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.

(The Hill)   Sen. Harry Reid agrees w/ Sen. Baucus that Obamacare may become 'train wreck.' Reid's solution? More funding. What were you expecting?   (thehill.com) divider line 99
    More: Obvious, Sen. Baucus, obamacare, Senate Finance Committee, Party leaders of the United States Senate, Harry Reid  
•       •       •

471 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2013 at 10:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-02 09:23:00 AM  
This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.
 
2013-05-02 10:02:19 AM  

DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.


"The National Health Service is safe in our hands." - Margaret Thatcher

The thought of a successful public health program terrifies the GOP.  Not even Thatcher dared kill the NHS.  Funny how the people can get used to not becoming sick or dying.
 
2013-05-02 10:04:53 AM  
The Republican Party motto: "Government is the problem. Elect us, and we'll prove it!"
 
2013-05-02 10:06:14 AM  
The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.
 
2013-05-02 10:07:51 AM  
The GOP is going to regret pinning Obama's name to this legislation.
 
2013-05-02 10:08:00 AM  

DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.


Pretty much. The whargle-sphere has been exploding with "Look how much its going to cost! The Government always lies! If only they listened to me[Glenn Beck], Sean, or Rush!

I mean when you have 30+ votes on how repealing a measure, and lord knows how many votes aimed at under/defunding specific portions of it. That is just at the Federal level, the various derps at the state level are even worse in republican supermajority states.
 
2013-05-02 10:09:23 AM  
wow now it is 50-60 million people?

The study done by Harvard suggests 20 million....of which illegal aliens are included, people who qualify for govrnment programs but do not apply, and young professionals who feel they are young and healthy and don't need health insurance.


I predict democrats claiming 100 million without health insurance within 3 months in order to drum up more emotional must do something now type reaction.

In 6 months democrats will claim 150 million without health insurance.
 
2013-05-02 10:10:26 AM  

CPennypacker: We are all going to regret this legislation.


Edited for accuracy.
 
2013-05-02 10:12:18 AM  

s2s2s2: Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.


You forget that in order to prevent soshalizums from stealing our precious bodily fluids, we must institute as Rube-Goldberg-y health insurance system as possible to ensure that HI companies, as well as providers, get their cut of this ever-expanding (now-)almost-fifth of the economy.

The easiest way to get 100% coverage and stable program funding is a government-run system.
The most capitalistest (and therefore, god-approved) way to do it is to sign over your paychecks to Aetna/BC.
 
2013-05-02 10:13:10 AM  
It's time to bury health insurance companies.
 
2013-05-02 10:15:03 AM  

FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.


Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...
 
2013-05-02 10:16:03 AM  

s2s2s2: CPennypacker: We are all going to regret this legislation.

Edited for accuracy.


So obviously you hate it. What would you have done instead?
 
2013-05-02 10:17:09 AM  

monoski: FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.

Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...


I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well.  You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits.  This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.
 
2013-05-02 10:17:51 AM  
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" was a train wreck because of improper funding. Not sure what the outrage is here over learning from his many, many mistakes.
 
2013-05-02 10:18:34 AM  
I love that we can't fund healthcare for poor people but we can allocate money for tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tank s- but-congress-insists/
 
2013-05-02 10:20:33 AM  
I used to hate this bill because it fails to do enough to fix the problem, that decent health care is too expensive or inaccessible for too many people, banning pre-existing condition rejections and covered until 26 provisions aside.

I've come around though. I like it now because it will be the last gasp of our private, employer sponsored health system. It'll fail to sufficiently fix the problem and the system will be forced to move towards a more public sponsored model.
 
2013-05-02 10:22:50 AM  
GOP on National Healthcare: NO!
GOP on Guns: We need more healthcare, not more laws!


Anyone else think this is odd?
 
2013-05-02 10:22:56 AM  
So the act was passed without funding mechanisms in place to ensure smooth enactment? How did that happen?
 
2013-05-02 10:25:48 AM  

Lord_Baull: GOP on National Healthcare: NO!
GOP on Guns: We need more healthcare, not more laws!


Anyone else think this is odd?


Not at all, perfectly consistent for them. Keep in mind that they don't want things to work.
 
2013-05-02 10:26:01 AM  

Serious Black: What would you have done instead?


I may have the country wrong, but I think it is Thailand's healthcare system: Go to whatever Dr you want, get care, Dr sends bill to the government.
 
2013-05-02 10:26:20 AM  

FarkedOver: monoski: FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.

Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...

I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well.  You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits.  This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.


You're being a little too modest with your use of the word "may." I would have used the word "will." RAND did a clever study looking at the rate of entrepreneurship just before turning a certain age and just after turning a certain age for people between the ages of 55 and 75. There was no difference in the rate of creating new businesses for people on either side of that division for any age save one. That one age where people created more businesses after turning it than before turning it? 65. Coincidentally, 65 is when people become eligible for Medicare.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/2011/summer/ ne ws2.html
 
2013-05-02 10:26:42 AM  

Lord_Baull: GOP on National Healthcare: NO!
GOP on Guns: We need more healthcare, not more laws!


Anyone else think this is odd?


Don't worry. Now that they feel the guns are safe they'll go back to denying more health care
 
2013-05-02 10:28:06 AM  

s2s2s2: Serious Black: What would you have done instead?

I may have the country wrong, but I think it is Thailand's healthcare system: Go to whatever Dr you want, get care, Dr sends bill to the government.


Isn't that effectively what Medicare is for people over the age of 65 in America?
 
2013-05-02 10:28:53 AM  
I wonder how much support there would be for something like:

"Would you agree to pay x% more taxes for universal government provided healthcare?" where x% is the amount necessary to pay for it.

I'm not sure it would garner majority support. There is a pretty big group that doesn't want taxes raised for anything, even if they made up for the increased taxes with no healthcare costs.
 
2013-05-02 10:32:07 AM  

Serious Black: Isn't that effectively what Medicare is for people over the age of 65 in America?


It's not what it is for me.
 
2013-05-02 10:34:42 AM  
The important thing here is not what may or may not be happening in objective reality. The important thing her is that LIBS ARE BAD.
 
2013-05-02 10:35:03 AM  

js34603: "Would you agree to pay x% more taxes for universal government provided healthcare?" where x% is the amount necessary to pay for it.


Well, you're already on the hook for 2.9% of your income to help old people, and they eat up something like 40% of health care costs in the country already. If we bumped it to 5.8% and you no longer had to worry about paying your own premia, billing for care, the insanity of ER care, finding a "covered" or "in-network" doctor; and providers no longer had to track Medicare and private-care (and god help them if they serve multiple insurance companies) separately, etc, I think you might have a hard time keeping people from the polls.

Of course, it won't stop the capitalism-uber-alles crowd from derping it up in opposition.

// can't stop the derp, Mal
 
2013-05-02 10:35:44 AM  

s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.


Yep.
 
2013-05-02 10:37:31 AM  

Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.


Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.
 
2013-05-02 10:39:06 AM  
It's a train wreck because that is the way it was written.  Dems can't pin this one on anyone but themselves, no matter how hard they may try.  You can sugarcoat a dog turd all you want..When you bite into it, it's still just a dog turd.  Obamacare will fail.
 
2013-05-02 10:41:00 AM  

FarkedOver: Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.

Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.


Include architects, engineers, chemists and other useful careers.
 
2013-05-02 10:42:09 AM  

FarkedOver: Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.

Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.


Our "education" system could use a lot more work than that.

But yeah.
 
2013-05-02 10:42:13 AM  

s2s2s2: Serious Black: Isn't that effectively what Medicare is for people over the age of 65 in America?

It's not what it is for me.


"Medicare's eligibility age is now 0." Voila. Then it would be for you as well.

/I agree that I'd rather have Medicare for All than a Frankenstein's monster of a system
 
2013-05-02 10:45:07 AM  

Lord_Baull: FarkedOver: Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.

Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.

Include architects, engineers, chemists and other useful careers.


It already does. Even for your art history degree.
 
2013-05-02 10:49:33 AM  

s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".


Yep. And when people pointed that out at the time they were shouted down with "But the only alternative is doing nothing!"

Political careers were at stake and lobbyists had to be paid. So something was done.
 
2013-05-02 10:50:50 AM  

FarkedOver: I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well. You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits. This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.


Here's something a bona fide "Farxist" and I can agree on!
 
2013-05-02 10:51:12 AM  

FarkedOver: monoski: FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.

Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...

I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well.  You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits.  This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.


May Day could actually be a holiday here.
 
2013-05-02 10:52:49 AM  

monoski: May Day could actually be a holiday here.


Isn't Labor Day essentially the same thing?
 
2013-05-02 10:53:37 AM  

Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: FarkedOver: Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.

Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.

Include architects, engineers, chemists and other useful careers.

It already does. Even for your art history degree.



Art sciences. Get it right.
 
2013-05-02 10:56:46 AM  
A huge undertaking that may go wrong and then require repeated stopgap little funding bills, each of them in the tens of billions of dollars, and the rhetoric about the undertaking keeps changing, to explain why it's not all a huge clusterfark, it really was the right thing to do.

Hm.

Nope, can't think of anything like that in the past.
 
2013-05-02 10:56:53 AM  

FarkedOver: Ned Stark: s2s2s2: The plan was stupid and it should never have passed just so they could say they "did something".

Gov should pay for healthcare. That is all.

Yep.

Take it a step further.  The government should subsidize people going to school to become doctors and nurses as well.


At least as much as it subsidizes big oil and king corn.
 
2013-05-02 10:58:19 AM  

GoldSpider: monoski: May Day could actually be a holiday here.

Isn't Labor Day essentially the same thing?


Yes, but May Day SHOULD be an American holiday.  Typically it commemorates an American event with the whole Haymarket Affair and the struggle for the 8 hour work day.
 
2013-05-02 11:02:17 AM  
Here we go.

T-240 days and the blame mitigation has already begun.  The next 12 months will be interesting.
 
2013-05-02 11:05:13 AM  

FarkedOver: monoski: FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.

Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...

I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well.  You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits.  This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.


Funny!!

+2 Internet for you
Owe me a new keyboard, etc
 
2013-05-02 11:06:34 AM  

DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.


What funds were actually denied?

This is classic democrat. Pass the bill so we can find out what is in it, find out it is under funded.
Blame the GOP.
 
2013-05-02 11:06:47 AM  
So, we're finally understanding what's in it?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-02 11:06:48 AM  

GoldSpider: monoski: May Day could actually be a holiday here.

Isn't Labor Day essentially the same thing?


Labor Day? That phony baloney holiday cooked up by far car union gangsters?

/hot damn, a day off
 
2013-05-02 11:07:27 AM  

js34603: GoldSpider: monoski: May Day could actually be a holiday here.

Isn't Labor Day essentially the same thing?

Labor Day? That phony baloney holiday cooked up by far car union gangsters?

/hot damn, a day off


Or fat cat, whichever.
 
2013-05-02 11:08:48 AM  

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So, we're finally understanding what's in it?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 284x530]


Don't give yourself too much credit
 
2013-05-02 11:11:52 AM  

Cletus C.: So the act was passed without funding mechanisms in place to ensure smooth enactment? How did that happen?


It was passed by the democrats and signed off by 0bama

That is how

Of course now they try the blame the GOP strategy
 
2013-05-02 11:12:14 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.

What funds were actually denied?

This is classic democrat. Pass the bill so we can find out what is in it, find out it is under funded.
Blame the GOP.



Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Hey, did you ever get back to us on your assertion that Clinton did nothing after the 93 WTC bombing?
 
2013-05-02 11:12:20 AM  

CPennypacker: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: So, we're finally understanding what's in it?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 284x530]

Don't give yourself too much credit


I'll leave that to the Democrats.
 
2013-05-02 11:13:10 AM  

AngryDragon: Here we go.

T-240 days and the blame mitigation has already begun.  The next 12 months will be interesting.


Not shiat. I just had a meeting with our broker for our plan renewal last week. He is seeing 30-50% increases already. When the average worker gets a whiff of that things are going to kick into overdrive.
 
2013-05-02 11:15:41 AM  

ManRay: AngryDragon: Here we go.

T-240 days and the blame mitigation has already begun.  The next 12 months will be interesting.

Not shiat. I just had a meeting with our broker for our plan renewal last week. He is seeing 30-50% increases already. When the average worker gets a whiff of that things are going to kick into overdrive.


maybe you should shop around
 
2013-05-02 11:18:38 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: FarkedOver: monoski: FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.

Single payer, takes a layer of profit out of the system and "should" cut costs. Works in other single payer based countries but we all know the USA likes to be #1 so why not #1 in health care costs...

I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well.  You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits.  This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.

Funny!!

+2 Internet for you
Owe me a new keyboard, etc


ok.
 
2013-05-02 11:20:02 AM  

CPennypacker: maybe you should shop around


That's what the broker gets paid to do. We will not know what the increase will be on our renewal for a month or two, he was just giving us a range of what he is seeing. We are looking in to partial self funding in the meantime.
 
2013-05-02 11:20:36 AM  

ManRay: AngryDragon: Here we go.

T-240 days and the blame mitigation has already begun.  The next 12 months will be interesting.

Not shiat. I just had a meeting with our broker for our plan renewal last week. He is seeing 30-50% increases already. When the average worker gets a whiff of that things are going to kick into overdrive.


We switched from BC Personal Choice (21k each employee) to a HSA with a 6k deductable. (7k per employee) and I gave them all raises to cover the HSA deductable.

If I were to go back to  BC personal choice for my employees it would cost me 30k per employee. a 9k increase in a 16 month time frame.

I feel bad for the employees at other companies who will be kicked to the curb and told to get their own insurance via Obamacare.

Remember....Obamacare will reduce costs and keep HI premium increases below 10% or some bullshiat....would they lie?
 
2013-05-02 11:21:26 AM  

ManRay: CPennypacker: maybe you should shop around

That's what the broker gets paid to do. We will not know what the increase will be on our renewal for a month or two, he was just giving us a range of what he is seeing. We are looking in to partial self funding in the meantime.


No, I mean for a new broker
 
2013-05-02 11:25:09 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.

What funds were actually denied?

This is classic democrat. Pass the bill so we can find out what is in it, find out it is under funded.
Blame the GOP.


You mean so we could get away from jackasses lighting their pants on fire by claiming the bill was going to let bureaucratic government ninjas sneak into Grandma's house in the middle of the night to slit her throat? Or that the bill was a total federal government takeover of the entire health care sector?
 
2013-05-02 11:37:52 AM  
There is no question that the cost of healthcare has been and will continue to outpace inflation. According to the CBO (the congressional budget office), Medicare and Medicaid had a combined budget of around $835 billion in 2011, or around 23% of the total federal budget.

Let's compare that to the perennial bogeyman of socialized medicine, the English National Health Service (NHS). It cost the British taxpayers around £104 billion in 2012, or roughly $164 billion in U.S. dollars. It serves about 52 million people, or roughly 1/6 of the population of the United States. Assuming for simplicity's sake the costs scale directly, that would be about $984 billion to directly provide government healthcare for the entirety of U.S. citizenry. So, for ~$150 billion dollars more than what we already spend on Medicare and Medicaid, we could in theory have national healthcare on par with the NHS.

Now, before anyone starts screaming about healthcare rationing, I'd like to point out that in 2010 nearly 50 million Americans (16.3%) were totally uninsured according to the U.S. Census Bureau. I'd also like to point out that England does have supplementary private healthcare available to anyone who wishes to purchase it, similar to policies in the U.S..

Well, what does that look like, as far as health outcomes for the population? According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S.A. ranks 34th compared to the U.K.'s 20th for life expectancy among U.N. member states. We lag behind France, Germany, and the U.K. in preventable death rates according to a Commonwealth Fund study published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. The study also found that the mortality rate for U.S. citizens age 65 and older (the age of eligibility for Medicare) compared favorably to other developed nations (Medicare works!). To top it off, we spend more per capita than any other nation according to the World Health Organization, spending some $7164.00 per capita compared to the U.K.'s $3222.00 in 2008. So in effect we pay more for healthcare, and yet die earlier and more often from preventable diseases than the countries whose healthcare systems are held up as socialist nightmares.

"It doesn't make sense to have 45 million people without insurance. It's not good for them because they don't get good preventative care and disease management. But it's not good for the rest of the citizens either, because if people aren't insured, they go to the emergency room for their care when they get very sick. That's expensive. They don't have any insurance to cover it. So guess who pays? Everybody else." - Mitt Romney 8/5/07

/TLDR: anyone who says that national healthcare will absolutely bankrupt the U.S. is full of sh*t
 
2013-05-02 11:39:02 AM  
"This legislation will also lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy."

- President Obama, March 23, 2010
 
2013-05-02 11:46:42 AM  

Lumpmoose: DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.

"The National Health Service is safe in our hands." - Margaret Thatcher

The thought of a successful public health program terrifies the GOP.  Not even Thatcher dared kill the NHS.  Funny how the people can get used to not becoming sick or dying.


What scares them (and me, as well should everyone else) is the thought of a failed public health program. But then again, parties do not ever declare any of their programs of this magnitude a failure! They'll just pump more money into it and claim obstructionism, or not enough time or god forbid just keep telling everyone over and over that it was a success until everyone believes it.
 
2013-05-02 11:46:46 AM  

CPennypacker: No, I mean for a new broker


We have to an extent. There are only so many players in the healthcare market in GA though.

Much of the increase is coming from the way that insurance companies are allowed to categorize people for underwriting in 2014. Fewer categories means less options for even a mostly young, healthy male group (like the ones that work for us) so they get lumped together with a higher risk pool. 

Giltric: We switched from BC Personal Choice (21k each employee) to a HSA with a 6k deductable. (7k per employee) and I gave them all raises to cover the HSA deductable.


That is similar to what we are looking at. A high deductible plan for catastrophic and the company actually paying out for anything up to the deductible. If we have a low claim year, we keep the money not paid out.
 
2013-05-02 11:49:15 AM  
How bout we just look at it this way if you get sick and can't pay you die. The reason poor people will go to the ER when they get sick is because the ER is FEDERALY MANDATED to see them if they take ANY medicare/medicaide dollars.

My prediction is you will see LOTS of companies kick employees to the curb on HI. They will then learn the truth of what was in that bill as it's taken out of their pockets a dollar at a time. Now depending on the state one of two things will happen - the worker will blame some fictional fat cat exec who is lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills or the worker will blame some farkwad who sits in DC and can LITERALLY PARTICIPATE IN INSIDER TRADING WITHOUT CHARGES who actualy exists.

So the choice is blame the easterbunny or blame that congress critter who just made a few mil on the street when their stock went through the roof because they passed a bill mandating EVERYONE BUY IT.
 
2013-05-02 12:03:47 PM  

Ham Sandvich: I used to hate this bill because it fails to do enough to fix the problem, that decent health care is too expensive or inaccessible for too many people, banning pre-existing condition rejections and covered until 26 provisions aside.

I've come around though. I like it now because it will be the last gasp of our private, employer sponsored health system. It'll fail to sufficiently fix the problem and the system will be forced to move towards a more public sponsored model.


That's my feeling. The law, as passed, is completely inadequate. But it's a foot in the door. It will be easier to pass additional legislation to improve the present rickety law than to start over from scratch. Bit by bit, bit by bit -- and whadayuh know! A real national healthcare system!
 
2013-05-02 12:17:06 PM  

Serious Black: s2s2s2: Serious Black: What would you have done instead?

I may have the country wrong, but I think it is Thailand's healthcare system: Go to whatever Dr you want, get care, Dr sends bill to the government.

Isn't that effectively what Medicare is for people over the age of 65 in America?


no
 
2013-05-02 12:45:18 PM  

Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.

What funds were actually denied?

This is classic democrat. Pass the bill so we can find out what is in it, find out it is under funded.
Blame the GOP.


Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Hey, did you ever get back to us on your assertion that Clinton did nothing after the 93 WTC bombing?


No
Yes
 
2013-05-02 12:53:50 PM  

mksmith: Ham Sandvich: I used to hate this bill because it fails to do enough to fix the problem, that decent health care is too expensive or inaccessible for too many people, banning pre-existing condition rejections and covered until 26 provisions aside.

I've come around though. I like it now because it will be the last gasp of our private, employer sponsored health system. It'll fail to sufficiently fix the problem and the system will be forced to move towards a more public sponsored model.

That's my feeling. The law, as passed, is completely inadequate. But it's a foot in the door. It will be easier to pass additional legislation to improve the present rickety law than to start over from scratch. Bit by bit, bit by bit -- and whadayuh know! A real national healthcare system!


It will be interesting to see if that's really the case but I don't think so, not when you're talking about such a complicated system already dominated by the profit motives of the HI industry. The current political necessity for Dems to tout the ACA as a success only serves to undermine their future ability to argue for changes to it. Blaming GOP obstructionism isn't going to be enough, so unless some future Dem is willing to really throw Obama (or at least his 'legacy') under the bus, it isn't going to happen.
 
2013-05-02 01:03:13 PM  

Cletus C.: "This legislation will also lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy."

- President Obama, March 23, 2010


Based on the correspondents dinner it is clear 0bama has good comedy writers.

Too bad they are also writing his policies


Wasn't there also a line about saving 2500 a year? That one was really funny too
 
2013-05-02 01:09:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Based on the correspondents dinner it is clear 0bama has good comedy writers.

Too bad they are also writing his policies


Wasn't there also a line about saving 2500 a year? That one was really funny too


As much as I am not a fan of Obama's health care policy, you know what the real laugh riot is?  The fact that you think private health care is something to be marveled.  LOL that is good!
 
2013-05-02 01:37:18 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Based on the correspondents dinner it is clear 0bama has good comedy writers.

Too bad they are also writing his policies


Wasn't there also a line about saving 2500 a year? That one was really funny too

As much as I am not a fan of Obama's health care policy, you know what the real laugh riot is?  The fact that you think private health care is something to be marveled.  LOL that is good!


You are funny
You make up something that you claimed i said and then you laugh about it

You are very special.
I am glad you can make yourself so happy so easily.
 
2013-05-02 01:49:44 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You are funny
You make up something that you claimed i said and then you laugh about it


Well when you shiat all over everything and offer no constructive alternative......
 
2013-05-02 01:54:47 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: You are funny
You make up something that you claimed i said and then you laugh about it

Well when you shiat all over everything and offer no constructive alternative......


Offer an alternative? Wtf?

Is this site with its mascot of a well hung squirrel one that mocks the news or is it used by the government to shape legislation?

What exactly about our healthcare system is it that you want to fix? Don't just say it is broken, be specific
 
2013-05-02 02:02:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: What exactly about our healthcare system is it that you want to fix? Don't just say it is broken, be specific


The fact that people are denied care is a problem.  The fact that people take on massive amounts of debt to receive treatments is a big farking problem.  Healthcare is a fundamental human right, not a for-profit industry.
 
2013-05-02 02:14:10 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: What exactly about our healthcare system is it that you want to fix? Don't just say it is broken, be specific

The fact that people are denied care is a problem.  The fact that people take on massive amounts of debt to receive treatments is a big farking problem.  Healthcare is a fundamental human right, not a for-profit industry.


Isn't food and shelter a fundamental human right (you need that more than healthcare) Why doesn't the government, i mean the people who pay federal taxes, provide food and shelter to everyone?

If it is a right, then since we are paying for this shouldn't we require people to not overrating, not smoke, not drink, not do drugs, exercise 5 times a week, not engage in risky behavior, get 7 hours of sleep a night, etc?
 
2013-05-02 02:22:51 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Isn't food and shelter a fundamental human right (you need that more than healthcare) Why doesn't the government, i mean the people who pay federal taxes, provide food and shelter to everyone?


Why do you think your first 8-10k in income isn't taxed? Why do you suppose you get tax breaks for having a mortgage?
 
2013-05-02 02:27:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: tenpoundsofcheese: Isn't food and shelter a fundamental human right (you need that more than healthcare) Why doesn't the government, i mean the people who pay federal taxes, provide food and shelter to everyone?

Why do you think your first 8-10k in income isn't taxed? Why do you suppose you get tax breaks for having a mortgage?


But that doesn't provide food and shelter to everyone.
Were my rights violated since I didn't get free food?

If I want to pay 10 dollars for a heart transplant and they want to charge me 1000 dollars that is violating my right to healthcare.
 
2013-05-02 02:30:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: tenpoundsofcheese: Isn't food and shelter a fundamental human right (you need that more than healthcare) Why doesn't the government, i mean the people who pay federal taxes, provide food and shelter to everyone?

Why do you think your first 8-10k in income isn't taxed? Why do you suppose you get tax breaks for having a mortgage?


Taking less of a persons income is not providing for them
 
2013-05-02 02:34:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dr Dreidel: tenpoundsofcheese: Isn't food and shelter a fundamental human right (you need that more than healthcare) Why doesn't the government, i mean the people who pay federal taxes, provide food and shelter to everyone?

Why do you think your first 8-10k in income isn't taxed? Why do you suppose you get tax breaks for having a mortgage?

But that doesn't provide food and shelter to everyone.
Were my rights violated since I didn't get free food?

If I want to pay 10 dollars for a heart transplant and they want to charge me 1000 dollars that is violating my right to healthcare.


I'm sorry, I don't speak derp.

You have 8-10 grand tax free, with which you can buy whatever food you like. Your mortgage is tax-free to make it easier for you to own and maintain a home. With any sensible single-payer plan, you'd have ALL of your care covered (unless, like the NHS and other systems, you buy a supplemental policy) just because you filed a tax return that year. And even if you didn't, you're covered for now but the taxman'll be wanting his eventually.

In none of these systems is anything GIVEN to you or RATIONED to you. In none of these systems d you get to name your price for a service.

// if you'd like to have a rational conversation, please stay on the line and refrain from being obtuse
// otherwise, go soak your head
 
2013-05-02 02:36:14 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Taking less of a persons income is not providing for them


Responding to you was a mistake. I'm bailing out. Bye.
 
2013-05-02 02:46:17 PM  

mksmith: That's my feeling. The law, as passed, is completely inadequate. But it's a foot in the door. It will be easier to pass additional legislation to improve the present rickety law than to start over from scratch. Bit by bit, bit by bit -- and whadayuh know! A real national healthcare system!


Step 1: Try and get the reform you really want passed. Fail.
Step 2: Wait a bit and shoehorn a half-assed bill through Congress.
Step 3: Wait to see if, by some miracle, it works. If it does, declare victory.
Step 4: When it screws up an already bad situation and makes it worse, blame as much as possible on your political opponents and throw money at it.
Step 5: When the whole thing burns down, tweak Step 1 a bit and offer it as the "real" solution.
 
2013-05-02 04:05:44 PM  

FarkedOver: I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well. You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits. This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.


It wouldn't just do that. It would foster innovation and entrepreneurship too. If people didn't have to worry about health insurance, they might be willing to take more business risks.
 
2013-05-02 04:07:08 PM  

FarkedOver: It's time to bury health insurance companies.


Right, because the tens of thousands of people they employ should be out of a job with no benefits now. I have worked in health insurance for 18 years. I pay for my benefits, I am not an evil person denying people care, I come to work, do my job, collect a paycheck, and pay my taxes. Come Jan. 1st, we lose our jobs.  I have a terminal condition that i am in the middle of treatment for. I have very little faith that I can continue the same level of care with my same doctor with a government plan and no job.

So, fark you.
 
2013-05-02 04:14:43 PM  

Badafuco: Right, because the tens of thousands of people they employ should be out of a job with no benefits now. I have worked in health insurance for 18 years. I pay for my benefits, I am not an evil person denying people care, I come to work, do my job, collect a paycheck, and pay my taxes. Come Jan. 1st, we lose our jobs. I have a terminal condition that i am in the middle of treatment for. I have very little faith that I can continue the same level of care with my same doctor with a government plan and no job.

So, fark you.


Sorry about your illness.  With all due respect, fark you.  Just imagine if we had single payer healthcare.... YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM!
 
2013-05-02 04:45:39 PM  

FarkedOver: Badafuco: Right, because the tens of thousands of people they employ should be out of a job with no benefits now. I have worked in health insurance for 18 years. I pay for my benefits, I am not an evil person denying people care, I come to work, do my job, collect a paycheck, and pay my taxes. Come Jan. 1st, we lose our jobs. I have a terminal condition that i am in the middle of treatment for. I have very little faith that I can continue the same level of care with my same doctor with a government plan and no job.

So, fark you.

Sorry about your illness.  With all due respect, fark you.  Just imagine if we had single payer healthcare.... YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM!


Couldn't help but wonder, which problem would he not have, the terminal illness problem or the no job problem?
 
2013-05-02 04:47:57 PM  

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: FarkedOver: Badafuco: Right, because the tens of thousands of people they employ should be out of a job with no benefits now. I have worked in health insurance for 18 years. I pay for my benefits, I am not an evil person denying people care, I come to work, do my job, collect a paycheck, and pay my taxes. Come Jan. 1st, we lose our jobs. I have a terminal condition that i am in the middle of treatment for. I have very little faith that I can continue the same level of care with my same doctor with a government plan and no job.

So, fark you.

Sorry about your illness.  With all due respect, fark you.  Just imagine if we had single payer healthcare.... YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM!

Couldn't help but wonder, which problem would he not have, the terminal illness problem or the no job problem?


A.) he wouldn't have to worry about medical treatment.  B.) I am a socialist and a firm believer in the welfare state.  If he is unable to work he should be taken care of.
 
2013-05-02 04:56:54 PM  

FarkedOver: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: FarkedOver: Badafuco: Right, because the tens of thousands of people they employ should be out of a job with no benefits now. I have worked in health insurance for 18 years. I pay for my benefits, I am not an evil person denying people care, I come to work, do my job, collect a paycheck, and pay my taxes. Come Jan. 1st, we lose our jobs. I have a terminal condition that i am in the middle of treatment for. I have very little faith that I can continue the same level of care with my same doctor with a government plan and no job.

So, fark you.

Sorry about your illness.  With all due respect, fark you.  Just imagine if we had single payer healthcare.... YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM!

Couldn't help but wonder, which problem would he not have, the terminal illness problem or the no job problem?

A.) he wouldn't have to worry about medical treatment.  B.) I am a socialist and a firm believer in the welfare state.  If he is unable to work he should be taken care of.


Sounds almost too good to be true.
 
2013-05-02 05:05:21 PM  

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Sounds almost too good to be true.


Under capitalism, yep it is.  You want  to give insincere, curt and douchey answers I can fire 'em right on back.
 
2013-05-02 05:19:51 PM  

FarkedOver: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Sounds almost too good to be true.

Under capitalism, yep it is.  You want  to give insincere, curt and douchey answers I can fire 'em right on back.


Boy, you took care of him.
 
2013-05-02 05:58:53 PM  

FarkedOver: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Sounds almost too good to be true.

Under capitalism, yep it is.  You want  to give insincere, curt and douchey answers I can fire 'em right on back.


Damn. Relax there chief. You socialist types sure are touchy.

Good luck, I guess, in your socialistic endeavors. Me, I think I will go take a dip in my evil capitalistic takings.
 
2013-05-02 06:51:25 PM  
See! I told you all Sen. Dole's propsal was a lousy plan
 
2013-05-02 09:34:02 PM  
Massachusetts installed Romneycare a while ago, and it's doing fine. Why is it suddenly such a horrible thing that will destroy the country if it's made national?

Oh, right, because Obama did it. That's why Romney promised to tear it down and then put it right back up, but this time it would be pure and holy because he installed it.
 
2013-05-02 09:51:27 PM  
It's not like we're talking about money out of Reid and Pelosi's pockets.

The way things are working out, when they're done buying votes with goodies, when the interest on the debt is 3/4 of a trillion dollars, Harry Reid will be ready to retire to a ranch with a nice little nest egg.

Democrats no longer serve the public, they juyst raid the public coffers to provider ever increasing benefits to their loyal supporters.

The latest nonsense is free daycare for all, when the free contraception isnt used.
 
2013-05-02 09:59:02 PM  

Dr Dreidel:

You forget that in order to prevent soshalizums from stealing our precious bodily fluids, we must institute as Rube-Goldberg-y health insurance system as possible to ensure that HI companies, as well as providers, get their cut of this ever-expanding (now-)almost-fifth of the economy.

That's what Obamacare IS.  It was written mostly by insurance company lobbyists.  Unless one assumes that the supporters of this bill were cognitively impaired in some way, the only thing that makes sense is that they wanted a bill so damned bad that after a short while, people would be calling out for a single-payer system.  I have never been a fan of single-payer systems, as they make care mediocre (or worse) for most people, except those able to go outside the system and pay.  They have also typically destroyed medical progress, as the focus moves away from obtaining the best medical technology -- making a bigger medical 'pie,' and toward trying to make sure the pie is sliced up evenly into ever smaller pieces.

But, if 'make single-payer look good' is the objective of Obamacare, it's working brilliantly.  Single-payer has NEVER looked as good as when it's compared to the aborted train-wreck that is Obamacare.

 
2013-05-02 10:34:32 PM  

FarkedOver:

I think it scares the shiat out of not only health insurance companies, but regular businesses as well. You may see people leaving jobs they would otherwise feel "stuck" at just because of the benefits. This could be a revolutionary moment for the working class to actually pick and choose their occupation.

I couldn't care less.  Cutting the tie between employment and health care is one of the few things GOOD which at least might come out of Obamacare.  Employees need to be able to move from company to company without considering their insurance for capitalism to work well. Crappy companies SHOULD bleed employees and go under.

Re-vamping health care was dumb.  Despite misleading, apples-to-oranges statistics, American health care of five years ago was the best in the world -- but not everyone here could get it.  We did the equivalent of trading a paid-for Dodge Viper in on a 1975 AMC Hornet, and starting to make payments -- because the tires were bald on the Viper.  A better fix for that situation would be to buy new tires for the Viper.  And, rather than re-work the health care system, a fix of the insurance industry would be the better fix for our health care woes of five years ago than the despicable Obamacare.

Here's what we SHOULD have done:

- Cut the ties between employment and health care.  Pass a law: ONLY personal or family insurance policies.

- Make insurance into somewhere around 3 or 4 tiers, from basics to extra fancy.

- Eliminate pre-existing condition problems, and make sure EVERYONE is allowed to buy insurance.

- Have the government buy lowest-tier insurance for the poor, aged, and veterans, which individuals can upgrade.

- If people choose to not buy insurance, their only treatment is 'for pay' or at teaching hospitals.


Let that settle for a couple years, and make minor adjustments as necessary.

 
2013-05-02 11:02:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz:

Well, what does that look like, as far as health outcomes for the population? According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S.A. ranks 34th compared to the U.K.'s 20th for life expectancy among U.N. member states.

And this is that apples-to-oranges statistic I was talking about.  The US includes WAY more perinatal deaths as "deaths" rather than "miscarriages," as pretty much the entire rest of the world.  With these spurious "day 0" deaths counting as a citizen, naturally they drag down the life expectancy.  If the U.S. figures are "cleaned" of these births, as they are elsewhere, we rank near the middle. For anyone interested in the research, here's a report.
 
2013-05-02 11:24:01 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah:

Massachusetts installed Romneycare a while ago, and it's doing fine. Why is it suddenly such a horrible thing that will destroy the country if it's made national?

Oh, right, because Obama did it. That's why Romney promised to tear it down and then put it right back up, but this time it would be pure and holy because he installed it.

Mass. is NOT "doing fine."  Medical bankruptcies are up by more than a third, and what was supposed to cost just over $700M has cost the state over $2B.  Medical expenses have skyrocketed.

But, more people are insured.  However, many have taken to "gaming" the system -- they get insurance, have a bunch of procedures, and then drop the insurance.  According to the state, the average "gamer" spends $1600-$2000 in insurance, and gets $10,000 of medical care.  Taxpayers pick up the difference.  It's not a horrid disaster, but neither is it Nirvana.

 
2013-05-03 12:09:33 AM  

Cletus C.: So the act was passed without funding mechanisms in place to ensure smooth enactment? How did that happen?


THIS all day long.
Not a single Republican vote, so stew in it Dems. This is your creation, no one else's, and now you start pointing fingers when costs for this monstrosity start spinning out of control. You idiots are farking unbelievable.

In UK docs see 50% more patients per dr... For some reason dems think this is "progress".
Good luck with all that progress in 20 yrs when you need a coronary angioplasty and have to survive 16 months before you can get to the OR.
 
2013-05-03 04:28:46 PM  

DamnYankees: This is a pretty classic example of GOP obstructionism working. Deny the government the necessary funds to run a program, watch as the program then falters, and you can then both (i) campaign on how the program is broken and government doesn't work and (ii) campaign against Democrats asking for more funding.


ACA was passed with significant funding, over 1 Trillion over 10 years, later revised to 1.5 Trillion over 10 years.  Implementation funds are already up 300% since the ACA bill was scored.

They have funding, they are just mismanaging it.

Only a liberal would blame a lake of funding when they spent 3x what they asked for.
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

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