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

(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 298
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Amy Klobuchar, National Coalition Party, America's Health Insurance Plans, National Federation of Independent Business, Medtronic, lobbying, medical device  
•       •       •

1424 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 298 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report