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  
•       •       •

1422 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report