage without equally reducing the costs as much as possible for the equipment/medicine/services being provided so as to minimize the impact in terms of new taxes.

Yes, we agree on this.  But the ACA is a step in that very direction.  Trying to corral what things cost, because they've been let run rampant for X years now.  No, ACA is not perfect.  But we HAVE to take a step somewhere to even begin to fix it.  Are we all going to agree on what that step is?  No, of course not.  But to me,  providing the ability for everyone to have access to healthcare (not coverage, care) under some sort of plan is the way to start that.

Until we make sure that everyone can get healthcare, everything else is moot.  Now, would that be through an "every has this basic coverage" Medicare/Caid style?  Or will we model after the other successful single payors, with X coverage available for all through higher taxes, and private insurance is of course available if you so choose.  Many commenters (not you, at least not that I've ever seen, but someone else here is one) forget that the public option is not 'forced' in the sense that if you purchase private insurance (through your employer, for instance), none of that tax stuff affects you.  However, if you are working a $15/hr job with a spouse and kids, you're going to be one of the ones that will be insured.  Right now you would not be, because you're too far above the poverty line for medicaid.  Your kids would be until they're 8, but you and your spouse are farked.

So I apologize for misunderstanding you, however, we mostly agree.  And I'm not going to spar anymore over it.

People deserve access to healthcare.  The government option is not the boogeyman.  Taxes are going to have to do some of it.
 
2013-03-25 03:33:50 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Bravo Two: (truncated)So, while I do agree with your sentiments, I don't agree that a system that focuses only on coverage without equally reducing the costs as much as possible for the equipment/medicine/services being provided so as to minimize the impact in terms of new taxes.

Yes, we agree on this.  But the ACA is a step in that very direction.  Trying to corral what things cost, because they've been let run rampant for X years now.  No, ACA is not perfect.  But we HAVE to take a step somewhere to even begin to fix it.  Are we all going to agree on what that step is?  No, of course not.  But to me,  providing the ability for everyone to have access to healthcare (not coverage, care) under some sort of plan is the way to start that.

Until we make sure that everyone can get healthcare, everything else is moot.  Now, would that be through an "every has this basic coverage" Medicare/Caid style?  Or will we model after the other successful single payors, with X coverage available for all through higher taxes, and private insurance is of course available if you so choose.  Many commenters (not you, at least not that I've ever seen, but someone else here is one) forget that the public option is not 'forced' in the sense that if you purchase private insurance (through your employer, for instance), none of that tax stuff affects you.  However, if you are working a $15/hr job with a spouse and kids, you're going to be one of the ones that will be insured.  Right now you would not be, because you're too far above the poverty line for medicaid.  Your kids would be until they're 8, but you and your spouse are farked.

So I apologize for misunderstanding you, however, we mostly agree.  And I'm not going to spar anymore over it.

People deserve access to healthcare.  The government option is not the boogeyman.  Taxes are going to have to do some of it.


Like it or not, I have to accept it.
 
2013-03-25 03:35:15 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: That's the capitalist system for you. Things are either under a public (ie, government) umbrella, or they're under a corporate umbrella. Those are the options. Don't like it? Want there to be a third option? Welcome to anti-capitalism.

Forgive me if I missed a tick, but I thought the idea of capitalism was that individuals could start competing businesses and provide the services at the lowest cost to consumers, who chose the lowest cost available by simple fact of elimination?

I mean, I realize that this sets up an inherent anti-individual system whereby the larger you are, the more you can offer at a lower price, but doesn't this suppose that under a true capitalist system, healthcare costs are regulated by virtue of competition and therefor reduced prices and improved services?


So why has that never happened? Remember, health care regulation did not spring fully-formed from Zeus' forehead, nor did anti-trust legislation and so on. Capitalism presupposes a certain conception of property where "ownership" is a matter of public fiat; your land, for instance, is owned by you because the rest of society has agreed it is so and provides mechanisms - ie, police and military - to ensure it is so. The whole conception of competitive trade breaks down if either the rest of society no longer agrees to protect private property or if significant portions of real property are outside public protection. Sure, if you make moonshine out of your own grain, using your own wood to fire the still, and trade it to someone else for chickens, concepts of property make no real difference, but what if someone else owns that still and demands a cut (in other words, you work for them)? Now they need public enforcement to keep you from just using the still as if it were yours.

Capitalism is based on force. Ownership needs to be enforced and people need to be forced or compelled to participate. The flip side is that anyone with an advantageous position can and will wield that force against their competition. How long do you think Fifties Sitcom Doctor will be in business before a large concern will either buy him out or run him out of business? And given that health care costs are inelastic, you can bet that you will be paying more and not less.

This is why compromises like public health care are enacted, because the foundations of capitalism are dangerous and already hand-in-hand with government. Theoretically, the government needs to act evenhandedly and protect against the predatory activity that they enable because society as a whole has deemed it useful. Again, if you don't like it and think there should be another way, hell, I agree with you, but that is the fundamental nature of anti-capitalism.
 
2013-03-25 03:35:26 PM
Just had my taxes done yesterday (H & R Block). I was informed (and it's on my paperwork) that in 2014 if I didn't have healthcare and didn't want it, I'd have a 'Potential Tax Penalty of $475.74/yr in 2014, increasing to $951.48/yr in 2015.
 
2013-03-25 03:35:27 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Medical device makers on Thursday won a victory of sorts in the Senate, when more than 30 Democrats joined Republicans to approve a non-binding budget amendment calling for repeal of a 2.3 percent tax on medical device companies.

Once again, nobody actually cares about the deficit.


medical device companies were never going to pay the tax in the first place, they just pass the costs onto people who need the devices.  Once again, nobody cares about people who need prosthetics and braces and in the end, the affordable care act isn't really about making things affordable.   Put it in line next to the Patriot act and Violence Against women act.  But Gee, who wouldn't want care to be more affordable??

Tomahawk513: It's a shame that much of this country is so brainwashed into fearing single-payer systems.


Brainwashed?  People come here every day from single-payer healthcare systems looking to get care that their system otherwise denies them.  When it comes to brass tacks, the people who push hardest for single-payer would be the first people to sell their homes and dump their assets to fly their wife or kid somewhere for a medical procedure if the rationing board (and every SP country has one) puts them on a waitlist.  S/P systems do not bear a research burden since there's no profit motive in doing so and the cancer survival rates in S/P countries are atrocious since late-stage cancers are essentially treated like death sentences.

The WHO ranks countries on healthcare access and patient satisfaction.  They dont consider quality of care of survivability rates to be valid criteria.  In short, with SP you have access to a wait list for substandard care.
 
2013-03-25 03:41:13 PM

o5iiawah: medical device companies were never going to pay the tax in the first place


They certainly aren't going to now.
 
2013-03-25 03:42:37 PM

ferretman: Just had my taxes done yesterday (H & R Block). I was informed (and it's on my paperwork) that in 2014 if I didn't have healthcare and didn't want it, I'd have a 'Potential Tax Penalty of $475.74/yr in 2014, increasing to $951.48/yr in 2015.


You can probably buy some kind of catastrophic care insurance that is cheaper than that. If you earn 47,500 bucks a year don't you have assets that you could eventually lose if you have some medical problem? Seems crazy to not have insurance...
 
2013-03-25 03:44:14 PM

Bravo Two: Wooly Bully: There's also a term for self-described "libertarians" who take everything civilization has built handed to them on a silver platter and turn up their noses and say "phooey, who needs your society" : spoiled, selfish brats.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it. I build or grow or do as much for myself as I can, not because I have issues with society but because I like to provide for myself as much as possible.

I pay taxes on my income, I pay taxes on my property, I pay taxes on the things I buy, I pay taxes for my fuel, and so on. I make enough money that I don't receive more than a very partial rebate, so anything that I use that society has built, I pay for.

Electricity is nice, but I've had to live without it. Running water is nice, but I've had to pump it by hand. FLush toilets are nice, but I've had to use an outhouse.

It assumes a lot that people like me don't want government to be involved because we don't have much in the way of experience with it, other than bad experiences. I was brought up to pay my way for everything, and live as close to zero debt as I can, so I owe no one anything.

I don't expect my neighbor to come over and help me fix my truck, and if he does, I repay him by helping him with something of his. I buy grain from my neighbor even though he'd give it to me for helping at harvest time because I feel he earned it.  I was brought up this way, by parents who grew up in depression era households that don't believe in dependency on anyone for anything if they can avoid it.

Why is it so hard to believe that people exist in such a way that depending on someone else for something is fairly alien and unwelcome?


Hey, if you live a simple lifestyle off the land, good on you. Nothing wrong with that, and your lifestyle probably pollutes a lot less than that of most Americans.

But without government intervention the water you need for even that primitive lifestyle would probably be toxic by now, and there are dozens of other things you may not even realize government has had to do to make your lifestyle possible. Sure, the government f*cks up, all the time. But only fools of the libertarian variety believe that leaving everything up to "the market" would actually make their lives better.
 
2013-03-25 03:45:38 PM

Corvus: Ok what's the wait time for surgery with someone who has no money in the US and has no insurance compared to someone in a country where they have universal single payer.

Opps you lost again.



You get the life saving surgery before you ever leave the hospital! Or didn't you know it is against the law to not do the surgery??

That's the one problem that the government could have fixed without going for Obamacare. But noooooo we need this new government monstrosity! Let's not actually use our brains! Lets just try what everyone else has tried and failed at! It'll be different here!
 
2013-03-25 03:47:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So why has that never happened?


It has - in healthcare markets where there is no government intrusion.  I've flown my entire life and can remember the in-flight magazines which advertised revolutionary plastic surgery procedures and a doctor might have offices in LA, Miami and NYC.  You literally had to fly there and pay $20,000 to get the wife a tune-up.  Now, the yellow pages in any town of 40,000 will have half a dozen doctors who perform procedures.  You can get a boob job on a payment plan for $2,000.  See also: Lasik

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is based on force. Ownership needs to be enforced and people need to be forced or compelled to participate.


Only if you have a government which abandons its primary role which is to protect property and enforce contracts.  The only compulsion we have in society is government.  Wal-Mart on its own cant compel me to shop there but I can be compelled by government to pay taxes into a social welfare program so that Wal-Mart can pay their workers a sub-market wage to keep them placated.

A Dark Evil Omen: How long do you think Fifties Sitcom Doctor will be in business before a large concern will either buy him out or run him out of business?


As long as we have an FDA that writes the rules that makes it impossible for small, family doctors to earn a living and ensures that huge pharma and conglomerates are the only entities that are able to do business....  Ask 100 people where they'd rather go for basic care.  You'll get 200 responses that a small family GP would be preferred.
 
2013-03-25 03:49:52 PM

Headso: ferretman: Just had my taxes done yesterday (H & R Block). I was informed (and it's on my paperwork) that in 2014 if I didn't have healthcare and didn't want it, I'd have a 'Potential Tax Penalty of $475.74/yr in 2014, increasing to $951.48/yr in 2015.

You can probably buy some kind of catastrophic care insurance that is cheaper than that. If you earn 47,500 bucks a year don't you have assets that you could eventually lose if you have some medical problem? Seems crazy to not have insurance...


I have a healthcare plan through my job so I'm not worried (self-employed) but I'm think of the people would can't currently afford healthcare and no one knows what the 'exchanges plans) will cost. I wonder what will happen to those that can't afford neither; the 'Tax Penalty' or plan under 'Obamacare'.
 
2013-03-25 03:52:42 PM

Rapmaster2000: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare? You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

Do you know exactly what it is? 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know. I know what they tried to do, and I know how it is unfolding. What this will end up being is anyone's guess but what has happened so far is a cruel joke and a complete waste of money and time.

I heard that if you printed Obozocare on single-sided pages that it's 20,000 pages!  20,000 pages!  20,000 pages is a lot of pages so you know that it's bad.

When Herman "Hermanator" Cain is president, he won't sign anything more than 3 pages.  I say that's too much!  If I had it my way, the highway bill would only say "BUILD SOME ROADS".


You are quickly becoming one of my favorites on FARK.
 
2013-03-25 03:53:58 PM

austerity101: kiwimoogle84: I'm just against this whole idea that everyone gets the same care

I just wanted to quote this as something someone actually said.


The thing that amazes me the most is that this is all coming from a woman who was selling racy pics of herself to pay for another Farker's medical bills.  And don't get me wrong, it was really nice of her to do that, but...

How on earth can she not see that there is clearly something wrong with a healthcare system that put her (and the farker who needed the money) in that position in the first place?  How could she possibly defend the status quo?
 
2013-03-25 03:54:31 PM

Wooly Bully: But without government intervention the water you need for even that primitive lifestyle would probably be toxic by now, and there are dozens of other things you may not even realize government has had to do to make your lifestyle possible. Sure, the government f*cks up, all the time. But only fools of the libertarian variety believe that leaving everything up to "the market" would actually make their lives better.


I dont think you actually realize what government is or how it gets it resources.

And libertarians dont believe in a complete absence of government - just government which operates within its enumerated boundaries and leaves state and local issues up to state and local governments.  Also, regulation of navigable waterways is an enumerated power of our federal government and if he had a small, private well on his property that was damaged, we have courts which are designed to protect property.

The foundation of libertarianism is a government which protects property and enforces contracts so I'm not sure where you're getting at when you say that a libertarian would oppose a government which had authority to protect an element of his property.
 
2013-03-25 03:55:03 PM

kiwimoogle84: Jackson Herring: kiwimoogle84: I'm not ok with THE GOVERNMENT deciding whether I live or die.

oh my god are you for real

like really really for real

Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


Never heard of hospice, have you?
 
2013-03-25 03:56:02 PM

Wooly Bully: Hey, if you live a simple lifestyle off the land, good on you. Nothing wrong with that, and your lifestyle probably pollutes a lot less than that of most Americans.

But without government intervention the water you need for even that primitive lifestyle would probably be toxic by now, and there are dozens of other things you may not even realize government has had to do to make your lifestyle possible. Sure, the government f*cks up, all the time. But only fools of the libertarian variety believe that leaving everything up to "the market" would actually make their lives better.


I guess that's the difference right there. I have always had a very local, tribalist view of things and never had much experience with larger systems since it never really directly affected me, save for what I hear/see on the news or fark or elsewhere on the internet.
 
2013-03-25 03:56:12 PM

ferretman: I wonder what will happen to those that can't afford neither; the 'Tax Penalty' or plan under 'Obamacare'.


You know what will happen. The same that will happen now. Either they will have it paid for by some medical welfare program or they will use the ER for their primary care.

So on that front Obamacare changes nothing. You know, the one thing it was suppose to solve.
 
2013-03-25 03:59:00 PM

ferretman: I have a healthcare plan through my job so I'm not worried (self-employed) but I'm think of the people would can't currently afford healthcare and no one knows what the 'exchanges plans) will cost. I wonder what will happen to those that can't afford neither; the 'Tax Penalty' or plan under 'Obamacare'.


From Wikipedia:
Low-income individuals and families above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be 3% to 4% of income).
 
2013-03-25 04:08:15 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: So why has that never happened?

It has - in healthcare markets where there is no government intrusion.  I've flown my entire life and can remember the in-flight magazines which advertised revolutionary plastic surgery procedures and a doctor might have offices in LA, Miami and NYC.  You literally had to fly there and pay $20,000 to get the wife a tune-up.  Now, the yellow pages in any town of 40,000 will have half a dozen doctors who perform procedures.  You can get a boob job on a payment plan for $2,000.  See also: Lasik


So, highly elastic and totally optional procedures. Not mainstream health care at all.

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is based on force. Ownership needs to be enforced and people need to be forced or compelled to participate.

Only if you have a government which abandons its primary role which is to protect property and enforce contracts.  The only compulsion we have in society is government.  Wal-Mart on its own cant compel me to shop there but I can be compelled by government to pay taxes into a social welfare program so that Wal-Mart can pay their workers a sub-market wage to keep them placated.


Interesting that you had to ignore everything I wrote about what the government's role there is and how force comes into play, particularly when you then obliquely reference exactly the same thing in a different post. It's almost like you are trying to duck the facts...

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: How long do you think Fifties Sitcom Doctor will be in business before a large concern will either buy him out or run him out of business?

As long as we have an FDA that writes the rules that makes it impossible for small, family doctors to earn a living and ensures that huge pharma and conglomerates are the only entities that are able to do business....  Ask 100 people where they'd rather go for basic care.  You'll get 200 responses that a small family GP would be preferred.


Again, those regulations and rules did not spring from nowhere. Why do you think people formed mutual insurance groups in the first place (which were also quickly taken over and turned into rent-seeking financial institutions, independent of "government intrusion"). Beyond that, again, Dr. Smalltime GP has no chance WITHOUT protection from big players. And you know that, which is why you had to pull three sentences out of context from my post, because everything else I wrote dismantled your responses before you even started.
 
2013-03-25 04:08:54 PM

o5iiawah: you say that a libertarian would oppose a government which had authority to protect an element of his property


And this right here is why you can't have a sensible conversation with a libertarian. I didn't say anything about "your property". Everything in the world does not revolve around you and your obsession with what's yours.
 
2013-03-25 04:11:56 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So, highly elastic and totally optional procedures. Not mainstream health care at all.


That depends, are you from rural Wisconsin, or Vegas/Miami? ;)
 
2013-03-25 04:12:46 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: So, highly elastic and totally optional procedures. Not mainstream health care at all.

That depends, are you from rural Wisconsin, or Vegas/Miami? ;)


Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.
 
2013-03-25 04:16:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: So, highly elastic and totally optional procedures. Not mainstream health care at all.

That depends, are you from rural Wisconsin, or Vegas/Miami? ;)

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.


I was joking.
 
2013-03-25 04:17:28 PM

Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: Bravo Two: A Dark Evil Omen: So, highly elastic and totally optional procedures. Not mainstream health care at all.

That depends, are you from rural Wisconsin, or Vegas/Miami? ;)

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

I was joking.


Never seen The Big Lebowski, huh?
 
2013-03-25 04:19:20 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!


Someone didn't watch the opening ceremonies of the last Olympics.  The UK LOVES their healthcare system.  Canada's pretty happy about it too.  Any other BS you'd like to spew that will be easily refuted?  You're on a roll.
 
2013-03-25 04:20:35 PM
Bravo Two:

Like it or not, I have to accept it.

whelp.  Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; or the one.
 
2013-03-25 04:21:57 PM
You Obama apologists! You'd be screaming bloody murder if Bush did that.

Oh wait...
 
2013-03-25 04:22:15 PM

GnomePaladin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!

Someone didn't watch the opening ceremonies of the last Olympics.  The UK LOVES their healthcare system.  Canada's pretty happy about it too.  Any other BS you'd like to spew that will be easily refuted?  You're on a roll.


Look upthread, he even doubled down on that ridiculous post.
 
2013-03-25 04:28:59 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: GnomePaladin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I've known and I'm married to someone that have had to live with single payer in other countries. They laugh at us. They actually laugh at us for our ego. Sure, it doesn't work over there but we're Americans!!!! We can make it work!!

Someone didn't watch the opening ceremonies of the last Olympics.  The UK LOVES their healthcare system.  Canada's pretty happy about it too.  Any other BS you'd like to spew that will be easily refuted?  You're on a roll.

Look upthread, he even doubled down on that ridiculous post.


You guys need to recalibrate your sarcasm detectors.
 
2013-03-25 04:29:49 PM
Health care reform, GOP strategy:

1) spend 40 years fighting it
2) spend 2 years making it as shiatty as possible
3) spend 3 years saying how shiatty it is
 
2013-03-25 04:36:14 PM
The conspiracy theorists are also winners here. I've gotten at least two dozen forwards in the last week from people who don't go to snopes.com, who believe that a non-publicized portion of Obamacare is going into effect next week that mandates all citizens get RFID implants in their hands.
 
2013-03-25 04:41:50 PM

LincolnLogolas: The conspiracy theorists are also winners here. I've gotten at least two dozen forwards in the last week from people who don't go to snopes.com, who believe that a non-publicized portion of Obamacare is going into effect next week that mandates all citizens get RFID implants in their hands.


A non-publicized portion of Obamacare. What, was it written on the back in crayon? Maybe it was passed by a super secret Shadow Government composed entirely of Soviet agents and funded from the NSA black budget and Nazi gold.
 
2013-03-25 04:45:01 PM
If the insurance companies, medical supply manufacturers, and pharmacology companies are complaining about it and trying to get it changed, then I'm guessing that the law, as-is, is probably pretty good for the average citizen.

My wife is diabetic and a Canadian, and up there, her insulin costs $60/month, 80% of which is covered by their socialized medicine. Down here, the same stuff (well, actually inferior stuff because we don't have replaceable cartridges in the delivery system so she has to buy the entire pen every time she renews the prescription) is $499/month. Really?!? Fortunately, up there, insulin is over-the-counter, so every time she visits her folks, she stocks up on the $60 stuff. The $60 is still cheaper than the 20% co-pay we have to pay even with insurance.

So if the insurance company and drug suppliers are whining, I'm sure it's only a good thing for the rest of us. There's a cheaper, better solution 200 miles across the border, and obviously the costs are way out of whack--someone is getting rich, ultimately at our expense. The insurance company is happy to pay the 650% mark-up because they pass along the costs to us, and the supplier is happy to overcharge by a factor of 6 because, hey, fat profits.

So fark them.
 
2013-03-25 04:45:38 PM

LincolnLogolas: The conspiracy theorists are also winners here. I've gotten at least two dozen forwards in the last week from people who don't go to snopes.com, who believe that a non-publicized portion of Obamacare is going into effect next week that mandates all citizens get RFID implants in their hands.


Well, *i* heard that an unpublicized portion said that Kate Upton must now marry me, and I become ruler of the world.
 
2013-03-25 04:46:10 PM

mrshowrules: Health care reform, GOP strategy:

1) spend 40 years fighting it
2) spend 2 years making it as shiatty as possible
3) spend 3 years saying how shiatty it is


Yeah it is like hiring Unibomber IT Solutions for all your technology needs.
 
2013-03-25 04:49:45 PM

JerkStore: The insurance company is happy to pay the 650% mark-up because they pass along the costs to us, and the supplier is happy to overcharge by a factor of 6 because, hey, fat profits.

So fark them.


YUP!  And the worst part is that there's no competition.  You can't "shop around" for the best price when your damn appendix bursts.  It amazes me that anyone would defend a system that includes a deliberately-placed middleman between you and your doctor.  Oh, and it's in that middleman's best interest to take as much of your money as possible, and to provide you with the worst possible care he can get away with providing to you.
 
2013-03-25 04:57:43 PM

macadamnut: FlashHarry: "thrid?"

[www.thrid.com image 288x232]


Thrid is Torg's cousin. The "weird" one.
 
2013-03-25 05:01:24 PM
if you didn't get it after the individual mandate was declared constitutional then i doubt you ever will.
 
2013-03-25 05:03:12 PM

Wooly Bully: o5iiawah: you say that a libertarian would oppose a government which had authority to protect an element of his property

And this right here is why you can't have a sensible conversation with a libertarian. I didn't say anything about "your property". Everything in the world does not revolve around you and your obsession with what's yours.


Actually, the foundation of society and law came from man's desire to protect what are natural rights - that of life, liberty and ownership of his labor and the fruits of it.  You cant have a sensible conversation with a libertarian because you dont possess the intellect to see beyond your perception that every libertarian is some rabid anarcho-capitalist who lives in his parent's basement.  The man says he lives off the land and would a well on his property not also be his?

A Dark Evil Omen: Again, those regulations and rules did not spring from nowhere.


They came from people who stood to benefit and who were handsomely rewarded for their efforts.  Again, the market demands small personal doctors yet all we get is big Medicine.  The reason most people have to get healthcare via a big insurance company is  due to a market reaction to a tax code which punishes people who earn and save, versus those who consume.

There's no reason health insurance cant be purchased like car insurance, carried across state lines and be tailored to fit each individual's needs.  There's no reason why a bureaucrat should decide for me what my minimum or maximum level of care should be.  My doctor knows how healthy I am and I trust him versus some slick 8-term congressman who has a nice cushy job on the board at Humana when he gets ran out of government.
 
2013-03-25 05:08:41 PM

o5iiawah: you dont possess the intellect


And here's another reason you can't have a sensible conversation with libertarians. They're assholes.
 
2013-03-25 05:14:51 PM

Bravo Two: Headso: it would only be reduced prices and improved services for those who could actually pay for it in large enough numbers to support whatever healthcare service you are selling.

If I'm a doctor servicing a town of, say, 20,000 people, wouldn't it basically be the cost of living plus office expenses divided by 20,000, plus the costs incurred by any extra/special services?


One of the things we have to remember is that health care is weird when it comes to economics.  Normally, when two competing businesses operate in the same area, prices are driven down.  However, when you have two doctor's offices near each other, prices go up (or rather, demand goes up - and when demand goes up, prices go up).

Take this excerpt from a This American Life episode:

"According to later work done by Jack Wennberg, the number of doctors in an area can influence the amount of medical services consumed. The more doctors, the more appointments, the more procedures, the more money spent. You could actually see this dynamic especially clearly during the '70s. Because to drive down costs in medicine, the federal government created a program to send more people to medical school. The theory was that when there were more doctors, doctors would be forced to drop their prices to compete for patients. Basic economics. But that's not what happened. The doctors just adjusted their criteria for doing stuff and had the patients they had come in more often. Because in health care, supply drives demand. So when the supply of doctors and clinics increases, the demand for medical services goes up."

This is an example they use:

"My old partner that I joined here in 1971 was asked by a friend of his, you know, at what level of vision do you do a cataract operation? And he said, well, if there's one ophthalmologist in town, it's 20/200.  (20/200 is pretty bad vision).  If there are two ophthalmologists in town, it's 20/80.  (Not so bad vision) If there are three ophthalmologists in town, it's 20/40. (Pretty good vision)"

To better understand the health care industry (pre-obamacare talk) as an amateur (like me), I recommend listening to these two episodes:

Episode 391 - More is Less
Episode 392 - Someone Else's Money

Both are one hour long (you can listen to them while doing some work around the house), or you can read the transcripts available in those links.

As for what is in Obamacare, exactly? I recommend this explanation (with further links to analysis and more detailed explanations in that link).
 
2013-03-25 05:17:55 PM

GnomePaladin: Someone didn't watch the opening ceremonies of the last Olympics. The UK LOVES their healthcare system. Canada's pretty happy about it too. Any other BS you'd like to spew that will be easily refuted? You're on a roll.


So you're using state run pageantry to prove that people love the state run healthcare?!?

Look at the link provided by A Dark Evil Omen. The UK does not "love" their healthcare. 56% are at least a little dissatisfaction with only 11% very satisfactions with the quality of their healthcare.

As I said before, this does not mean they are getting good healthcare it just means they aren't in love with the system.
 
2013-03-25 05:21:08 PM
Chrissakes, 3 years later and we're still using "nobody knows what is in it or what it does"? Also,

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 56% are at least a little dissatisfaction


And how does that compare to other nations? To the US?
 
2013-03-25 05:24:04 PM

Bravo Two: Doc Lee: Are you rural or urban?

Rural. I live on an 80 acre partial farm/partial woodlot surrounded by lots of large farmland with sporadic houses. Closest town is about 8 miles, closest town with more than a general store, gas station, and post office is 25 miles, and closest town with a walmart is 57 miles.

Didn't build my house, My ancestors did about 200 years ago, but I build the barn with self-milled lumber and pretty much raise anything and everything I can, or buy it from neighbors.



oh, so you're feudal.  that explains a lot.
 
2013-03-25 05:24:44 PM

LasersHurt: Chrissakes, 3 years later and we're still using "nobody knows what is in it or what it does"? Also,

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 56% are at least a little dissatisfaction

And how does that compare to other nations? To the US?



If you check out the link I mentioned you'd know.
 
2013-03-25 05:25:27 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: GnomePaladin: Someone didn't watch the opening ceremonies of the last Olympics. The UK LOVES their healthcare system. Canada's pretty happy about it too. Any other BS you'd like to spew that will be easily refuted? You're on a roll.

So you're using state run pageantry to prove that people love the state run healthcare?!?

Look at the link provided by A Dark Evil Omen. The UK does not "love" their healthcare. 56% are at least a little dissatisfaction with only 11% very satisfactions with the quality of their healthcare.

As I said before, this does not mean they are getting good healthcare it just means they aren't in love with the system.


As compared with, from the same link, the US, where 44% are very dissatisFIED and 28% are somewhat dissatisFIED. Only a quarter are even somewhat satisfied with the quality of their healthcare, as compare with 43% in the UK and 57% in Canada. I guess now there's four: lies, damn lies, statistics and The Stealth Hippopotamus.
 
2013-03-25 05:34:19 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: Chrissakes, 3 years later and we're still using "nobody knows what is in it or what it does"? Also,

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 56% are at least a little dissatisfaction

And how does that compare to other nations? To the US?

If you check out the link I mentioned you'd know.


I spent a few minutes trying to find it, but didn't. My larger point was that it's pointless to point to that statistic as if it mattered - it's about relative satisfaction, comparatively. Nobody has it 100% right, but that's no reason to say "So therefore we can't make any changes and USA USA USA." (not insinuating that's what you were doing, of course, just saying.)
 
2013-03-25 05:36:35 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: As compared with, from the same link, the US, where 44% are very dissatisFIED and 28% are somewhat dissatisFIED. Only a quarter are even somewhat satisfied with the quality of their healthcare, as compare with 43% in the UK and 57% in Canada. I guess now there's four: lies, damn lies, statistics and The Stealth Hippopotamus.


The majority are at least somewhat dissatisfied with the care. Which is no refection on the level of care just their satisfaction with it as compared to what they are paying. Ask any nurse, no one is satisfied with the care they are given.

Oh and: The Stealth Hippopotamus [TotalFark] 2013-03-25 03:07:44 PM

Just because you put your fingers in your ears and sing a happy song doesn't mean you're right. You think Canada's system rocks now?!?!
 
2013-03-25 05:44:39 PM

LasersHurt: I spent a few minutes trying to find it, but didn't. My larger point was that it's pointless to point to that statistic as if it mattered - it's about relative satisfaction, comparatively. Nobody has it 100% right, but that's no reason to say "So therefore we can't make any changes and USA USA USA." (not insinuating that's what you were doing, of course, just saying.)


Saying Obamacare is bad is not saying the earlier system was perfect. I wouldn't say any system is perfect. I had some really great ideas on how to augment the old system and provide for the uninsured while keeping the vast majority of people in the plans and systems they liked. I would submit that this is worse than the old system but the "we have to do something" brigade just couldn't be stopped.
 
2013-03-25 05:45:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You think Canada's system rocks now?!?!


Less people expressing dissatisfaction with one thing than another does not mean that one thing rocks.  It just means less people are dissatisfied with one thing than another.
 
2013-03-25 05:46:52 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: I spent a few minutes trying to find it, but didn't. My larger point was that it's pointless to point to that statistic as if it mattered - it's about relative satisfaction, comparatively. Nobody has it 100% right, but that's no reason to say "So therefore we can't make any changes and USA USA USA." (not insinuating that's what you were doing, of course, just saying.)

Saying Obamacare is bad is not saying the earlier system was perfect. I wouldn't say any system is perfect. I had some really great ideas on how to augment the old system and provide for the uninsured while keeping the vast majority of people in the plans and systems they liked. I would submit that this is worse than the old system but the "we have to do something" brigade just couldn't be stopped.


Well, we DID have to do something. We still do, because what we did is a patch at best. The problem is we all agree that the house is on fire, but some folks have no intention of doing anything about it because they have preconceived political notions about what to do, even though they completely ignore the global data available on healthcare systems.

(Seriously, there are a billion points of data globally, we really can't figure this out? Really? No, we can, but the result might sound like a political ideology you have to swear to hate forever).
 
2013-03-25 05:59:28 PM

Counter_Intelligent: Less people expressing dissatisfaction with one thing than another does not mean that one thing rocks. It just means less people are dissatisfied with one thing than another.


wow that is EXACTLY what I said.

neat


If you go back to the earlier post I mentioned you'll see that we were talking about quality and I completely broke his argument that Canada's system with anything other than terrible.
 
2013-03-25 06:06:51 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: wow that is EXACTLY what I said.


You were the one who conflated what he said with "Canada's system rocks now?!?!"
 
2013-03-25 06:08:29 PM

LasersHurt: Well, we DID have to do something. We still do, because what we did is a patch at best. The problem is we all agree that the house is on fire, but some folks have no intention of doing anything about it because they have preconceived political notions about what to do, even though they completely ignore the global data available on healthcare systems.


The house is now on fire. Before? Nope the house was not on fire. No where near. We had a system people would travel around the world to use, the majority of people were happy with, and a vast majority of the people had access to. How what do we have?

You're not going to cover everyone
Most don't like it

And on top of it all it's killing jobs.
 
2013-03-25 06:08:36 PM

Bravo Two: Doc Lee: Are you rural or urban?

Rural. I live on an 80 acre partial farm/partial woodlot surrounded by lots of large farmland with sporadic houses. Closest town is about 8 miles, closest town with more than a general store, gas station, and post office is 25 miles, and closest town with a walmart is 57 miles.

Didn't build my house, My ancestors did about 200 years ago, but I build the barn with self-milled lumber and pretty much raise anything and everything I can, or buy it from neighbors.


I thought so.  You'd be surprised just how much you rely on the government for services from electricity to cable to internet to cellular coverage (if you have it).  Your local physician probably relies on both medicare/caid rural initiative and underserved community funding as well.
 
2013-03-25 06:11:45 PM

Counter_Intelligent: You were the one who conflated what he said with "Canada's system rocks now?!?!"


You are confused and trying to jump in on the tale end of a conversation. If you actually want to take the time to read the entire thread you'll see that there was two conversations going on.
 
2013-03-25 06:23:23 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: Well, we DID have to do something. We still do, because what we did is a patch at best. The problem is we all agree that the house is on fire, but some folks have no intention of doing anything about it because they have preconceived political notions about what to do, even though they completely ignore the global data available on healthcare systems.

The house is now on fire. Before? Nope the house was not on fire. No where near. We had a system people would travel around the world to use, the majority of people were happy with, and a vast majority of the people had access to. How what do we have?

You're not going to cover everyone
Most don't like it

And on top of it all it's killing jobs.


See, I agree with you that it's not perfect. But I think you're completely farking insane to say it was fine before, and only now has it gone badly. That flies in the face of all observable information on the subject.

It was bad. It was spiraling out of control. Now it's still pretty bad, but spiraling slightly less fast, but maybe picked up some other nicks and bruises. It didn't get much better, but it sure as hell didn't "suddenly" get worse, that's a fantasy.
 
2013-03-25 06:27:44 PM

o5iiawah: There's no reason health insurance cant be purchased like car insurance, carried across state lines and be tailored to fit each individual's needs.


Uhhhh... car insurance isn't carried across state lines.  Seriously, move.  See if you can retain your same policy.  You may be able to buy from the same company (usually a different branch if you move a long distance), but, you will almost always have to get a new policy.  Like health insurance, states have different auto insurance policies.  I moved from D.C. to Georgia to Florida in a fairly short span.  I had to get a different policy in every place even though I've been with the same parent company the entire time.

Furthermore, health insurance is really between the doctor and the insurance company.  It's a negotiated payout rate between the physician and the insurance company, not you and the insurance company or the physician.  Why would a physician in California accept the payout rate of a physician in BFE Kansas where the COL is much lower?  They wouldn't is the answer.  You might have health insurance, but, you wouldn't have any place to actually use your health insurance.

There's no reason why a bureaucrat should decide for me what my minimum or maximum level of care should be.  My doctor knows how healthy I am and I trust him versus some slick 8-term congressman who has a nice cushy job on the board at Humana when he gets ran out of government.

You kind of answered your own question.  Your doctor knows.  That doesn't mean you necessarily are informed enough to make those decisions.  I could rattle off a list of 10 things that could possibly go wrong with you in a very short amount of time that you might not otherwise be covered for if you could go a la carte.  You don't have the necessary training or expertise to make the decisions no matter how much you bluster.
 
2013-03-25 06:31:52 PM
The My Little Pony Killer:

If you don't want healthy employees, then good riddance.

Actually, it's a day staffing company that works to get the homeless/unskilled/substance abusers/jobless back on their feet. We partner with a number of local services to ensure medical care and have been recognized state wide for our safety, work comp and health outreach programs in a community that has limited access. We support a battered women shelter in one of our buildings, a clothing program for the homeless that reenter the work force, a tool/PPE replacement/layaway program(with no markup) to help ensure safety as well as free health screening, STI and TB testing for long time employees.

Most of these people are going to qualify for medicare and subsidies that will ensu, but the managing of measurement and stability periods for people(between 1500 and 2000 people a year) who have no set schedules or hours and will often disappear for days, weeks, or months before being regrafted into our databases is going to add a level of overhead that we can not afford without cutting our support elsewhere. We are pretty much non-profitable as it is when we compete with many national chains that only give a shiat about the bottom line.

Not all the people effected by this are bad guys. Hell, I'm pretty sure all the owners supported the reform and I know I did(and still do, mostly), but it's a pretty damn confusing bill with some niche industries being more effected then others. For example, some parts of the bill require measurements in periods of 3 months, yet other parts require measurements in periods of 90 days. That small difference can be pretty damn annoying, especially when you calculate employment by the day.
 
2013-03-25 06:35:42 PM
pinual:
....Most of these people are going to qualify for medicare and subsidies that will ensure them coverage, but the managing of ....

/FTFM
 
2013-03-25 06:48:23 PM

mgshamster: One of the things we have to remember is that health care is weird when it comes to economics.  Normally, when two competing businesses operate in the same area, prices are driven down.  However, when you have two doctor's offices near each other, prices go up (or rather, demand goes up - and when demand goes up, prices go up).


This is a real phenomenon, and not just something made up by Ira Glass and libruls at NPR.

You might find these articles interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/atul-gawande- th e-cost-conundrum-redux.html

TL;DR summary:
1) Utilization is definitely driven by the availability of providers.
2) Higher health care expenditure is not necessarily associated with better outcomes

Patients do not know what level of care is appropriate.  They are at the mercy of their treating physicians/surgeons to responsibly explain diagnostic and therapeutic options.  This is not to say that all physicians/surgeons are greedy assholes who purposely drive up costs to line their pockets - some are covering their asses to avoid potential lawsuits, some are more cautious than others by dint of personality or training.

The other problem is that most physicians/surgeons do not know the cost of the medications, tests, and procedures that they order.  They might know *their* fees, but it is a safe bet that they do not know the total cost.  For some reason, in America discussing the cost of medical care is crass and vulgar.  However, it is unreasonable that doctors and patients should remain totally insulated from the cost of medical care. Without knowing the cost, one cannot make a cost-benefit analysis.  I am not saying that the utility of all health care is quantifiable in dollars, but at some point you have to decide whether that anti-hypertensive still on patent that costs $180 a month is really worth the premium over a generically available ACE inhibitor that costs $10 a month at the Kroger pharmacy.  At some point you should have a discussion with your doctor about whether it makes sense to continue to take medications for your Type 2 diabetes, versus trying to get your BMI down from 40.  At some point you have to decide whether it is reasonable to continue to keep your 80 year old grandmother on life support after a massive stroke, if her prospects of meaningful physical or cognitive recovery that would allow her to live in a manner that she or her family would consider acceptable are low.

And no, I am not saying people need to shop around when they have a heart attack, ruptured appendix, or hip fracture.

All I'm saying is that some transparency with respect to prices and outcomes (from institutions and providers) would help a lot for elective, non-emergency health care costs.  I won't hold my breath, though.
 
2013-03-25 06:49:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!


Here's a thought... why don't you take a little time to compare the cost and quality of services paid by Medicare and those paid by private insurance, and report back to the class, genius?
 
2013-03-25 06:57:57 PM

kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left


Just because you work in a ball park does not mean that you understand anything about the physics of curve balls.

The issues associated with this are ECONOMICS, so unless you are an economist, you actually do not have any idea about what you are talking about.
 
2013-03-25 07:04:32 PM

Parthenogenetic: mgshamster: One of the things we have to remember is that health care is weird when it comes to economics.  Normally, when two competing businesses operate in the same area, prices are driven down.  However, when you have two doctor's offices near each other, prices go up (or rather, demand goes up - and when demand goes up, prices go up).


This is a real phenomenon, and not just something made up by Ira Glass and libruls at NPR.

You might find these articles interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/atul-gawande- th e-cost-conundrum-redux.html

TL;DR summary:
1) Utilization is definitely driven by the availability of providers.
2) Higher health care expenditure is not necessarily associated with better outcomes

Patients do not know what level of care is appropriate.  They are at the mercy of their treating physicians/surgeons to responsibly explain diagnostic and therapeutic options.  This is not to say that all physicians/surgeons are greedy assholes who purposely drive up costs to line their pockets - some are covering their asses to avoid potential lawsuits, some are more cautious than others by dint of personality or training.

The other problem is that most physicians/surgeons do not know the cost of the medications, tests, and procedures that they order.  They might know *their* fees, but it is a safe bet that they do not know the total cost.  For some reason, in America discussing the cost of medical care is crass and vulgar.  However, it is unreasonable that doctors and patients should remain totally insulated from the cost of medical care. Without knowing the cost, one cannot make a cost-benefit analysis. I am not saying that the utility of all health care is quantifiable in dollars, but at some point you have to decide whether that anti-hypertensive still on patent that costs $180 a month is really worth the premium over a generically available ACE inhibitor that costs $10 a month at the Kroger pharmacy.  At some point you should have a discussion with your doctor about whether it makes sense to continue to take medications for your Type 2 diabetes, versus trying to get your BMI down from 40.  At some point you have to decide whether it is reasonable to continue to keep your 80 year old grandmother on life support after a massive stroke, if her prospects of meaningful physical or cognitive recovery that would allow her to live in a manner that she or her family would consider acceptable are low.
And no, I am not saying people need to shop around when they have a heart attack, ruptured appendix, or hip fracture.
All I'm saying is that some transparency with respect to prices and outcomes (from institutions and providers) would help a lot for elective, non-emergency health care costs.  I won't hold my breath, though.



That's a good summary.

I remember an interview with an insurance representative that said the reason co-pays were introduced was to make the cost more transparent to patients.  The original design was that the co-pay would scale with the real cost of the treatment, so the patient would have an idea of what the different treatments and drugs actually cost, and help them make a decision on whether a treatment was worth the cost or if they should go with a generic rather than name brand of a needed drug.  I'm not sure if co-pays still work that way (or even managed to ever work that way), but when it was implemented, that was the idea.
 
2013-03-25 07:16:01 PM

bronyaur1: kiwimoogle84: Fine. You know what? Go ahead and ignore all of my experience in a field that I know like the back of my hand. But it's not going to be pretty.

/exits stage left

Just because you work in a ball park does not mean that you understand anything about the physics of curve balls.

The issues associated with this are ECONOMICS, so unless you are an economist, you actually do not have any idea about what you are talking about.


Uhhh... are you asserting that only a formally trained ECONOMIST is qualified to make decisions about health care policy?

Granted, kiwimoogle84 is wrong about DEATH PANELS, but to dismiss her opinions as totally worthless simply because she works in health care and doesn't understand ECONOMICS may be overreach.  Perhaps she has some worthwhile insights regarding how agents might interact based upon incentives (or malincentives) created by the implementation of the PPACA, based upon her job experience.

Meeehhhhh, never mind.  I think I'm just being a dick because I've been told by too many MBAs that doctors and nurses can't possibly know anything about health care because they don't have an MBA.  They're probably right.

Carry on.
 
2013-03-25 07:16:26 PM

kiwimoogle84: Actually, he's not wrong. Hospitals and doctors are going to be reimbursed at contracted government rates, which is pennies on the ten dollars. And since it'll be a law that they are FORCED to accept it, quality of care is going to suffer


Funny, it works just great over here in Germany. You get better care than in the US by a long shot, and it's available to absolutely everyone. And it's much cheaper in sum.
 
2013-03-25 07:18:38 PM
Subby is wrong. It's going to be a big never-ending fight between the providers, the insurers and the patients and the government. It will be fine.
 
2013-03-25 07:31:16 PM
How obvious does a troll have to be before you guys will stop responding to it (or at least trying to "debate" it)? Because this:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The house is now on fire. Before? Nope the house was not on fire. No where near. We had a system people would travel around the world to use, the majority of people were happy with, and a vast majority of the people had access to. How what do we have?

You're not going to cover everyone
Most don't like it

And on top of it all it's killing jobs.


...is so obvious that even he's probably astounded at the number of bites he's getting.
 
2013-03-25 07:38:29 PM

Biological Ali: How obvious does a troll have to be before you guys will stop responding to it (or at least trying to "debate" it)? Because this:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The house is now on fire. Before? Nope the house was not on fire. No where near. We had a system people would travel around the world to use, the majority of people were happy with, and a vast majority of the people had access to. How what do we have?

You're not going to cover everyone
Most don't like it

And on top of it all it's killing jobs.

...is so obvious that even he's probably astounded at the number of bites he's getting.


Most of the better commenters I know don't respond to trolls in hopes of convincing the troll they're wrong; they respond to post accurate information and accurate responses for everyone else.
 
2013-03-25 08:02:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: Well, we DID have to do something. We still do, because what we did is a patch at best. The problem is we all agree that the house is on fire, but some folks have no intention of doing anything about it because they have preconceived political notions about what to do, even though they completely ignore the global data available on healthcare systems.

The house is now on fire. Before? Nope the house was not on fire. No where near. We had a system people would travel around the world to use, the majority of people were happy with, and a vast majority of the people had access to. How what do we have?

You're not going to cover everyone
Most don't like it

And on top of it all it's killing jobs.


Oh farking bullshiat.
 
2013-03-25 08:16:54 PM

vpb: The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!

So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare?  You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?


And somebody somewhere does?
 
2013-03-25 08:30:07 PM

jjorsett: vpb: The Stealth Hippopotamus: In other news: People who are good at playing the game will continue to be good at the game no matter what rule changes you make.

Obamacare or ACA was an unfunny joke played on the American people; can't afford healthcare? No worries we'll just fine you (dont worry you can cover that right?) and give you medicare. 'cause we all know medicare is great and is the model of efficiency. And then ACA will make things more affordable by increasing costs!! Cause that's how economies works!

So we are going to scrap the exchanges and just give everyone Medicare?  You don't even know what Obamacare is do you?

And somebody somewhere does?


Yeah. Here's a really easy to understand explanation: link

It's one of the better explanations I've seen, and it contains links to more detailed explanations and analysis.
 
2013-03-25 08:34:24 PM

mgshamster: eah. Here's a really easy to understand explanation: link


Wow, that watered down piece of wishy-washy over-compromised legislation that "most don't like' sure has a lot of teeth in it.

/ah-HYUK
 
2013-03-25 09:11:53 PM
ARA/Obamacare included provisions to make sure the IRS could hire enough people to collect the tax/fines imposed by the "healthcare" plan but included nothing to make sure there would be enough healthcare professionals to provide servces the plan promised to deliver (i.e. doctor shortage)

Thus we can conclude that Obamacare was not about providing healthcare (remember its enforcement agency is the IRS not HHS) but a power and money grab by government.
 
2013-03-25 09:18:59 PM

Mentat: kiwimoogle84: Oh yeah, that "let's pass it so that we can find out what's in it" bullcrap. That pissed me off so much. And Mentat- for the record, most Republicans are against it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Rom's main promise was to repeal it. Wealthy republicans who own health insurance companies would of COURSE be against it, because they're the one taking hits.

They're against it now because a Democrat passed it.  They weren't against it when the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea, or when Newt Gingrich offered it as an alternative to HillaryCare, or when Governor Romney signed it into law in Massachusetts and suggested it should serve as a national model for health care.


I'm sure you can provide a list of all the republicans who supported the Heritage explanation on the mandate.  Here's a hint, you won't be able to as it was never even in the primary platform of the GOP.  It was hardly considered by republicans.  The last person to propose it before ACA was a democrat.  It had a minority of aye votes for the GOP when proposed.

Your talking point is farking stupid.
 
2013-03-25 09:22:34 PM

EyeballKid: EyeballKid: If you're not changing it to single player or public option, STFU.


Damn these typos!


Ahh yes, the public option based on Medicare...

what a farking dumb idea.

In 2007, Medicare paid on average only 91 percent of the actual cost of hospital care for Medicare patients.  If hospitals made large profits, they might be able to absorb such discounts from patients with public coverage. But the average hospital operating margin averaged only 3.8% in 2006 (margin=(net revenue minus operating expense)/(net revenue); ); nationally, between 1980-2003, average total hospital margins (total revenues/total costs minus 1) ranged from 4-6% ). Thus, it's clear that many facilities would have difficulty absorbing such a deep discount in the form of lower profits.
Instead, the average hospital is able to cover its losses from the surpluses earned on paying patients. As an example, in 2007, hospital payments for the care of privately insured people were equal to about 132 percent of their actual costs of care .  This is the functional equivalent of a hidden sales tax of 32%!

Citations in the article: http://ushealthpolicygateway.wordpress.com/payer-trade-groups/health- f inancing/private-health-related-revenues/cost-shifting/

Kind of easy to have a low cost "public option" when pushing so much of the cost onto private insurers.  That and hiding the true overhead cost by cost shifting collection for premiums to corporations and the IRS through taxes.
 
2013-03-25 09:22:34 PM
kiwimoogle84:
Then explain to me the clause about "end of life" counseling if you're over a certain age and have a serious ailment. Grandma has cancer? Instead of treating her, we'll just counsel her about her upcoming demise.

That's IN THE BILL.

I'm not a foil hat wearer or anything, but I've worked in government healthcare (Medicare and Medi-Cal claims) long enough to know that if you get too expensive to insure, they'll cut you off.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifa ct -lie-year-death-panels/
 
2013-03-25 09:45:45 PM
Thead tl;dnr

Obama sucks, and so do his soshilism.

come at me bro.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:27 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Thead tl;dnr

Obama sucks, and so do his soshilism.

come at me bro.


lol why u mad tho?
 
2013-03-25 11:08:43 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Bravo Two: You mean that the reality that people don't give a shiat about each other and are just as much driven by survival of the fittest as any other beast on this planet? And people will generally look out for themselves and their closest niche and ignore everyone else? *Gasp* say it ain't so! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do because ain't no one else going to come along and pay my bills for me.

Exactly.  We are beasts, and roll around in our own filth on what is almost certainly a prison ship.  Humanity is a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analog nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.  You must fight without honor for whatever worthless creed drives you, for what is honor or honesty, beyond weakness we have agreed to indulge?


Sniff... Thank you. I never thought that I would ever actually say this to anyone hillybilly but thank you soooooo much. That was phocking amazing.
 
2013-03-25 11:59:03 PM
Remember - the deadweight loss caused by where supply distorted by government intervention meets demand is not a death panel.  If you think otherwise, you are racist.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:19 AM

hasty ambush: Thus we can conclude that Obamacare was not about providing healthcare (remember its enforcement agency is the IRS not HHS) but a power and money grab by government.


Yeah but you consider any progressive-leaning policy a "government grab."   Not exactly credible, dude.  Yeah, I know that probably rustles your jimmies.
 
2013-03-26 02:14:50 AM

MyRandomName: I'm sure you can provide a list of all the republicans who supported the Heritage explanation on the mandate. Here's a hint, you won't be able to as it was never even in the primary platform of the GOP. It was hardly considered by republicans. The last person to propose it before ACA was a democrat. It had a minority of aye votes for the GOP when proposed.


Sure, here it is:

President George H.W. Bush
Sen. John Chafee, R-RI (1993)
Sen. Kit Bond, R-MO (1993)
Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS (1993; 1994)
Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-OR (1993)
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM (1993)
Sen. John Danforth, R-MO (1993)
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT (1993; 1994)
Sen. Nancy Kassenbaum, R-KS (1993)
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA (1993; 1994)
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-IN (1993; 1994)
Sen. Alan Simpson, R-WY (1993; 1994)
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA (1993)
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-UT (1993; 1994)
Sen. William Cohen, R-R-ME (1993)
Sen. David Durenberger, R-MN (1993)
Sen. Duncan Faircloth, R-NC (1993; 1994)
Sen. Slade Gordan, R-WA (1993)
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK (1993; 1994)
Sen. John Warner, R-VA (1993)
Sen. Don Nickels, R-OK (1994)
Sen. George Brown, R-CO (1994)
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-MT (1994)
Sen. Daniel Coats, R-IN (1994)
Sen. Thad Cochran, R-MS (1994)
Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-GA (1994)
Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID (1994)
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH (1994)
Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC (1994)
Sen. Kay Hutchison, R-TX (1994)
Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, R-ID (1994)
Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS (1994)
Sen. Connie Mack, R-FL (1994)
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-AK (1994)
Sen. Bob Smith, R-NH (1994)
Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-SC (1994)
Sen. Malcolm Wallop, R-WY (1994)
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-GA (1993; 1994; 2005; 2007; 2009)
Mitt Romney, Gov. MA (1994; 2004; 2005; 2006)

The Republicans in the Senate proposed two bills utilizing an individual mandate, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 and the Consumer Choice Security Act of 1994, both of which were supported by the Heritage Foundation.  Most of the Senators listed above were co-sponsors of one or both of those two bills.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Let me know if you need any more information!
 
2013-03-26 02:19:30 AM

Mentat: Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link


[Did_Somebody_Just_Get_Told.exe]
 
2013-03-26 02:46:31 AM

Jackson Herring: HawaiiE: I've given up arguing about Obamacare. Three years of reading fark threads & Facebook posts have taught me that conservatives have no idea what the ACA does, and don't want to learn.

It's very odd behavior to me, if anyone has ever had a success story I'd love to hear it.

government

takeover


of


healthcare


Good.
 
2013-03-27 01:55:18 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 'cause the people who help make it law don't even know.


kiwimoogle84: Oh yeah, that "let's pass it so that we can find out what's in it" bullcrap.


People who complain about this are completely clueless.  The quote is about the lies that pundits were spreading about the bill, not about Congress being ignorant of the bill's contents.  Congress spent months working on the bill.  Pelosi basically said that they need to pass some version of the bill so people would stop making stupid shiat up, like death panels and free health care for illegals.
 
Displayed 299 of 299 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report