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.

(The New York Times)   The closer we get to implementation the more we realize how much it's going to suck ass   (nytimes.com) divider line 216
    More: Obvious, Austan Goolsbee, Karen Ignagni, House Republicans, employee benefit, implementations, health law, President George Bush  
•       •       •

6683 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 10:59:31 AM
You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.
 
2013-04-30 11:15:43 AM
...it's going to suck ass

It's true! "A political organization aligned with House Republicans sent an e-mail to reporters" that says so!
 
2013-04-30 11:28:06 AM
Yes, this is going to totally suck

FTFA:

Actually, the study did not show those young adults were paying more. It showed insurance companies were, because they had begun providing health coverage to those young adults, as called for under the law.

The missive, inaccurate though it was, illustrates the immense challenge facing the Obama administration as it puts in place the most significant parts of the 2010 law.
 
2013-04-30 11:35:43 AM
Yes, it will. Especially for those who were just fine under the old system. And it will absolutely suck more than than a single payer system would. It will cost more, be less efficient, and ultimately be a headache. That's what we get for implementing a failed Republican idea from the 90s that wasn't ever intended to work, just to distract Clinton from getting real change implemented.

But it will absolutely be better than the 'nothing' than 10 - 40% of the country currently have (depending on whether you define 'nothing' as literally nothing, or just a thin skim of bare minimum benefits that routinely get denied). 

And guess what? There's no going back. We may decide it sucks so hard we decide to up the ante and go full Canada or Britain, but there is zero chance in hell that we go back to what we had before.

And that makes it a very, very good thing.
 
2013-04-30 12:29:12 PM
Can anyone find me some rich people who already have healthcare that are upset about the new healthcare law? It would be a refreshing change of pace
 
2013-04-30 12:29:47 PM
If my premiums go up as a result of ACA it sucks ass. If they go down, it's great. If they stay the same, whatever.

That's how it works, America.
 
Bf+
2013-04-30 12:30:18 PM
...if the Republicans have anything to say about it.
 
2013-04-30 12:32:09 PM

Cletus C.: If my premiums go up as a result of ACA


then you're young and healthy


If they go down

then you're old and/or sick

That's how it works, America.
 
2013-04-30 12:32:23 PM
These headlines are going to look so stupid when unisured people start getting checks for several thousand dollars to buy their own coverage.  Yes, what a nightmare that will be.
 
2013-04-30 12:34:24 PM
Could this glistening specimen of troll sh*t be the work of the same artist behind yesterday's "10,000 tax codes" headline?
 
2013-04-30 12:35:37 PM
Obamacare is going to be better than the current healthcare system. Deal with it.
 
2013-04-30 12:37:21 PM

jigger: Cletus C.: If my premiums go up as a result of ACA

then you're young and healthy


If they go down

then you're old and/or sick

That's how it works, America.


So, the people who will use it most pay less and the people who use it least pay more? Nice.
 
2013-04-30 12:37:49 PM

whistleridge: Yes, it will. Especially for those who were just fine under the old system. And it will absolutely suck more than than a single payer system would. It will cost more, be less efficient, and ultimately be a headache. That's what we get for implementing a failed Republican idea from the 90s that wasn't ever intended to work, just to distract Clinton from getting real change implemented.

But it will absolutely be better than the 'nothing' than 10 - 40% of the country currently have (depending on whether you define 'nothing' as literally nothing, or just a thin skim of bare minimum benefits that routinely get denied). 

And guess what? There's no going back. We may decide it sucks so hard we decide to up the ante and go full Canada or Britain, but there is zero chance in hell that we go back to what we had before.

And that makes it a very, very good thing.


Well said.  There are already benefits that I would label as "unrepealable", like pre-existing conditions and covering kids until they are 26 and able to have a health insurance net while they look for a career job.  Sure, going full single-payer would be the ideal solution, but as long as we have the derp brigade I'm reasonably content to advance the ball this far.
 
2013-04-30 12:38:03 PM

SilentStrider: You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.


Absolutely. Done in one.

/Medicare for all would be best, I still don't understand why we "need" a middle-man that takes 10% off the top but I bet it has something to do with freedoms or something.
 
2013-04-30 12:39:13 PM
2 anti-AHCA greens in a row. Which moderator just came on duty?
 
2013-04-30 12:41:09 PM
ACA is designed to fail badly. That way they can take over all of healthcare in the next 10 years.
 
2013-04-30 12:42:25 PM
Is it perfect? Nope, its still pretty complicated because insurance is complicated but as mentioned above its better than doing nothing. Its a step in the right direction. Unless you think its perfectly acceptable that in America you can have your financial life ruined from having a car accident, getting cancer, or what not. 

whistleridge: Yes, it will. Especially for those who were just fine under the old system. And it will absolutely suck more than than a single payer system would. It will cost more, be less efficient, and ultimately be a headache. That's what we get for implementing a failed Republican idea from the 90s that wasn't ever intended to work, just to distract Clinton from getting real change implemented.

But it will absolutely be better than the 'nothing' than 10 - 40% of the country currently have (depending on whether you define 'nothing' as literally nothing, or just a thin skim of bare minimum benefits that routinely get denied). 

And guess what? There's no going back. We may decide it sucks so hard we decide to up the ante and go full Canada or Britain, but there is zero chance in hell that we go back to what we had before.

And that makes it a very, very good thing.


This. We need to face this issue, and now we're committed. It isn't perfect but considering I owe nearly a grand in medical bills for a dislocated shoulder and have no insurance through my job I welcome any change that puts us in the right direction.
 
2013-04-30 12:44:18 PM
If only there were something Congress could to to change the parts of the law that are bad while leaving the parts that are good.
 
2013-04-30 12:44:32 PM
The title is all wrong.  Instead of

Next Big Challenge for Health Law: Carrying It Out

it should be

Continual Challenge for Health Law: Republican Lies
 
2013-04-30 12:44:46 PM
Based on this article, it looks like the biggest challenge is overcoming all the complete BS being espoused nonstop by people opposed to the law.
 
2013-04-30 12:45:10 PM
Republicans are sssssshills for the insurance lobby and are voting to protect their owners over the people they claim to represent.
 
2013-04-30 12:46:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: ...it's going to suck ass

It's true! "A political organization aligned with House Republicans sent an e-mail to reporters" that says so!


And they quoted a Politico article! I mean, if that isn't the smoking gun, I don't know what is!!

Seriously though, can't we just get Medicare for everyone? It would be so much simpler. Oh, right, it's socialist or something.
 
Bf+
2013-04-30 12:46:10 PM
I have a friend in the medical insurance business.  He knows more than I, but he also regularly spouts orwellian republican talking points.
His latest was that because the insurance companies have to pay a tax to get into the exchanges, and they will just pass that tax onto their customers.  That, combined with the "hard earned tax dollars" being spent on subsidizing those who can't afford health care, means the debt will grow.

My response was 1) If the insurance companies are paying more, that's more money that could (potentially) pay down the debt. 2) They could pass it on to the customer, but they would be in competition with other companies that don't pass as much onto the customer.  and  3) Because those being subsidized will have regular healthcare, there will be less full-blown disease, and far fewer emergency room bills, so that should also reduce costs.

Am I on the right track?
 
2013-04-30 12:46:20 PM
That's because both Obama and Pelosi are failures. Neither of them had the balls to fight for a single payer system and now we'll be stuck with this sh*t stain of a program.
 
2013-04-30 12:50:32 PM

SilentStrider: You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.


This.

I've been applying EVERYWHERE trying to get onto some sort of insurance.  They refuse me on the basis that I haven't shiat out the next generation.  I'm not going to be in a situation where I can even begin to think about shiatting out the next generation until I've got health insurance.  Obamacare is my last resort.

/you take this from me, I make you very miserable
 
2013-04-30 12:50:38 PM

Bf+: I have a friend in the medical insurance business.  He knows more than I, but he also regularly spouts orwellian republican talking points.
His latest was that because the insurance companies have to pay a tax to get into the exchanges, and they will just pass that tax onto their customers.  That, combined with the "hard earned tax dollars" being spent on subsidizing those who can't afford health care, means the debt will grow.

My response was 1) If the insurance companies are paying more, that's more money that could (potentially) pay down the debt. 2) They could pass it on to the customer, but they would be in competition with other companies that don't pass as much onto the customer.  and  3) Because those being subsidized will have regular healthcare, there will be less full-blown disease, and far fewer emergency room bills, so that should also reduce costs.

Am I on the right track?


Businesses with competition don't "pass X on to consumers." They will charge what the market will bear at what they think will give them maximum profit. If the tax was $10 and they wouldn't lose customers increasing their premiums $10, they would already be charging them an extra $10, tax or not.
 
2013-04-30 12:50:40 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Republicans are sssssshills for the insurance lobby and are voting to protect their owners over the people they claim to represent.


You're my new favorite person on the entire internet.
 
2013-04-30 12:51:10 PM

Muta: If only there were something Congress could to to change the parts of the law that are bad while leaving the parts that are good.


This Congress? "Bad" means "what my funders find inconvenient". No, in this case I'm all for Congress' inability to find its collective ass with two hands and a teaspoon, because if they could you just know they'd fark it up worse than it is.

Seriously, people: beta test, debug, re-release. And make it so that those responsible for all three steps are actual competent specialists, not Go[eh]mer[t]s.
 
2013-04-30 12:51:41 PM
Subby, did you read the article? The biggest problem is the misinformation from the "other" side.


/willing to consider the headline falls under the "That's the joke" category
 
2013-04-30 12:53:11 PM
This is the New York Times, this guy smells like gentle Democratic party FUD.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/john_ha rw ood/index.html?offset=0&s=newest
 
2013-04-30 12:53:55 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

/herp derp doo
 
2013-04-30 12:54:06 PM

Zombie Butler: SilentStrider: You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.

Absolutely. Done in one.

/Medicare for all would be best, I still don't understand why we "need" a middle-man that takes 10% off the top but I bet it has something to do with freedoms or something.


I think that would be best as well, but think of how many people who work for the insurance companies would be out of work if that happened. There's honestly no easy answer and somebody, rather many people, will get screwed no matter what happens. Baby steps are needed to lessen the blow.
 
2013-04-30 12:54:07 PM

bdub77: Obamacare is going to be better than the current healthcare system. Deal with it.


It'd be hard to get any worse.

/still think a public option would have been the best way to go, especially when we already have the infrastructure in place (Medicare)
//this is still better than nothing
 
2013-04-30 12:55:54 PM

DarnoKonrad: These headlines are going to look so stupid when unisured people start getting checks for several thousand dollars to buy their own coverage.  Yes, what a nightmare that will be.


Where is the money coming from?
 
2013-04-30 12:56:00 PM

Bf+: I have a friend in the medical insurance business.  He knows more than I, but he also regularly spouts orwellian republican talking points.
His latest was that because the insurance companies have to pay a tax to get into the exchanges, and they will just pass that tax onto their customers.  That, combined with the "hard earned tax dollars" being spent on subsidizing those who can't afford health care, means the debt will grow.

My response was 1) If the insurance companies are paying more, that's more money that could (potentially) pay down the debt. 2) They could pass it on to the customer, but they would be in competition with other companies that don't pass as much onto the customer.  and  3) Because those being subsidized will have regular healthcare, there will be less full-blown disease, and far fewer emergency room bills, so that should also reduce costs.

Am I on the right track?


I think so if you are trying to be reasonable.  On-the-other-hand  you could point out that; they should thank their lucky stars that an entity that Waaaaay over charges for administration and provides nothing in the way of the product, in the past has murdered people by denying payment for health care, has put thousands in bankruptcy (misery) by denying payment, and has made record profits off of all of this misery is lucky to exist at all.

tl:dr Be thankful you exist at all you simpering leaches.
 
2013-04-30 12:56:35 PM

DeaH: Subby, did you read the article? The biggest problem is the misinformation from the "other" side.


/willing to consider the headline falls under the "That's the joke" category


Misleading headlines on my FARK?
 
2013-04-30 12:56:39 PM

PanicMan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Republicans are sssssshills for the insurance lobby and are voting to protect their owners over the people they claim to represent.

You're my new favorite person on the entire internet.


Consssssider joining the Green and Scaly Revolution. For your undying loyalty and service to the Broodmother, we will promise not to devour your loved ones and perhaps make you an overseer in the thorium mines on Titan.

Great job. Cushy benefits. A custom-made Martian leather whip.
 
2013-04-30 12:57:05 PM

whistleridge: Yes, it will. Especially for those who were just fine under the old system. And it will absolutely suck more than than a single payer system would. It will cost more, be less efficient, and ultimately be a headache. That's what we get for implementing a failed Republican idea from the 90s that wasn't ever intended to work, just to distract Clinton from getting real change implemented.

But it will absolutely be better than the 'nothing' than 10 - 40% of the country currently have (depending on whether you define 'nothing' as literally nothing, or just a thin skim of bare minimum benefits that routinely get denied). 

And guess what? There's no going back. We may decide it sucks so hard we decide to up the ante and go full Canada or Britain, but there is zero chance in hell that we go back to what we had before.

And that makes it a very, very good thing.


At first I didn't like you.  But then I read the conclusion.  Agreed!
 
2013-04-30 12:57:46 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: PanicMan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Republicans are sssssshills for the insurance lobby and are voting to protect their owners over the people they claim to represent.

You're my new favorite person on the entire internet.

Consssssider joining the Green and Scaly Revolution. For your undying loyalty and service to the Broodmother, we will promise not to devour your loved ones and perhaps make you an overseer in the thorium mines on Titan.

Great job. Cushy benefits. A custom-made Martian leather whip.


Hmm, Martian leather is the reddest of all leathers...
 
2013-04-30 01:01:29 PM

cchris_39: DarnoKonrad: These headlines are going to look so stupid when unisured people start getting checks for several thousand dollars to buy their own coverage.  Yes, what a nightmare that will be.

Where is the money coming from?


Well, when a Mommy Currency and a Daddy Currency love each other very much...
 
2013-04-30 01:02:58 PM

DarnoKonrad: These headlines are going to look so stupid when unisured people start getting checks for several thousand dollars to buy their own coverage.  Yes, what a nightmare that will be.


"Conservatives" prefer that those thousands be spent in emergency care instead of preventive care, if they must be spent at all.
 
2013-04-30 01:03:11 PM
Relying on for-profit companies to solve an inherently unprofitable problem is unlikely to be a good idea.
 
2013-04-30 01:03:39 PM

ajt167: Zombie Butler: SilentStrider: You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.

Absolutely. Done in one.

/Medicare for all would be best, I still don't understand why we "need" a middle-man that takes 10% off the top but I bet it has something to do with freedoms or something.

I think that would be best as well, but think of how many people who work for the insurance companies would be out of work if that happened. There's honestly no easy answer and somebody, rather many people, will get screwed no matter what happens. Baby steps are needed to lessen the blow.


I see that and trust me I dont want anyone to loose their positions in this world.  We will need folks to administer medicare for all, implement new programs to target those that the are most in need,   and the logistics of getting the best medical care to all of our citizens.  What we don't need are those that get massive bonuses for the "profit" they get off sick folks and those that employ them.
 
2013-04-30 01:03:43 PM

Cletus C.: jigger: Cletus C.: If my premiums go up as a result of ACA

then you're young and healthy


If they go down

then you're old and/or sick

That's how it works, America.

So, the people who will use it most pay less and the people who use it least pay more? Nice.


I know, right? It's almost like the whole point of insurance was to spread risk broadly around a large pool of ratepayers.
 
2013-04-30 01:06:08 PM

BMulligan: Cletus C.: jigger: Cletus C.: If my premiums go up as a result of ACA

then you're young and healthy


If they go down

then you're old and/or sick

That's how it works, America.

So, the people who will use it most pay less and the people who use it least pay more? Nice.

I know, right? It's almost like the whole point of insurance was to spread risk broadly around a large pool of ratepayers.


Just like auto insurance, where the people who cause accidents and get lots of tickets pay less for insurance than the people with a safe driving record.
 
2013-04-30 01:07:10 PM

SilentStrider: You know what would suck ass more?

Doing nothing.


Not really.

You know what would suck A LOT less? Nationalize all dat shiat.
 
2013-04-30 01:07:36 PM

whistleridge: Yes, it will. Especially for those who were just fine under the old system. And it will absolutely suck more than than a single payer system would. It will cost more, be less efficient, and ultimately be a headache. That's what we get for implementing a failed Republican idea from the 90s that wasn't ever intended to work, just to distract Clinton from getting real change implemented.

But it will absolutely be better than the 'nothing' than 10 - 40% of the country currently have (depending on whether you define 'nothing' as literally nothing, or just a thin skim of bare minimum benefits that routinely get denied). 

And guess what? There's no going back. We may decide it sucks so hard we decide to up the ante and go full Canada or Britain, but there is zero chance in hell that we go back to what we had before.

And that makes it a very, very good thing.


Nailed it.
 
2013-04-30 01:07:48 PM

Cletus C.: Just like auto insurance, where the people who cause accidents and get lots of tickets pay less for insurance than the people with a safe driving record.


I gave myself a massive brain trauma with a claw hammer and so this comparison makes perfect sense. Good job!
 
2013-04-30 01:08:03 PM
This is Obama's Battle of the Blackwater.
 
2013-04-30 01:11:12 PM
Cletus C.,
Just like auto insurance, where the people who cause accidents and get lots of tickets pay less for insurance than the people with a safe driving record.


That is why, just like people that choose to drive dangerously or get DWI's; people that choose to get sick should have their health insurances prices rise until they can't afford it.

If companies can't make a killing, I mean maximum profit from people that eventually get sick, then what is the point of insuring them.

Now lets get back to talking about Obama's death panels.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report