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.

(Politicus USA)   Last year, healthcare costs fell for the first time in forty years. THANKS OBAMA   (politicususa.com) divider line 293
    More: Spiffy, U.S. Government Accountability Office, PricewaterhouseCoopers, obamacare  
•       •       •

6959 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 8:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 08:48:53 PM  
DAMMIT ORTON
 
2013-06-19 08:55:30 PM  
Sure, lower, because they don't pay out a goddamn red cent.
 
2013-06-19 08:58:06 PM  
See? Just like Nixon.
 
2013-06-19 08:58:29 PM  
I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.
 
2013-06-19 09:00:15 PM  
So is this a scandal yet?
 
2013-06-19 09:00:27 PM  

2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.


We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.
 
2013-06-19 09:00:40 PM  
Of course health care costs fell, the sick/old are being sent off to Obama death camps.
 
2013-06-19 09:00:41 PM  

cman: DAMMIT ORTON


He killed Commander Hutchinson!  I always hated that guy!
 
2013-06-19 09:01:23 PM  
The calm before the storm.
 
2013-06-19 09:01:48 PM  
they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal
 
2013-06-19 09:02:32 PM  
Prices fell in May not last year. One month temporary decrease does not a trend make.
 
2013-06-19 09:02:43 PM  

porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal


Even the "This is a good deal" pony.
 
2013-06-19 09:02:50 PM  
Just a bunch of people afraid of getting caught red handed with their fingers in the cookie jar.  They'll relax soon and start stealing at the regular rate again.
 
2013-06-19 09:03:56 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.


well, there's your mom...
 
2013-06-19 09:04:28 PM  
Just wait 'til doctors start treating Republican butthurt.
 
2013-06-19 09:04:37 PM  

Fissile: Of course health care costs fell, the sick/old are being sent off to Obama death camps.


You know this isn't true.
The sick and old are being propped up and slain in staged mass murders like Aurora and Sandy Hook.
 
2013-06-19 09:04:44 PM  
It's health care profits that we must worry about. After all, isn't that why the Republicans have tried to overturn Obamacare?
 
2013-06-19 09:06:15 PM  
Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.
 
2013-06-19 09:07:49 PM  
A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.  Call me when medical prices are falling or when it's -1C in Hell.
 
2013-06-19 09:08:15 PM  

great_tigers: Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.


Good for you!
I'm glad you are opting for choice.
I call bullshiat.

Three years ago, your wife was probably employed and now she isn't.  Or some other piece of the puzzle is missing.
 
2013-06-19 09:09:22 PM  

hammettman: Just wait 'til doctors start treating Republican butthurt.


That's gonna be a growth industry for years.
 
2013-06-19 09:10:02 PM  

DeejayMental: The calm before the storm.


I know, right?  And right after that begins the hyper-inflation I was warned about in late 2007.
 
2013-06-19 09:10:10 PM  
Truly, history's greatest monster.
 
2013-06-19 09:10:49 PM  

2farknfunny: Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.

well, there's your mom...


Yeah, but after a room full of sailors, pleasing her wasn't much of a challenge.
 
2013-06-19 09:10:49 PM  
OMG Obama is crippling the profitability of the medical care industry!
 
2013-06-19 09:11:35 PM  
The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link
 
2013-06-19 09:13:39 PM  
All of the doctors I see are so against the ACA.  They rant every time I see one.  But, it should be noted that all of the doctors I see are very well-to-do older white males that service a town that is relatively poor.
We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.
 
2013-06-19 09:15:47 PM  
Sure does smell like bull shiat in here.
 
2013-06-19 09:15:57 PM  
So an article gives credit to something that hasn't gone into effect yet and people are lapping it up like dooshes. Just another repeat of the same old dog and pony show.
 
2013-06-19 09:16:26 PM  
Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.
 
2013-06-19 09:16:35 PM  

rkiller1: A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.


Valid point, but I don't know which point is true, the article is inconsistent.

"U.S. consumers' health-care costs fell"
vs
"the slowing of healthcare inflation".

We need a tie-breaker round. Or a follow up. Or a better written article.

/both outcomes are good, one is gooder
 
2013-06-19 09:17:20 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: So an article gives credit to something that hasn't gone into effect yet and people are lapping it up like dooshes. Just another repeat of the same old dog and pony show.


You are misinformed.
 
2013-06-19 09:19:38 PM  

StopLurkListen: rkiller1: A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.

Valid point, but I don't know which point is true, the article is inconsistent.



Ah, the original WSJ is a lot clearer
 " The Labor Department's price index for medical care  [...] fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in May. The leading driver of last month's drop was a 0.6% contraction in prescription-drug costs "
 
2013-06-19 09:20:18 PM  
Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.  I am sure those who reflexively scream at FoxNews and Daily Mail links share my cynicism.
 
2013-06-19 09:20:25 PM  

Iron Felix: Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.


This I agree with.
The ACA isn't a health care reform, it was an insurance reform.
Baby steps.
The thing sucks, but it is a move in the right direction.
 
2013-06-19 09:20:43 PM  
Medicare Part D trickle down.
 
2013-06-19 09:21:26 PM  
I mean, if people start getting preventative care and don't get long-lived diseases that are expensive to treat, who is going to hire all the specialists that won't be needed? Healthy people are very inconsiderate to the Health Care Job Creators.
 
2013-06-19 09:21:40 PM  

Wolfmanjames: Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.


You read that but didn't see their source? The super liberal WSJ
 
2013-06-19 09:24:27 PM  
Fell for who?  Mine has gone up every year for the past 4 years at least, and the three major health insurance companies in my state have had an increase in their premiums across the board for their individual (non-group) policies within the past 12 months.
I mean, if it's gone down great, but...
 
2013-06-19 09:24:29 PM  
I think it was Karl Marx who said, "Decent health care for the working class is the true path to Communism."
 
2013-06-19 09:25:26 PM  
Um no they didn't!!! Mine went up yet again! But to be fair I didn't think it was Obama's fault. It goes up $20 a year. By the time I'm 50 I will be paying $500 to $600 a month at this rate. Plus I can't ever get in to see a specialist for months on months, this IS a new thing.
Thank goodness I'm healthy. Except for falling off hill top hot tubs. If you are not healthy you got a tough go of it.
 
2013-06-19 09:26:33 PM  
The second derivative of the rise in healthcare costs went down a little.

This makes my hospital bill lowering rock worth the investment.
 
2013-06-19 09:27:19 PM  

2farknfunny: Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.

well, there's your mom...


As I said, it would be a short list.
 
2013-06-19 09:27:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Wolfmanjames: Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.

You read that but didn't see their source? The super liberal WSJ


And the WSJ blog got the numbers from the department of labor and we know those guys never play with the numbers to make things look better. Not ever.
 
2013-06-19 09:28:42 PM  
So what specifically did the ACA implement that resulted in these lower costs?

It hasn't even been fully put into effect yet. So what part of what has been implemented led to lower costs?
 
2013-06-19 09:29:35 PM  

big pig peaches: And the WSJ blog got the numbers from the department of labor and we know those guys never play with the numbers to make things look better. Not ever.


Well gee golly, without proof of such a claim their dishonesty is limited only by your imagination!
 
2013-06-19 09:31:05 PM  

js34603: So what specifically did the ACA implement that resulted in these lower costs?

It hasn't even been fully put into effect yet. So what part of what has been implemented led to lower costs?


"It cited new penalties on hospitals whose patients must be readmitted soon after being discharged, as well as still-developing efforts to improve care coordination and efficiency. Slow growth is also being driven by changes in employer-based healthcare plans, which are increasingly shifting more costs to employees." Link

A PwC study, but similar results.
 
2013-06-19 09:31:48 PM  

js34603: So what specifically did the ACA implement that resulted in these lower costs?

It hasn't even been fully put into effect yet. So what part of what has been implemented led to lower costs?


Well you could RTFA.
 
2013-06-19 09:31:52 PM  

js34603: So what specifically did the ACA implement that resulted in these lower costs?

It hasn't even been fully put into effect yet. So what part of what has been implemented led to lower costs?


Correlation, that's what.

Speaking of which, do your part and buy more mexican lemons, we can eliminate gun violence and somali pirates in one go.
 
2013-06-19 09:32:24 PM  

js34603: So what specifically did the ACA implement that resulted in these lower costs?

It hasn't even been fully put into effect yet. So what part of what has been implemented led to lower costs?


Everything but the exchanges.
 
2013-06-19 09:32:42 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Sure, lower, because they don't pay out a goddamn red cent.


this

I treat cancer, I've never seen a year where we had to fight insurance companies for payment so much.


If I could opt opt to pay my car payment at just half its value I'd save money too.
 
2013-06-19 09:33:57 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link


Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.
 
2013-06-19 09:34:34 PM  
For those wondering about implementation, here is a timeline.

Link
 
2013-06-19 09:34:48 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 09:37:09 PM  
Analysts attributed the falling costs to ObamaCare constraining government payments to doctors and hospitals, which they say is tricking down to consumers.

Meh, medicare reimbursements got lowered, less doctors take medicare, less medicare patients get seen.........of course it trickled down.

/they are pissing on you and telling you it's raining.
 
kth
2013-06-19 09:38:09 PM  

tuna fingers: All of the doctors I see are so against the ACA.  They rant every time I see one.  But, it should be noted that all of the doctors I see are very well-to-do older white males that service a town that is relatively poor.
We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.


You're seeing the wrong doctors.

Or course, mine are all young women. Old white men tend to hassle women with migraines.

Nurse practitioners on the other hand, misread your CT scans and tell you that you have an encroachment on your brain. Before showing it to a neurologist who wonders what she's on about. Longest ten minutes of my life between that phone call and the sheepish, wait, I was wrong call, I tell you. Or maybe that's just the nurse practitioner in my neuro's office.
 
2013-06-19 09:39:15 PM  
Not when you unskew the statisticals.

/MYDAARTMYFB
 
2013-06-19 09:39:20 PM  

basemetal: Meh, medicare reimbursements got lowered, less doctors take medicare, less medicare patients get seen.........of course it trickled down.

/they are pissing on you and telling you it's raining.


The main lowering of medicare at this point is done on conditions that are typically the fault of the person caring for that medicare patient in the first place.
 
2013-06-19 09:39:51 PM  

Brick-House: Sure does smell like bull shiat in here.


Maybe your should leave. You are beginning to smell up the place.
 
2013-06-19 09:39:59 PM  

porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 09:40:07 PM  

tuna fingers: Iron Felix: Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.

This I agree with.
The ACA isn't a health care reform, it was an insurance reform.
Baby steps.
The thing sucks, but it is a move in the right direction.


It would be interesting to compare how the UK and Canada got to where they are, in terms of nationalized health care, to the USA; all three, IIRC, were entirely fee-for-service a century ago...

/ I realize what they have is flawed
//....but it's still lightyears ahead of what we have in the US, at least for working-class people...
 
2013-06-19 09:40:52 PM  
Including the 2% income tax increase and drop in gross incomes in May?
 
2013-06-19 09:41:22 PM  
Tuna fingers,

My computer is messed up so I can't reply directly to your post. Three years ago I was with the same company, a dmepos. We are having reimbursements decline and claims denied so incredibly much. We went from one of the best companies to work for with many fringe benefits to one that has taken away every benefit but salary and insurance. Our insurance has gone through the roof, we are on pace to have half of our work force this December from one year ago. Please, tell me how I am full of shiat when I watch my wife struggle in pain every day with pain and knowing we could be foreclosed if we do not have a payment plan set up with the surgical site. The orthopedic surgeon that would do her surgery is a client of mine, he knows the struggle we have but is mandated by the hospital to charge the full amount.

Please, let me know how full of
 
2013-06-19 09:41:55 PM  

kth: tuna fingers: All of the doctors I see are so against the ACA.  They rant every time I see one.  But, it should be noted that all of the doctors I see are very well-to-do older white males that service a town that is relatively poor.
We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.

You're seeing the wrong doctors.

Or course, mine are all young women. Old white men tend to hassle women with migraines.

Nurse practitioners on the other hand, misread your CT scans and tell you that you have an encroachment on your brain. Before showing it to a neurologist who wonders what she's on about. Longest ten minutes of my life between that phone call and the sheepish, wait, I was wrong call, I tell you. Or maybe that's just the nurse practitioner in my neuro's office.


Our ex-pediatrician gave me a new prescription "that should clear up my daughter's rash" on our last visit.  We have a boy.
 
2013-06-19 09:42:20 PM  

Princepapa: Fell for who?  Mine has gone up every year for the past 4 years at least, and the three major health insurance companies in my state have had an increase in their premiums across the board for their individual (non-group) policies within the past 12 months.
I mean, if it's gone down great, but...


We have two plans for our group where I work. Our premiums just went up. $40 more for one plan, $76 more for the other. Can't really see that we're getting anything more for it, either.
 
2013-06-19 09:42:41 PM  
shiat I am. Have you ever had a torn labrum? It was described to me as a needle prick every time she steps. Bottom line, fark you.
 
2013-06-19 09:42:49 PM  

basemetal: less doctors take medicare


Do you have a citation for this? Because this time last year, only about 2% of Medicare beneficiaries had problems finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare.
 
2013-06-19 09:44:36 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 09:47:48 PM  
Imagine how low health care would be if health insurance was outlawed.
 
2013-06-19 09:47:52 PM  

big pig peaches: Dusk-You-n-Me: Wolfmanjames: Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.

You read that but didn't see their source? The super liberal WSJ

And the WSJ blog got the numbers from the department of labor and we know those guys never play with the numbers to make things look better. Not ever.


Oh ffs, you're one of the people who is convinced the unemployment rate is still going up and Obama is just faking it, aren't ya.

Seriously, people like you are why we can't have nice things. You have zero evidence of malfeasance at BLS, NIH, or anywhere else, but since some guy you don't like is in office, they're all a bunch of liars. Look, both under Obama and under Bush, I've objected to changes in CPI baskets, in the definition of the poverty line, and a variety of other econometrics... but if you have no substantive objection, if you're not objecting to an actual thing... then shut the fark up and leave econometrics to grownups.
 
2013-06-19 09:48:03 PM  
Btw tuna fingers, congrats on your son. Mine was born 4/20/12. Our out of pocket cost for a four night hospital stay and a c section was 1100. Same price as an MRI, our benefits dropped 1/1/13.
 
2013-06-19 09:48:08 PM  
Twice I tore a cartilage, once in each knee. Both needed surgery. Wait time in Toronto, the city with the longest wait times? 8 hours and 18 hours. One was a week in hospital, the other 5 days. Total cost without any company insurance? Like $10 for a pair of crutches, and like $10 for some prescription painkillers. Even the physio was free.

Ya, Canada's medical systems sucks, just like the Retardicans say.
 
2013-06-19 09:48:11 PM  

Wyalt Derp: Not when you unskew the statisticals.


I'd rather stay skewed, TYVM.
 
2013-06-19 09:48:50 PM  

great_tigers: Tuna fingers,

My computer is messed up so I can't reply directly to your post. Three years ago I was with the same company, a dmepos. We are having reimbursements decline and claims denied so incredibly much. We went from one of the best companies to work for with many fringe benefits to one that has taken away every benefit but salary and insurance. Our insurance has gone through the roof, we are on pace to have half of our work force this December from one year ago. Please, tell me how I am full of shiat when I watch my wife struggle in pain every day with pain and knowing we could be foreclosed if we do not have a payment plan set up with the surgical site. The orthopedic surgeon that would do her surgery is a client of mine, he knows the struggle we have but is mandated by the hospital to charge the full amount.

Please, let me know how full of


Have you filed a claim for undue costs through the ACA website?  Don't buy into the surgeon's claims that it so bad bad bad.  They may have their own agenda and be full of shiat.  They are not the end-all as far as discourse.
 
2013-06-19 09:49:42 PM  
In addition to that PwC study, here's another:

Dobson DaVanzo & Associates, in a report for the hospital group, concludes that if present trends continue Medicare savings will be $1 trillion more in the next 10 years than the savings projected by the Congressional Budget Office in May. The changes, Al Dobson said in an interview, are the result of marketplace pressures and the Affordable Care Act, which set new penalties for hospital readmissions, and included bundled payments and other incentives for hospitals and doctors to find ways to cut costs without hurting patients. Link
 
2013-06-19 09:50:43 PM  

big pig peaches: Dusk-You-n-Me: Wolfmanjames: Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.

You read that but didn't see their source? The super liberal WSJ

And the WSJ blog got the numbers from the department of labor and we know those guys never play with the numbers to make things look better. Not ever.


Yep, we're all still waiting for the Jack Welch Link or Congress Link to bring us the smoking gun on all those cooked numbers they made up. You'd think a year later they would have found something if their was something to find.

Then again we're talking about Republicans, maybe they're waiting in hopes that cooked numbers just take a long time to travel far enough up their rectums for them to see.
 
2013-06-19 09:51:03 PM  

Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.


THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.
 
2013-06-19 09:51:47 PM  
If you believe that  story, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell cheap. I need the money for medical expenses.
 
2013-06-19 09:52:32 PM  

real_headhoncho: porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal

[img.fark.net image 400x312]


Ponies + healthcare:
fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-06-19 09:52:44 PM  
Really?  My dad is laying in a care facility because of a car accident and the medicine that he was receiving was denied by medicare/medicad and was available to him before.  I wonder how they are cutting costs?  I didn't read TFA, however Obama should be cockpinched.  I say "pinched' because it's probably the size of a clit.
 
2013-06-19 09:54:57 PM  

JohnnyRebel88: Really?  My dad is laying in a care facility because of a car accident and the medicine that he was receiving was denied by medicare/medicad and was available to him before.  I wonder how they are cutting costs?  I didn't read TFA, however Obama should be cockpinched.  I say "pinched' because it's probably the size of a clit.


Oh you're adorable.  Bless your heart.
 
2013-06-19 09:56:30 PM  

firefly212: Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.

THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.


Well, they don't; and I will counter any such opinion with a devastating essay.
 
2013-06-19 09:56:45 PM  

Brick-House: Sure does smell like bull shiat in here.


he who smelt it dealt it... :)
 
2013-06-19 09:56:45 PM  

JohnnyRebel88: Really?  My dad is laying in a care facility because of a car accident and the medicine that he was receiving was denied by medicare/medicad and was available to him before.  I wonder how they are cutting costs?  I didn't read TFA, however Obama should be cockpinched.  I say "pinched' because it's probably the size of a clit.


You could fit the "14CV" into your Fark handle?
 
2013-06-19 09:57:52 PM  

firefly212: Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.

THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.


Because a literature major would have RTFA he linked instead of being a pompous ass?
 
2013-06-19 09:58:07 PM  
"Bending the cost curve" works? The hell you say!

Auto insurance... Health insurance.

It's f*cking math, not socialism.
 
2013-06-19 09:59:11 PM  

tuna fingers: Benjimin_Dover: So an article gives credit to something that hasn't gone into effect yet and people are lapping it up like dooshes. Just another repeat of the same old dog and pony show.

You are misinformed.


no, he's fully infromed.
 
2013-06-19 10:00:45 PM  

Iron Felix: Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.


This is why I don't like ACA. It seems almost like a handout to insurance companies. You HAVE to have health insurance or you pay a tax? Just nationalize it already, since you are forcing people to pay out the ass for insurance now or pay a tax.
 
2013-06-19 10:01:37 PM  
Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!
 
2013-06-19 10:01:54 PM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: Twice I tore a cartilage, once in each knee. Both needed surgery. Wait time in Toronto, the city with the longest wait times? 8 hours and 18 hours. One was a week in hospital, the other 5 days. Total cost without any company insurance? Like $10 for a pair of crutches, and like $10 for some prescription painkillers. Even the physio was free.

Ya, Canada's medical systems sucks, just like the Retardicans say.


If you tear cartilage in your knee, you should do us all a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool. Hobble around for a few years and then eat a bullet. Problem solved. The next generation will be stronger.
 
2013-06-19 10:02:28 PM  

machoprogrammer: It seems almost like a handout to insurance companies.


Guess which political/corporate party you have to thank for that?
 
2013-06-19 10:03:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: firefly212: Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.

THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.

Because a literature major would have RTFA he linked instead of being a pompous ass?


If you go to the wall street journal article that was the source of the scraped up opinion piece, you'll find it is "TheLabor Department's price index for medical care - a figure that includes individuals' outlays for insurance, medical supplies, doctor visits and hospital stays - fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in May."

Someone call rkiller1 and let him know that it must be -1C in hell.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/18/medical-costs-register-fir st -decline-since-1970s/
 
2013-06-19 10:04:40 PM  

theknuckler_33: Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!


The clam is coming! Oh god helps us all, THE CLAM IS COMING!

/Stupid troll deserves a stupid cookie every once in a while.
 
2013-06-19 10:06:15 PM  
I had this thing called supra-ventricular tachycardia.  Out of the blue, my heart would just start beating 100+ a minute. Sometimes, I could stop it myself my triggering the gag reflex. Most times, I had to go to the ER and get a shot of concoctions--all the while being on prescription meds. It was cured with a procedure called ablation. Basically, a nerve in my heart was zapped and killed. This was 1994. It was considered experimental. Never had a problem again.

I couldn't get health insurance since. It was a pre-existing condition. Now, I can. I'm 42 and it's $460/month, but I'm grateful. And, I look forward to shopping across state lines. I would prefer single payer, but this is a good first step. At least for me.
 
2013-06-19 10:06:55 PM  

Deep Contact: Imagine how low health care would be if health insurance was outlawed.


Dialysis treatments in the USA: ~$3000 per visit
Dialysis treatments in China: ~$83.00 per visit

Dialysis care in the USA: treatment, TV, nothing else.
Dialysis care in China: treatment, TV, breakfast/lunch/dinner (depending on your schedule), concierge

Dialysis center sterility in the USA: OMG it's coming right at us!
Dialysis center sterility in China: you can eat off the floor (not that I would, but still)


that is just a small sample of differences in ONE particular healthcare setting.
 
2013-06-19 10:07:05 PM  

Surpheon: theknuckler_33: Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!

The clam is coming! Oh god helps us all, THE CLAM IS COMING!

/Stupid troll deserves a stupid cookie every once in a while.


He was being sarcastic.
 
2013-06-19 10:07:12 PM  

ghall3: Prices fell in May not last year. One month temporary decrease does not a trend make.


No, but the first decrease in forty years is a streak-breaker.
 
2013-06-19 10:09:14 PM  

great_tigers: Tuna fingers,

My computer is messed up so I can't reply directly to your post. Three years ago I was with the same company, a dmepos. We are having reimbursements decline and claims denied so incredibly much. We went from one of the best companies to work for with many fringe benefits to one that has taken away every benefit but salary and insurance. Our insurance has gone through the roof, we are on pace to have half of our work force this December from one year ago. Please, tell me how I am full of shiat when I watch my wife struggle in pain every day with pain and knowing we could be foreclosed if we do not have a payment plan set up with the surgical site. The orthopedic surgeon that would do her surgery is a client of mine, he knows the struggle we have but is mandated by the hospital to charge the full amount.


The new laws HELP people like you. Can you not see that? Nothing in your bad situation is in any way the fault of the ACA or the current government, and in fact is an example of why you need comprehensive reform and a modern national health care system. Stories like yours are why people like Obama are moved to try to improve things. It is just that ANY progress is slow and painful and fought tooth and nail by the entrenched financial interests (and their deceived army of voters)
 
2013-06-19 10:09:14 PM  
That's because everyone heard about the plan and closed doors to medicare patients.
 
2013-06-19 10:09:48 PM  
Meanwhile in the real world:

Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

Birmingham, Mich. Commissioner Gordon Rinschler may have summed up best the reaction that countless businesses and governments are having to ObamaCare, saying: "We simply can't afford the Affordable Care Act."
 
2013-06-19 10:10:49 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Dialysis center sterility in the USA: OMG it's coming right at us!
Dialysis center sterility in China: you can eat off the floor (not that I would, but still)


I'm trying to understand the issue in trying to keep dialysis as sterile of a procedure as possible. And I certainly don't want my tax money going to some dialysis clinic to pay them to treat the abcess they created in the first place.
 
2013-06-19 10:10:50 PM  
Wifes insurance went up 13% leaving me confused about the lower cost?
 
2013-06-19 10:11:13 PM  

ReverendJynxed: That's because everyone heard about the plan and closed doors to medicare patients.


Everyone? That sounds drastic. Surely you have evidence of this.
 
2013-06-19 10:12:27 PM  
Between 2011 and 2012, 3.6 million fewer Americans had trouble paying for their health care costs. Link
 
2013-06-19 10:13:11 PM  

tuna fingers: All of the doctors I see are so against the ACA.  They rant every time I see one.  But, it should be noted that all of the doctors I see are very well-to-do older white males that service a town that is relatively poor.
We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.


The funny thing is my old doc, Doc Gage, thought the little brats comin out of Med School in the 80's were lazy, entitled, self-important, greedy half-wits. He refused several offers on his practice when he retired and stated his saddest moment was not finding a competent hard working doctor to replace him.

His biggest complaint was that the new generation wanted the perks (pay, prestige, et al.) without being willing to work the hard hours. He was a real old school doctor: house calls, being woken up in the middle of the night for emergencies, being on call as an Ob-Gyn, et al. Long hours and few vacations for 30 years. He knew how to rip an insurance rep a new strip as well.

Too bad more docs aren't like him, the medical profession would be all the better.
 
2013-06-19 10:14:02 PM  
If only there were an interweb around when Social Security or Medicaid went into effect. Oh, the massive butthurt. And by year two it was the greatest thing ever. Good luck, fascists.
 
2013-06-19 10:14:06 PM  

hasty ambush: Birmingham, Mich. Commissioner Gordon Rinschler may have summed up best the reaction that countless businesses and governments are having to ObamaCare, saying: "We simply can't afford the Affordable Care Act."


...because he's a farking idiot. Is how that sentence ends.
 
2013-06-19 10:16:22 PM  
I'm a Democrat and even I don't read this shiatty site.
 
2013-06-19 10:16:38 PM  
Ignored by subby and greenlighter


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
*it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs
*Including quote from Democrat mayor admitting he's cutting workers hours to dodge obamacare. Becuase conservatives.


Ohio Department of Insurance predicts premiums in 2014 will rise by 88 percent, a direct result of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The average cost of insurance premiums will stand about $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" compared to 2013



Maryland's largest insurer just proposed, on average, a 25-percent rate hike for individuals next year, with much of that increase directly attributable to the ACA's mandates.


It's official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation's youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.


Insurers predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion...
New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee


As part of the healthcare law, Congress stopped allowing private banks to provide student loans. All student loans are now federal loans, which... has led to higher rates.
 
2013-06-19 10:16:47 PM  

Evil High Priest: If only there were an interweb around when Social Security or Medicaid went into effect. Oh, the massive butthurt. And by year two it was the greatest thing ever. Good luck, fascists.


In about 20 years Republicans will be trying to take credit for ACA. "It was based on a conservative proposal. That's why it worked!"
 
2013-06-19 10:17:01 PM  
The conservatives prefer the nice steady 8% yearly raise in healthcare costs.

This is like 20x watergate, and at least 3.4 Benghazis.
 
2013-06-19 10:17:55 PM  

OnlyM3: *it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Haha you guys are still pushing this article? It's been completely debunked. Hang on to tight man. Never let it go!
 
2013-06-19 10:19:04 PM  

Fart_Machine: Surpheon: theknuckler_33: Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!

The clam is coming! Oh god helps us all, THE CLAM IS COMING!

/Stupid troll deserves a stupid cookie every once in a while.

He was being sarcastic.


Was I?

/yes, I was
//or was I?
///typed clam by accident and fixed it, then put it back to clam
 
2013-06-19 10:20:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: HindiDiscoMonster: Dialysis center sterility in the USA: OMG it's coming right at us!
Dialysis center sterility in China: you can eat off the floor (not that I would, but still)

I'm trying to understand the issue in trying to keep dialysis as sterile of a procedure as possible. And I certainly don't want my tax money going to some dialysis clinic to pay them to treat the abcess they created in the first place.


In Florida at least, I can tell you that some centers have insect issues (esp ants and roaches). the equipment itself is sterile, but I have spoken to Americans who have visited China and gone to dialysis treatments there, and the sterility is seriously, seriously good. If I had the option between the USA and China (as far as dialysis goes) I would go to China.
 
2013-06-19 10:20:29 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Evil High Priest: If only there were an interweb around when Social Security or Medicaid went into effect. Oh, the massive butthurt. And by year two it was the greatest thing ever. Good luck, fascists.

In about 20 years Republicans will be trying to take credit for ACA. "It was based on a conservative proposal. That's why it worked!"


Well, the GOP IS the party of Lincoln.
 
2013-06-19 10:28:38 PM  
I got completely screwed by Obamacare.

My employer cut my hours down to part-time just a couple weeks before the insurance companies deadline to lock-in their new rates for next year. My bosses where so scared of rate increases that they cut everyone's hours down so they wouldn't have to cover insurance. I live in Washington state, and the insurance companies have already posted their new rates under the ACA.

Every major insurance company promised 50-70% rate increases..... but instead, every single one of them dropped their rates 10-15%.

/Unfortunately I still make half as much money now, and can't afford my bills :(
//And my bosses are not about to admit they screwed up and caused a bunch of people all the problems they caused just because they're crazy republicans.
 
2013-06-19 10:31:19 PM  
From the WSJ article:

"The Labor Department's price index for medical care - a figure that includes individuals' outlays for insurance, medical supplies, doctor visits and hospital stays - fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in May."

Is this index tracking changes in prices or changes in expenditures?  Consumers may buy less health care because it's gotten more expensive.
 
2013-06-19 10:32:46 PM  
I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years
 
2013-06-19 10:36:40 PM  

Surpheon: Someone call rkiller1 and let him know that it must be -1C in hell.


My phone is ringing off the hook.  Thanks for nothing!
/Is the road getting there still paved with good intentions because Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me
 
2013-06-19 10:39:39 PM  

Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years


Be thankful for your health and the opportunity to aid the unhealthy.
 
2013-06-19 10:41:02 PM  
Lefty blog sucks. Lefties pile in thread, sucking.
 
2013-06-19 10:41:15 PM  

Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years


Without context your statement is meaningless. Do you buy individual insurance or through your employer? Did your plan change? If employer plan, did your employer change their contribution towards the premium?

FYI, insurance premiums have been rising at an alarming rate for many years prior to "Obamacare".
 
2013-06-19 10:42:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Be thankful for your health and the opportunity to have your government penalize you for it.


Hell yea. HELL YEA!
 
2013-06-19 10:42:12 PM  

Iron Felix: Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.


Well if you'd spent more time working and less time farking you might not have gotten laid off.
 
2013-06-19 10:43:43 PM  
more of Obamas sinister plan to destroy america by making it better.

damn he's clever.
 
2013-06-19 10:45:25 PM  
The stupidity. Holy crap. Habe costs gone up overall since ACA? Yes? Then you can't use one data point out of a trend to say sucess.

You dinegrate anti global warming folks for using one data point out of many. Hell you still talk shiat with the last 15 year trend. But yet you do the same to support your politics.

farking idiotic.
 
2013-06-19 10:47:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years

Without context your statement is meaningless. Do you buy individual insurance or through your employer? Did your plan change? If employer plan, did your employer change their contribution towards the premium?

FYI, insurance premiums have been rising at an alarming rate for many years prior to "Obamacare".


through my employer. no, the contribution actually went up, but many people at work use the insurance... so the rates go up for everyone, which kind of sucks.
 
2013-06-19 10:48:24 PM  

OnlyM3: Ignored by subby and greenlighter


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
*it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs
*Including quote from Democrat mayor admitting he's cutting workers hours to dodge obamacare. Becuase conservatives.


Ohio Department of Insurance predicts premiums in 2014 will rise by 88 percent, a direct result of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The average cost of insurance premiums will stand about $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" compared to 2013


Maryland's largest insurer just proposed, on average, a 25-percent rate hike for individuals next year, with much of that increase directly attributable to the ACA's mandates.


It's official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation's youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.


Insurers predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion...
New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee

As part of the healthcare law, Congress stopped allowing private banks to provide student loans. All student loans are now federal loans, which... has led to higher rates.


Shhhhh, Hush now. Everyone knows Half Black Jesus figured out how to cover more people for less money. Paul Krugman says so.
 
2013-06-19 10:48:32 PM  

Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years


You live in a tightly-secured bubble and the overall health of the nation has no effect on you.

/i hope you've been getting annual physicals
//you don't want to placed in front of a death panel, do you?
 
2013-06-19 10:50:27 PM  

OnlyM3: Ignored by subby and greenlighter


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
*it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs
*Including quote from Democrat mayor admitting he's cutting workers hours to dodge obamacare. Becuase conservatives.


Ohio Department of Insurance predicts premiums in 2014 will rise by 88 percent, a direct result of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The average cost of insurance premiums will stand about $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" compared to 2013


Maryland's largest insurer just proposed, on average, a 25-percent rate hike for individuals next year, with much of that increase directly attributable to the ACA's mandates.


It's official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation's youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.


Insurers predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion...
New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee

As part of the healthcare law, Congress stopped allowing private banks to provide student loans. All student loans are now federal loans, which... has led to higher rates.


That's not true - a lot of us ignore derp.
 
2013-06-19 10:51:01 PM  

MyRandomName: The stupidity. Holy crap. Habe costs gone up overall since ACA? Yes? Then you can't use one data point out of a trend to say sucess.

You dinegrate anti global warming folks for using one data point out of many. Hell you still talk shiat with the last 15 year trend. But yet you do the same to support your politics.

farking idiotic.


It's almost as if something just came in to change the environment. ACA just changed the healthcare environment. Its policies alter the rate of change within months to years. Industrial age changed the climate. This rate of change is on the order of decades.

Farking idiotic, indeed.
 
2013-06-19 10:51:49 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I think it was Karl Marx who said, "Decent health care for the working class is the true path to Communism."


Wasn't it Satan who said, "The quick path to hell is to believe anything a conservative has to say about anything."

//hell sure is crowded down here with all the libertarians.
 
2013-06-19 10:51:54 PM  

Sammichless: I got completely screwed by Obamacare.

My employer cut my hours down to part-time just a couple weeks before the insurance companies deadline to lock-in their new rates for next year. My bosses where so scared of rate increases that they cut everyone's hours down so they wouldn't have to cover insurance.


Are you saying they (your employer) covered insurance before? Because if rates were their concern, they would have dropped it long before the ACA. I mean, they wouldn't be 'scared of rate increases' unless they were already including health care coverage. They could have saved that expense before the ACA by just dropping it altogether without cutting anyone's hours. Maybe you should clarify your comment because it doesn't really make any sense.
 
2013-06-19 10:52:24 PM  

OnlyM3: Ignored by subby and greenlighter


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
*it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs
*Including quote from Democrat mayor admitting he's cutting workers hours to dodge obamacare. Becuase conservatives.


Ohio Department of Insurance predicts premiums in 2014 will rise by 88 percent, a direct result of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The average cost of insurance premiums will stand about $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" compared to 2013


Maryland's largest insurer just proposed, on average, a 25-percent rate hike for individuals next year, with much of that increase directly attributable to the ACA's mandates.


It's official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation's youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.


Insurers predict 100% to 400% Obamacare rate explosion...
New regulations, policies, taxes, fees and mandates are the reason for the unexpected "rate shock," according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee

As part of the healthcare law, Congress stopped allowing private banks to provide student loans. All student loans are now federal loans, which... has led to higher rates.


Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag

Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern.  Some of those articles have been shown to be complete horseshiat, and the others probably aren't far behind.

That chicken has to be just a bloody lump of feathers by now.
 
2013-06-19 10:54:43 PM  
CA resident here. I've looked at the rates in the new high-risk pool (I have a pre-existing condition).

Young, otherwise healthy, and the last quote I got for individual health coverage was over $3000/month. (No, that's not a typo). My monthly health insurance costs will decline by 90% under Obamacare.

I for one, welcome our new affordable-healthcare-providing overlords.
 
2013-06-19 10:55:17 PM  

jaayjones: Wifes insurance went up 13% leaving me confused about the lower cost?


Now I don't feel so bad about our 9% increase. Also sucks that all our co pays have increased dramatically.
 
2013-06-19 10:55:25 PM  

OnlyM3: Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
*it's California, so obviously the fault of "republicans".


Honestly when the fist link is an article that has been debunked quite a few times here on fark it's really hard to take yo seriously.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:34 PM  

Dinobot: theknuckler_33: Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years

Without context your statement is meaningless. Do you buy individual insurance or through your employer? Did your plan change? If employer plan, did your employer change their contribution towards the premium?

FYI, insurance premiums have been rising at an alarming rate for many years prior to "Obamacare".

through my employer. no, the contribution actually went up, but many people at work use the insurance... so the rates go up for everyone, which kind of sucks.


So, you are saying the company is contributing a higher percentage of the premium than before but yet you are still paying 20% in premiums (paycheck deductions).

That is your assertion? Just want to be clear.

If that is the case, you are being farked and Obamacare would likely benefit you in a big way because you could buy your own individual plan.  In fact, since the exchanges aren't in place yet, it seems that the old system is what is screwing you.
 
2013-06-19 10:59:49 PM  
I'm pretty sure it's because death panels. Dead people are a lot cheaper, you know.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:04 PM  
A lot biatching from Republicans in this thread about the plan that was a response to Hillary Care from Republicans. Teatards, Teahadists, Teavangelicals, all of you.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:42 PM  

GWSuperfan: CA resident here. I've looked at the rates in the new high-risk pool (I have a pre-existing condition).

Young, otherwise healthy, and the last quote I got for individual health coverage was over $3000/month. (No, that's not a typo). My monthly health insurance costs will decline by 90% under Obamacare.

I for one, welcome our new affordable-healthcare-providing overlords.


You don't sound very bootstrappy, citizen.
 
2013-06-19 11:02:07 PM  

2farknfunny: Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.

well, there's your mom...


Two thumbs up
 
2013-06-19 11:04:07 PM  

rkiller1: A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.  Call me when medical prices are falling or when it's -1C in Hell.


Why do you hate Hope n Change? You must be racist.
 
2013-06-19 11:04:50 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal

Even the "This is a good deal" pony.


Yeah, this.

/tuned in late
 
2013-06-19 11:06:23 PM  

tuna fingers: Fissile: Of course health care costs fell, the sick/old are being sent off to Obama death camps.

You know this isn't true.
The sick and old are being propped up and slain in staged mass murders like Aurora and Sandy Hook.


This too.
 
2013-06-19 11:06:58 PM  

theknuckler_33: Dinobot: theknuckler_33: Dinobot: I aint seeing it. My insurance went up by 20% and I havent even used it at all in 5 years

Without context your statement is meaningless. Do you buy individual insurance or through your employer? Did your plan change? If employer plan, did your employer change their contribution towards the premium?

FYI, insurance premiums have been rising at an alarming rate for many years prior to "Obamacare".

through my employer. no, the contribution actually went up, but many people at work use the insurance... so the rates go up for everyone, which kind of sucks.

So, you are saying the company is contributing a higher percentage of the premium than before but yet you are still paying 20% in premiums (paycheck deductions).

That is your assertion? Just want to be clear.

If that is the case, you are being farked and Obamacare would likely benefit you in a big way because you could buy your own individual plan.  In fact, since the exchanges aren't in place yet, it seems that the old system is what is screwing you.


I'm in Texas... I dont even know where to shop for insurance =/
 
2013-06-19 11:07:54 PM  
tuna fingers:  We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.


THHHHIIIIIIIISSSSSS.
 
2013-06-19 11:07:56 PM  
My insurance premiums went down this year.  Went down last year, too.  Hooray!
 
2013-06-19 11:08:38 PM  

Dinobot: I'm in Texas...


There's your trouble.
 
2013-06-19 11:08:43 PM  
Oh man, the gnashing and wailing from the dittoheads in this thread is just precious.
 
2013-06-19 11:10:23 PM  
For the first time ever, my wife went to get her mammogram since it, and numerous other preventative tests are now free under Obamacare and they found "an area of concern".  Another free test later and they were able to determine that it was a fibrous mass and not a tumor.  Thanks Obamacare.

/for what its worth in this dumb argument.
 
2013-06-19 11:11:00 PM  
What a well written, objective, unbiased article.
 
2013-06-19 11:13:15 PM  
img.fark.net

Clinton's fault.

All those years of peace & prosperity were merely "the calm before the storm."
 
2013-06-19 11:13:33 PM  
Yes, I'm sure this is 100% true.
 
2013-06-19 11:13:45 PM  
My health insurance premiums shot up nearly 22%. Thanks Obama indeed.
 
2013-06-19 11:14:32 PM  
But death panels.
 
2013-06-19 11:16:02 PM  
Mine stayed the same. Some employers need to negotiate with insurance providers better.
 
2013-06-19 11:22:11 PM  
"Healthcare? Fark you, I got mine."

"....and this is a Christian nation."
 
2013-06-19 11:23:49 PM  
Health care costs did not fall.  The Labor Department just failed to factor in all of the new tax hikes.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-19 11:24:13 PM  
According to the article, much of the "decrease" (my premiums went up 9.5% last year, so I must be the outlier) is due to cutting the rates at which doctors and hospitals get reimbursed. Using this model, we could also push down food costs, if we just put a cap on what farmers can charge for growing it and grocery stores can charge to sell it. And cars, rent, clothing ...

Nixon tried this too, in his efforts to fight inflation. Look up wage/price controls.
 
2013-06-19 11:25:39 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Sure, lower, because they don't pay out a goddamn red cent.


this
 
2013-06-19 11:30:46 PM  
Mike Chewbacca: Well, the GOP IS the party of Lincoln.

Considering that the Cheetos-grubbing, racist, misogynyst rebs were not part of the Party of Lincoln when he was president, and only bolted from the Democratic party when they (the party, not the orange finger brigade) embraced equality for Blacks, you must be right.

Oh wait, we were talking about the southern strategy. Silly me.

What were you derping about again?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 11:35:23 PM  

Revek: ThatGuyGreg: Sure, lower, because they don't pay out a goddamn red cent.

this


In that case they are required to issue refunds. I believe they paid out 1.1 billion last year in refunds.

If you didn't get anything back, it may be with your employer that decided to keep it.
 
2013-06-19 11:39:32 PM  
Given that this is the administration that's redifined math equations by leaving out variables and ignoring people who point out the obvious (unemployment is 7.x percent, rilly rilly!), I'm not going to hold my breath to find out if this article is close to the truth.

Of course, Obama-care is going to ruin it all soon enough.
 
2013-06-19 11:39:48 PM  
If you want to lower health care costs stop serving people who can't afford it. My chronically unemployed cousnin-in-law (if that is such a thing) or the girl I went to school with who has never been married and has 2 kids and a job at the local grocer stocking shelves are great examples. Why does someone who refuses to try at any job or a person who keeps on having kids with no way to afford them theirself (and were never in a situation to afford them in the first place) be rewarded with free government handouts?

Until the handouts have time limits put on them I will always vote for the person who is most likely to restrict them. Nadia Suleman should be living in a cardboard house with her 14 children. She used money designated for college to get preggers with 8 kids after she already had 6. The liberal Farker will gladly let her use tax money to reward her with a house, medical care, and food so she can possibly have a few more kids. Why not? Its what Fark Jesus would do.
 
2013-06-19 11:48:52 PM  

Shryke: Lefty blog sucks. Lefties pile in thread, sucking.


So, we allow you to retort. Got anything or just bullsh*t? Cause we have plenty of sh*t.
 
2013-06-19 11:50:43 PM  

hasty ambush: Meanwhile in the real world:

Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

Birmingham, Mich. Commissioner Gordon Rinschler may have summed up best the reaction that countless businesses and governments are having to ObamaCare, saying: "We simply can't afford the Affordable Care Act."


We are by far the wealthiest nation on the planet. Don't give me that "we can't afford it" nonsense.
 
2013-06-19 11:52:45 PM  

Fart_Machine: firefly212: Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.

THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.

Because a literature major would have RTFA he linked instead of being a pompous ass?


Sorry, did I link an article somewhere? Because I didn't mean to if I did... my comment was solely with regard to the inflation rate not being a f(n) of the size of the recipient pool... there's a really loose correlation (pretty poor one that doesn't hold up well), and no inference of causality at all. And ya, I'll be a pompous jackass when it comes to people lying about how math works... math is the only pure, true, and good thing in this world, and people constantly try to f it up by mixing up what they want math to be, what they think math should be, or their own human failings in math... it makes me mad, very mad.
 
2013-06-19 11:54:33 PM  

inglixthemad: tuna fingers: All of the doctors I see are so against the ACA.  They rant every time I see one.  But, it should be noted that all of the doctors I see are very well-to-do older white males that service a town that is relatively poor.
We quit seeing doctors.
We now see nurse practitioners.  Much less derp.  Really.

The funny thing is my old doc, Doc Gage, thought the little brats comin out of Med School in the 80's were lazy, entitled, self-important, greedy half-wits. He refused several offers on his practice when he retired and stated his saddest moment was not finding a competent hard working doctor to replace him.

His biggest complaint was that the new generation wanted the perks (pay, prestige, et al.) without being willing to work the hard hours. He was a real old school doctor: house calls, being woken up in the middle of the night for emergencies, being on call as an Ob-Gyn, et al. Long hours and few vacations for 30 years. He knew how to rip an insurance rep a new strip as well.

Too bad more docs aren't like him, the medical profession would be all the better.


There are a few. Last time I couldn't walk, my GP came the extra couple blocks from his office to my house to make sure it was just an MS flareup and not something that I actually needed to go to the hospital for. There are good guys out there... they're hard to find, and few and far between... but they do exist.
 
2013-06-19 11:54:47 PM  

Terrible Old Man: Given that this is the administration that's redifined math equations by leaving out variables and ignoring people who point out the obvious (unemployment is 7.x percent, rilly rilly!),


You mean using the same metric that previous Administrations have used to determine unemployment?  Yes, math is a liberal conspiracy.
 
2013-06-19 11:58:35 PM  

hasty ambush: Meanwhile in the real world:

Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

Birmingham, Mich. Commissioner Gordon Rinschler may have summed up best the reaction that countless businesses and governments are having to ObamaCare, saying: "We simply can't afford the Affordable Care Act."


I didn't realize that screwing over workers by making full-time jobs into multiple part time jobs had become something that local governments were doing. Seriously, when did this country get so off course that paying a person an honest days wage (enough for healthcare, food, and housing) for an honest days work started to seem like such an onerous burden. The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens... these are people who WANT to work, who want to put in a hard day's labor... giving them the shaft in this manner is just wrong, and we shouldn't tolerate it from either our government or our businesses. Good, hard-working people should have access to real jobs, not McJobs.
 
2013-06-20 12:01:19 AM  

firefly212: Sorry, did I link an article somewhere? Because I didn't mean to if I did...


Unless your name is Dusk-You-n-Me you didn't.  That's the poster who linked the article which says...

"The rate of growth in healthcare costs slowed predictably during the recession... PwC's Health Research Institute expects that trend to continue not only as the economy continues to improve, but after the healthcare law brings millions of uninsured people into the healthcare system, driving up demand."

Take it up with these guys.
 
2013-06-20 12:03:03 AM  

machoprogrammer: Iron Felix: Try going to work for a great company with a great insurance plan.  Then you get laid off unexpectedly and cobra costs your family $1900/month.  Healthcare in the US is an absolute joke.

This is why I don't like ACA. It seems almost like a handout to insurance companies. You HAVE to have health insurance or you pay a tax? Just nationalize it already, since you are forcing people to pay out the ass for insurance now or pay a tax.


I agree in so much as I think there should be a "public option"... I want people to have choice, but the reality is that some times, you trust government more than you trust a business who has the stated shareholder goal of paying as little as they can legally get away with for your medical care.
 
2013-06-20 12:06:45 AM  

firefly212: And ya, I'll be a pompous jackass when it comes to people lying about how math works... math is the only pure, true, and good thing in this world, and people constantly try to f it up by mixing up what they want math to be, what they think math should be, or their own human failings in math... it makes me mad, very mad.


Ok, my apologies on the pompous ass part.  You have a very good point but I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-06-20 12:13:52 AM  

Fart_Machine: firefly212: Sorry, did I link an article somewhere? Because I didn't mean to if I did...

Unless your name is Dusk-You-n-Me you didn't.  That's the poster who linked the article which says...

"The rate of growth in healthcare costs slowed predictably during the recession... PwC's Health Research Institute expects that trend to continue not only as the economy continues to improve, but after the healthcare law brings millions of uninsured people into the healthcare system, driving up demand."

Take it up with these guys.


I'm sorry, it seemed like you were really frustrated with me for some link I was presumed to have posted, I was quite confused.

As for the driving up demand, it's not as simple as "add customers, increase demand"... by treating transmissible diseases earlier, we'll see lower vectoring rates of some of the most common problems.... if we treat pneumonia early, instead of telling the indigent that we're going make them wait...  instead of them vectoring it to people near them before going to the healthcare system they would have been in anyways (in the ER instead of a clinic), we've not only curbed costs (clinic treatment+ generic PCE+xray= maybe 250 bucks, ER treatment= a few grand, at a minimum), we've also effectively, by way of preventing vectoring, taken a potential dozen people who would have gotten sick out of the system by removing the initial node.

I'm not an epidemiologist, so I can't really speak to the data about how many visits will be stopped by early intervention based on expanded coverage, but I do see that there are some incredibly substantive factors that get glossed over far too easily by opponents who try to hyper-simplify both the law and the existing system.

What I am though, is a graduate in Econ with a specialty in stat analysis... there certainly is a potential for sector inflation if demand skyrockets (as some opponents of the law say it will)... but so far, we're not seeing that at all... so when I see people not only misunderstand the inflation number, but also take a number that is based on average individual expenditure, and argue that component is skewed by a (current) non-existent jump in demand (we have not seen a skyrocket in demand thus far)... I get rather frustrated. The evidence may well appear for one side or the other to be vindicated... but math is a language, a descriptor... it is not an arbiter of right and wrong, so when we try to mangle it such that we can use it as a cudgel or a substitute for judgement, we do neither ourselves, nor the public discourse, any favors.
 
2013-06-20 12:17:31 AM  
Just raise the top income tax rate, levy a tax on so-called 'Cadillac' health plans, levy a tax on medical devices, Raid the VA and tri-care budget, take money out of medicare and put all that into the offset of consumer costs. In other words,  Raise taxes and use it to subsidize costs.  Ooh! but look at all the money I save!

firefly212: The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens


So an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?  Please explain the origin of that debt.  What then does B owe to A upon A's request?  B willingly chose to purchase a home and start a family. Why is it fair to A that he has to labor not only for his own family but for B?
 
2013-06-20 12:21:53 AM  
My premium went up 1% this last year with benefits unchanged. That is the smallest increase for the company in or a decade.
 
2013-06-20 12:22:23 AM  

o5iiawah: Just raise the top income tax rate, levy a tax on so-called 'Cadillac' health plans, levy a tax on medical devices, Raid the VA and tri-care budget, take money out of medicare and put all that into the offset of consumer costs. In other words,  Raise taxes and use it to subsidize costs.  Ooh! but look at all the money I save!

firefly212: The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens

So an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?  Please explain the origin of that debt.  What then does B owe to A upon A's request?  B willingly chose to purchase a home and start a family. Why is it fair to A that he has to labor not only for his own family but for B?


Oh, it's the guy who thinks civil servants and public employees don't pay taxes themselves and spend their money in an alternate dimension.
 
2013-06-20 12:26:36 AM  

Fart_Machine: Oh, it's the guy who thinks civil servants and public employees don't pay taxes themselves and spend their money in an alternate dimension.


Of course they pay taxes. I never said they dont. But from where are their salaries derived?
Maybe for once I'll get an answer out of you.
 
2013-06-20 12:27:29 AM  

porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal


Benjimin_Dover: So an article gives credit to something that hasn't gone into effect yet and people are lapping it up like dooshes. Just another repeat of the same old dog and pony show.


Talking points detected. I'm guessing Rush mentioned ponies at some point today. I'm curious, though - what's a doosh?

Everyone knows that the rate of increase in medical costs has leveled off in the past few years. Morgan Housel has been writing about it at Motley Fool, with a lot of interesting statistical background. It shouldn't have surprised us if this furious deceleration in cost finally led to an actual decrease, at least for the short term.
 
2013-06-20 12:28:51 AM  

o5iiawah: Just raise the top income tax rate, levy a tax on so-called 'Cadillac' health plans, levy a tax on medical devices, Raid the VA and tri-care budget, take money out of medicare and put all that into the offset of consumer costs. In other words,  Raise taxes and use it to subsidize costs.  Ooh! but look at all the money I save!

firefly212: The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens

So an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?  Please explain the origin of that debt.  What then does B owe to A upon A's request?  B willingly chose to purchase a home and start a family. Why is it fair to A that he has to labor not only for his own family but for B?


Yes, you owe tax money from your wages to the government... You owe for police, you owe for fire, you owe for ambulances, you owe for roads that enable you to get to work, you owe for roads that enable your product to go to consumers from your work, you owe for the streetlights that owe those streets. The people who do those works, who do those jobs, are owed money, by you, for the performance of their duties.

Jesus Christ, are you like farking 4 or something?
 
2013-06-20 12:34:43 AM  

firefly212: Yes, you owe tax money from your wages to the government... You owe for police, you owe for fire, you owe for ambulances, you owe for roads that enable you to get to work, you owe for roads that enable your product to go to consumers from your work, you owe for the streetlights that owe those streets. The people who do those works, who do those jobs, are owed money, by you, for the performance of their duties.

Jesus Christ, are you like farking 4 or something?


That question flew over your head apparently.

Your initial argument was that we should raise taxes to make everyone's lives better so they can afford families that they willingly started and mortgages that they willingly signed.  You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.  I have no issue with taxes funding the legitimate functions of government.

Try again without strapping an Atlas Rocket booster to the goalposts - Unless of course your end point is that taxes should be unlimited to fund whatever lifestyle choices anyone in society wishes to take on.
 
2013-06-20 12:35:03 AM  

o5iiawah: Of course they pay taxes. I never said they dont. But from where are their salaries derived?


They get paid by their employer the same as you do for doing a service.  If a government employee pays for groceries does that mean he's using your money or that the store is government funded?
 
2013-06-20 12:37:12 AM  

o5iiawah: You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.


Obviously those appear by magic.
 
2013-06-20 12:40:52 AM  
Subby, remember you said this.

We will.
 
2013-06-20 12:41:43 AM  

Fart_Machine: If a government employee pays for groceries does that mean he's using your money


Just as quickly as you charge that when a civil servant spends their money, it "Doens't occur in a vaccum" I'll counter with saying that the taxation required to fund the civil servant's salary doesn't come in a vacuum either.  For legitimate functions of government this is cool because society needs cops, teachers, firefighters and clerks at the county mortgage office.  I get that and I've never said anything to the contrary.

but where your argument breaks down is in this moronic belief that if we keep raising taxes and distribute it out to people that they will spend it and it will be good.  You and others ignore where that money came from and what hit a family or individual takes when taxes are raised.
 
2013-06-20 12:42:06 AM  
Here's how Obamacare works: You make $7.50 an hour - you're the exact demographic the ACA was supposed to help. Let's assume you're one of the LUCKY ones who wasn't cut down below 30 hours a week so your employer could avoid paying for your insurance. Those people are obviously screwed so I don't need to talk about them. Your employer graciously offers you a far-worse-than-bronze package (because it has a waver excluding it from the ACA requirements!) which gives you a MAXIMUM yearly payout of $5000 (that's 0.25% the minimum for the year set by the ACA - hooray for wavers!). They offer you this at the defined "affordable" 9.5% of your MAGI (about 12% of your ACTUAL income), so $1425 a year not including copays and deductables. You HAVE TO BUY THIS POLICY or buy on the exchange. But if you buy on the exchange you don't get a subsidy! Why? Because your bastardized, wavered, useless plan your employer offered you was "affordable" by their standards for employer provided healthcare. And what if they HADN'T offered this plan that pays less than 1% of a bronze plan? Well you'd get a massive subsidy to buy on the exchange! Suddenly, because you aren't buying from your employer, what counts as "affordable" has dramatically changed! The ACA now says you can only afford to pay 2% of your MAGI, and that you now deserve a silver plan that doesn't have any wavers and offers at least $2,000,000 of coverage a year. So you get a refundable tax rebate for $3,200 so long as you buy insurance. But you'd choose a cheaper bronze plan (and still get $2mil of coverage), so you'd actually get PAID to get insurance because your plan only costs $3,000 a year. But unfortunately you were offered employer insurance with a $1000 a year maximum outpatient payout for $1425 a year so you're just out of luck!

Thanks Obama! You're really helping the people that need it!

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
/can't argue with SCIENCE
 
2013-06-20 12:44:47 AM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.

Obviously those appear by magic.


Levying taxes to pay for a streetlight (which is probably paid for via your property tax) is necessary.
Levying taxes to pay for a lifestyle that a particular individual wishes to live is up for debate and it is the question I've asked.  You and firefly countered with "But we need streetlights"

One day the goalposts may come back around and I'll get a straight answer out of you.
 
2013-06-20 12:46:25 AM  

o5iiawah: but where your argument breaks down is in this moronic belief that if we keep raising taxes and distribute it out to people that they will spend it and it will be good. You and others ignore where that money came from and what hit a family or individual takes when taxes are raised.


Actually nobody said to raise taxes infinitely.   That's a strawman you created.  But your salary is taking money away from the shareholders and the company.  I'm sure there are families involved too.  Why don't you ask for less money and do what's right by them.
 
2013-06-20 12:46:50 AM  
yep, just like the water level drops at a beach before a tsunami hits
 
2013-06-20 12:47:05 AM  
My company very slightly raised the rates for office workers like myself and is now making a plan available to the underpaid warehouse workers who were getting nothing at all previously.

All I can say to that is, well, GOOD.
 
2013-06-20 12:47:50 AM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.

Obviously those appear by magic.

Levying taxes to pay for a streetlight (which is probably paid for via your property tax) is necessary.
Levying taxes to pay for a lifestyle that a particular individual wishes to live is up for debate and it is the question I've asked.  You and firefly countered with "But we need streetlights"

One day the goalposts may come back around and I'll get a straight answer out of you.


I have no idea what goalposts you're referring to and the fact that you only got "streetlights" out of his entire statement indicates the point was entirely lost on you.
 
2013-06-20 12:49:35 AM  

o5iiawah: For legitimate functions of government this is cool because society needs cops, teachers, firefighters and clerks at the county mortgage office.


We just shouldn't pay them anything because that would be taking money out of your pocket or something.
 
2013-06-20 12:49:46 AM  
Costs went down mostly because of the death panels. It really gets expensive keeping old folks alive.
 
2013-06-20 12:51:42 AM  

o5iiawah: Levying taxes to pay for a lifestyle that a particular individual wishes


Apparently, wanting to live is now considered a "lifestyle that a particular individual wishes"
 
2013-06-20 12:54:35 AM  

Fart_Machine: But your salary is taking money away from the shareholders and the company.  I'm sure there are families involved too.  Why don't you ask for less money and do what's right by them.


I really dont think you know what a job is, or how it works.
 
2013-06-20 12:56:32 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Apparently, wanting to live is now considered a "lifestyle that a particular individual wishes"


The point originally reference was paying someone's mortgage and feeding their family.

I guess we're long past the point of actually being able to afford the choices one willingly makes.

Fart_Machine: We just shouldn't pay them anything because that would be taking money out of your pocket or something


I never said that.
 
2013-06-20 12:59:44 AM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: But your salary is taking money away from the shareholders and the company.  I'm sure there are families involved too.  Why don't you ask for less money and do what's right by them.

I really dont think you know what a job is, or how it works.


I really don't think you know how inane your arguments are when put in front of you.
 
2013-06-20 12:59:55 AM  

Fart_Machine: We just shouldn't pay them anything because that would be taking money out of your pocket or something.


Never said that.

They should be paid a fair wage based on the compensation of similar trades/jobs in the area.  Should a breadwinner with a mortgage and family of 4 be paid more for doing the same job than a single woman who rents an apartment?  That sounds like misogyny to me.
 
2013-06-20 01:00:00 AM  

Brick-House: Sure does smell like bull shiat in here.


Once you get flushed down the place should brighten up.
 
2013-06-20 01:00:03 AM  
Let's just get to the core of the issue. Obama sucks and the people that still support him suck even more.
 
2013-06-20 01:02:26 AM  

theknuckler_33: Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!


Don't mix Absinthe with LSD.
 
2013-06-20 01:03:30 AM  

inglixthemad: His biggest complaint was that the new generation wanted the perks (pay, prestige, et al.) without being willing to work the hard hours. He was a real old school doctor: house calls, being woken up in the middle of the night for emergencies, being on call as an Ob-Gyn, et al. Long hours and few vacations for 30 years. He knew how to rip an insurance rep a new strip as well.

Too bad more docs aren't like him, the medical profession would be all the better.


In a world where the country is fully insured, fewer people end up in the ED for their colds. They get preventative care so the polyp is removed, not the cancer. They're more employable.

And we'll need a buttload of primary care docs to do that grunt work. We're about to see Medicine become a very middle-class job. Not many smart people will want to put up with the demanding, self-destructive, undereducated patients that are 'Merica. And even fewer smart people will want to deal with the mandatory billing and insurance requirements to get adequate compensation. And even the stupid people won't want to deal with the frivolous lawsuits that are commonplace.

So, good luck to us all in 20 years. Our doctors will be rushed, undereducated, and overwhelmed.
And that is not Obama's fault, truly. It's the media, that teaches our population to be stupid and dependent.
 
2013-06-20 01:04:37 AM  

Fart_Machine: I really don't think you know how inane your arguments are when put in front of you.


Why would I ask for less money?  my labor provides value to the company which they then use to make money.  If they felt like they were overcompensating me, they would let me know and then I could decide whether or not I wanted to stay or go.

No shareholder of a company is having trouble feeding their kids because of the general payroll of said company.  If there was no payroll, there'd be no employees to make money for the company.  If revenue is down, people are let go. If someone's labor doesn't bring the value to the company that the company pays them in salary, then equilibrium has to be found.

This has nothing to do with the original point which was "If a guy wants to own a house and have a family, thats his right and someone else has to pay for it"
 
2013-06-20 01:04:53 AM  

tuna fingers: great_tigers: Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.

Good for you!
I'm glad you are opting for choice.
I call bullshiat.

Three years ago, your wife was probably employed and now she isn't.  Or some other piece of the puzzle is missing.


You.  Suck on my nuts.

My insurance went up AND my doctor decided to implement a 500$ per person charge for the wife and I. WEEEEE.
Apparently, the doc has a lot of medicare patients, and was getting reamed.

Ask me if my insurance went down by $2500 like Big Joe and Barry said.

Go ahead.
 
2013-06-20 01:05:44 AM  

o5iiawah: I never said that.


o5iiawah: So an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?


There's a scroll function on the side of your screen if you need it.
 
2013-06-20 01:08:09 AM  

dmax: So, good luck to us all in 20 years. Our doctors will be rushed, undereducated, and overwhelmed.


....This is different from now...how exactly?
 
2013-06-20 01:09:12 AM  

Evil High Priest: If only there were an interweb around when Social Security or Medicaid went into effect. Oh, the massive butthurt. And by year two it was the greatest thing ever. Good luck, fascists.


Yeah, exactly. In 1965 the same brand of handwringing Republitards and medical corporatists fearing for their inflated profits came up with bogus butthurt that looks remarkably similar to the warmed over butthurt over the ACA.  Lest we forget:



 This program could destroy private initiative for our aged to protect themselves with insurance against the cost of illness....Presently, over 60 percent of our older citizens purchase hospital and medical insurance without Government assistance. This private effort would cease if Government benefits were given to all our older citizens.
- Sen. Milward Simpson (R-WY).08/08/1965

 We oppose the Medicare program because foreign experience has shown that socialized medicine is harmful to both the doctor and the patient, primarily to the patient. He suffers most.
- Harry E. Northam, director of the Association of American Physicians.04/11/1965

 ...we cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer.
- Rep. Durward Hall (R-MO).04/08/1965

[The Medicare bill would] set up a health care program which served little or no necessary social purpose and which would be a direct, unwarranted and completely unfair intrusion in private enterprise.
-Dr. Clifford H. Keene, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan.

...the result of such programs in other countries had been over utilization of facilities and rising costs, and that as emphasis shifted from quality to cost, as it must under a publicly financed program, a deterioration in the quality of care is inescapable.
-Dr. Donovan Ward, President, American Medical Association. 04/01/1965

It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether they be young or old. It charts a course from which there will be no turning back.
-"Senator Carl Curtis (R-NE), 1965.
aaaaand, finally, Saint Ronald:

Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business.
- Ronald Reagan

 
2013-06-20 01:09:14 AM  

dmax: So, good luck to us all in 20 years. Our doctors will be rushed, undereducated, and overwhelmed.


Or maybe, just maybe, Americans are not stupider and lazier than the entire rest of the first world and we'll end up with OK medical service - just like every other first world nation. Hell, my English relatives will spend all day ripping the NHS but still consider the US healthcare system a global laughing stock.
 
2013-06-20 01:10:06 AM  

dmax: inglixthemad: His biggest complaint was that the new generation wanted the perks (pay, prestige, et al.) without being willing to work the hard hours. He was a real old school doctor: house calls, being woken up in the middle of the night for emergencies, being on call as an Ob-Gyn, et al. Long hours and few vacations for 30 years. He knew how to rip an insurance rep a new strip as well.

Too bad more docs aren't like him, the medical profession would be all the better.

In a world where the country is fully insured, fewer people end up in the ED for their colds. They get preventative care so the polyp is removed, not the cancer. They're more employable.

And we'll need a buttload of primary care docs to do that grunt work. We're about to see Medicine become a very middle-class job. Not many smart people will want to put up with the demanding, self-destructive, undereducated patients that are 'Merica. And even fewer smart people will want to deal with the mandatory billing and insurance requirements to get adequate compensation. And even the stupid people won't want to deal with the frivolous lawsuits that are commonplace.

So, good luck to us all in 20 years. Our doctors will be rushed, undereducated, and overwhelmed.
And that is not Obama's fault, truly. It's the media, that teaches our population to be stupid and dependent.


Or - and this is just a passing thought - in twenty years, the people who practice medicine will do so because they want to prevent and cure disease ... instead of too many "specialists" being greedy, money-grubbing whores.

/During WWII, FDR threatened to draft every farking physician, nationalize medical schools, and crank out a few hundred thousand physicians.
 
2013-06-20 01:11:12 AM  

o5iiawah: Why would I ask for less money? my labor provides value to the company which they then use to make money.


Everybody thinks they're the cog that holds the machine together.

o5iiawah: This has nothing to do with the original point which was "If a guy wants to own a house and have a family, thats his right and someone else has to pay for it"


Which gets to the point that keeps flying over your head.  Both you and the public employee are paid by their employer except you don't think they deserve a decent wage because taxes!!111 (which they pay as well).
 
2013-06-20 01:16:44 AM  

Demonrats: Nadia Suleman should be living in a cardboard house with her 14 children. She used money designated for college to get preggers with 8 kids after she already had 6. The liberal Farker will gladly let her use tax money to reward her with a house, medical care, and food so she can possibly have a few more kids. Why not? Its what Fark Jesus would do.


Maybe, but her kids didn't ask to be born. Why not help the kids in the hope that they won't be as farked up?
 
2013-06-20 01:26:53 AM  

tuna fingers: great_tigers: Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.

Good for you!
I'm glad you are opting for choice.
I call bullshiat.

Three years ago, your wife was probably employed and now she isn't.  Or some other piece of the puzzle is missing.



Meh, I can see it. I've been with the same employer for over a decade, and citing the Affordable Care Act along with increases in cost, changes this last year were from individual deductibles for the family to a single deductible, prescriptions became subject to the decudtible, and my premiums doubled to keep the same effective coverage rates (though out of pocket maximums and deductible values did increase).  I know that my typical $50 copay for my montly prescriptions turned into $1800 in January and I hit my $5k family deductible by March.  As the only typical user of coverage in my family it realistically increased my out-of-pocket costs by $4200 annually.
 
2013-06-20 01:28:22 AM  

Fart_Machine: except you don't think they deserve a decent wage


There's a scroll function to the right since yours obviously doensn't work.

o5iiawah: They should be paid a fair wage based on the compensation of similar trades/jobs in the area.



Fart_Machine: Everybody thinks they're the cog that holds the machine together.


Strawman (No surprise).  I never said I was indispensable - just that my labor provided an amount of value to the company which they willingly pay for.

Fart_Machine: Both you and the public employee are paid by their employer except you don't think they deserve a decent wage because taxes!!111 (which they pay as well).


And the point that keeps going over your head is that I cannot go to my employer and say, "I have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay, so I need more money."  If it sounds as dumb as it reads, then it must be one of your arguments.


I'd be inclined to go longer with you, if 8 of the top 11 wealthiest counties in the USA weren't in DC.  Your argument might hold a shred of validity but at this point, its like watching the dachshund try to mount and have his way with a sheep.  You really dont know what you're talking about even more so, you arent smart enough to know it.
 
2013-06-20 01:30:02 AM  

themindiswatching: Maybe, but her kids didn't ask to be born. Why not help the kids in the hope that they won't be as farked up?


Help the kids.  I agree with that.

What is her debt to the society that is now taking care of her kids?
 
2013-06-20 01:37:00 AM  

o5iiawah: I'd be inclined to go longer with you, if 8 of the top 11 wealthiest counties in the USA weren't in DC.


Because those represent the average as far as what public employees are paid.  Are you really that dumb?

o5iiawah: There's a scroll function to the right since yours obviously doensn't work.


So you didn't say what was quoted above?  I see that was made after you got called out on the original statement.   Now who is moving the goal posts.

o5iiawah: Strawman (No surprise). I never said I was indispensable - just that my labor provided an amount of value to the company which they willingly pay for.


You might want to look into what a strawman actually is.  And now you've shifted to "provide an amount of value to the company" instead of that you are an asset that makes them money (which is entirely subjective).  So you're not different at all from the guy being paid by the government except taxes!!1111

o5iiawah: And the point that keeps going over your head is that I cannot go to my employer and say, "I have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay, so I need more money."


The point was that they should be provided a decent wage.  Not exactly groundbreaking here.  I'm sure you value your labor to want a decent wage as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:40:59 AM  

dropdfun: jaayjones: Wifes insurance went up 13% leaving me confused about the lower cost?

Now I don't feel so bad about our 9% increase. Also sucks that all our co pays have increased dramatically.


My dad has it worse. He has Medicaid and Part D, well... his doctor's thinking of dropping it, or retiring (and no one to replace him). Has issues with ANY specialist (mainly with Medicare)...
 
2013-06-20 01:43:12 AM  

o5iiawah: like watching the dachshund try to mount and have his way with a sheep.


Also you should keep your fetishes to yourself.  Thanks.
 
2013-06-20 01:49:26 AM  

firefly212: o5iiawah: Just raise the top income tax rate, levy a tax on so-called 'Cadillac' health plans, levy a tax on medical devices, Raid the VA and tri-care budget, take money out of medicare and put all that into the offset of consumer costs. In other words,  Raise taxes and use it to subsidize costs.  Ooh! but look at all the money I save!

firefly212: The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens

So an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?  Please explain the origin of that debt.  What then does B owe to A upon A's request?  B willingly chose to purchase a home and start a family. Why is it fair to A that he has to labor not only for his own family but for B?

Yes, you owe tax money from your wages to the government... You owe for police, you owe for fire, you owe for ambulances, you owe for roads that enable you to get to work, you owe for roads that enable your product to go to consumers from your work, you owe for the streetlights that owe those streets. The people who do those works, who do those jobs, are owed money, by you, for the performance of their duties.

Jesus Christ, are you like farking 4 or something?


I kinda thought that pretty much settled the argument, but it is nice of you to keep the 4 year entertained.
 
2013-06-20 02:06:13 AM  
healthcare costs fell for the first time in forty years.

bizarrocentral.files.wordpress.com


OH NO NO NO PLEASE GOD HELP ME
 
2013-06-20 02:08:10 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.


Leave your Mom out of it.
 
2013-06-20 02:09:07 AM  

themindiswatching: Demonrats: Nadia Suleman should be living in a cardboard house with her 14 children. She used money designated for college to get preggers with 8 kids after she already had 6. The liberal Farker will gladly let her use tax money to reward her with a house, medical care, and food so she can possibly have a few more kids. Why not? Its what Fark Jesus would do.

Maybe, but her kids didn't ask to be born. Why not help the kids in the hope that they won't be as farked up?


Because hope is a lie and drowning them is cheaper.
 
2013-06-20 02:26:33 AM  
Someone isn't listening to their:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-20 02:41:13 AM  

Demonrats: If you want to lower health care costs stop serving people who can't afford it.


Only if you're willing to deny them *all* care, including emergency care.  You're having a heart attack? No treatment for you.  Just got mugged and stabbed? No insurance? You  can lay there and die.

Otherwise, you're wrong.  Very, very obviously proven-by-every-other-industrialized-country wrong.

And its glaringly obvious.  Typical American over 50: overweight, high blood pressure. You could give them four doctor visits a year and some meds, as part of an insurance policy that costs $4K or $5K a year. And if the person can afford to pay part of that, even better. They keep working and paying taxes.

Or just wait.  Let them have a heart attack.  Lay out $50K if they die fast, $100K or more if they don't.  Might be in a convalescent home for a couple of decades.  Not hard to rack up even higher costs if they survive, but barely.

Its as if you were paying $50 a month for internet access. The city you live in found out they could buy one contract to give everybody access, and your bill would drop to $40 a month.  But you don't like it, because some poors would be getting it for free, and why should you pay for them.
 
2013-06-20 02:45:05 AM  

MisterRonbo: Demonrats: If you want to lower health care costs stop serving people who can't afford it.

Only if you're willing to deny them *all* care, including emergency care.  You're having a heart attack? No treatment for you.  Just got mugged and stabbed? No insurance? You  can lay there and die.

Otherwise, you're wrong.  Very, very obviously proven-by-every-other-industrialized-country wrong.

And its glaringly obvious.  Typical American over 50: overweight, high blood pressure. You could give them four doctor visits a year and some meds, as part of an insurance policy that costs $4K or $5K a year. And if the person can afford to pay part of that, even better. They keep working and paying taxes.

Or just wait.  Let them have a heart attack.  Lay out $50K if they die fast, $100K or more if they don't.  Might be in a convalescent home for a couple of decades.  Not hard to rack up even higher costs if they survive, but barely.

Its as if you were paying $50 a month for internet access. The city you live in found out they could buy one contract to give everybody access, and your bill would drop to $40 a month.  But you don't like it, because some poors would be getting it for free, and why should you pay for them.


But that's it, exactly.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans are simple:

Democrats would rather everyone get access to something, even if it means there's someone out there taking advantage of the system.

Republicans would deny everyone access to something because someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of the system.
 
2013-06-20 02:57:35 AM  

xaveth: rkiller1: A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.  Call me when medical prices are falling or when it's -1C in Hell.

Why do you hate Hope n Change? You must be racist.


When you make specific assertions and criticisms, you'll find that allegations of racism mostly disappear. When you make a stupid and misspelled sign and rant while being unable to specifically articulate what you're angry about, people suspect his non-whiteness is behind it.

He shreds the Constitution!

How? [crickets].

He's stealing our country from us!

How? [crickets].

He's simultaneously the most diabolical yet somehow utterly incompetent president ever!

How? [crickets].

Look man, if you want to talk sh*t about Obama, go ahead. I do it all the time and I voted for the guy. Just make sure you have some specific grievances, or others will wonder what the motivation is.
 
2013-06-20 04:01:44 AM  

dickfreckle: Look man, if you want to talk sh*t about Obama, go ahead. I do it all the time and I voted for the guy. Just make sure you have some specific grievances, or others will wonder what the motivation is


HURR after the NSA SCANDAL, if you are still supporting the DEMOCRATS you are a PARTISAN SHILL DURR Obama=BUSH DERPDERPDERPDERP
 
2013-06-20 04:07:21 AM  
I don't have time for this. I'm too busy looking for a job after the unemployment rate skyrocketed after the last minimum wage increase. and since the right wing is always correct, I'll just assume that the article is some sort of dog and pony show to distract from Obamacare's failures.
 
2013-06-20 04:08:56 AM  
Thank you Farkers for such a great late-night laugh.
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 04:09:49 AM  

whidbey: HURR after the NSA SCANDAL, if you are still supporting the DEMOCRATS you are a PARTISAN SHILL DURR Obama=BUSH DERPDERPDERPDERP


That's one thing that has really helped me fill out my list of people who look for headlines they agree with, and my list of people who actually read the article and make minimal assumptions.
 
2013-06-20 04:19:32 AM  

o5iiawah: firefly212: Yes, you owe tax money from your wages to the government... You owe for police, you owe for fire, you owe for ambulances, you owe for roads that enable you to get to work, you owe for roads that enable your product to go to consumers from your work, you owe for the streetlights that owe those streets. The people who do those works, who do those jobs, are owed money, by you, for the performance of their duties.

Jesus Christ, are you like farking 4 or something?

That question flew over your head apparently.

Your initial argument was that we should raise taxes to make everyone's lives better so they can afford families that they willingly started and mortgages that they willingly signed.  You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.  I have no issue with taxes funding the legitimate functions of government.

Try again without strapping an Atlas Rocket booster to the goalposts - Unless of course your end point is that taxes should be unlimited to fund whatever lifestyle choices anyone in society wishes to take on.


That wasn't my argument at all, my argument wasn't about "making everyone's lives better"... it was about paying public sector employees fair wages. Where the fark did you get that from?
 
2013-06-20 04:32:57 AM  
I think the real solution is to hop on the internet under a pseudonym and copy & paste flawed arguments and don't sleep until the other anonymous person on the internet compares you to Hitler.
 
2013-06-20 04:53:25 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: It would be interesting to compare how the UK and Canada got to where they are, in terms of nationalized health care, to the USA; all three, IIRC, were entirely fee-for-service a century ago...


For Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#The_beginning_of_c o verage
 
2013-06-20 04:53:45 AM  
does this mean the healthcare bubble finally burst?
 
2013-06-20 05:47:55 AM  

Deep Contact: Imagine how low health care would be if health insurance was outlawed.


Actually, the prices of firearms would be lowered.  Insurance rates would skyrocket if health insurance was outlawed.
 
2013-06-20 05:49:26 AM  

Infernalist: Republicans would deny everyone access to something because someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of the system.


Particularly, them.
 
2013-06-20 06:46:37 AM  
This coming from a site that touts its self as "Real Liberal" and an ass kisser of Obama's. Pardon me if I call bullshiat on it.
 
2013-06-20 06:56:14 AM  
I always feel sorry for the idiots, bigots and assholes when stuff like this happens because, lets face it, one of the unifying facets of all these people is that they do not think they are idiots bigots or assholes so when reality is shoved in their faces showing what they think to simply not be true they must suffer greatly and feel the need to go onto a public forum and insult strangers.

Like the people who say "Gun control will never work" which is true everywhere except anywhere they have tried it, australia for example who enacted assault weapon control and instead of a high school massacre almost every year, they have not had a single one since the laws came in (16 years)

I have not read the thread. The butthurt must be strong with all the idiots, bigots and assholes and I`m having a nice day....
 
2013-06-20 07:01:58 AM  

StopLurkListen: StopLurkListen: rkiller1: A one month year-over-year decrease in the medical costs inflation RATE does not a reduction make.

Valid point, but I don't know which point is true, the article is inconsistent.


Ah, the original WSJ is a lot clearer
 " The Labor Department's price index for medical care  [...] fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in May. The leading driver of last month's drop was a 0.6% contraction in prescription-drug costs "


There would be a bigger contraction in drug prices if the FDA didnt allow drug companies to market isomers of old drugs that aren't any better than the old ones. Then they tell the docs the standard dose should be twice as much.

I'm looking at you, Dexilant.
 
2013-06-20 07:11:30 AM  
On what planet did this occur? Mine went up. Must be referring to the slackers that are on Medicaid.
 
2013-06-20 07:17:59 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Satanic_Hamster: 2farknfunny: I assume this will be the night's shortest thread.

We could have a thread on all the women you've pleased sexually.

Leave your Mom out of it.


You really should read the whole thread before posting.  Otherwise, you won't look like the dumb for using a joke that's already been used more heavily then your mother.

(she's been used to heavily it's like driving a mini-coop into the Chunnel)
 
2013-06-20 07:20:12 AM  
Holy fail article batman.

Government paying less to doctors and hospitals, consumers paying more cost out of pocket = health care costs getting lower?

Freakin libs.
 
2013-06-20 07:26:20 AM  

TheEvilOne23: This coming from a site that touts its self as "Real Liberal" and an ass kisser of Obama's. Pardon me if I call bullshiat on it.


The source for the story is the Wall Street journal.

Now that you know that, I'm certain you will take the time to link to the sourced story and form a well informed opinion.

Just kidding. I know you wont.
 
2013-06-20 07:27:50 AM  

Pick: On what planet did this occur? Mine went up. Must be referring to the slackers that are on Medicaid.


I know right? I mean, If something doesn't happen to me personally, then it must be like that for everyone else!
 
2013-06-20 07:49:45 AM  
My premiums went up less than 1% with no change in benefits. I have never seen my rates increase so little without a drastic cut in benefits.
 
2013-06-20 07:54:51 AM  

Thunderpipes: Holy fail article batman.

Government paying less to doctors and hospitals, consumers paying more cost out of pocket = health care costs getting lower?

Freakin libs.


The WSJ is liberal now?

Oh COME ON.

I'd say you can do better than that, but no, not really.
 
2013-06-20 08:27:03 AM  

firefly212: That wasn't my argument at all, my argument wasn't about "making everyone's lives better"... it was about paying public sector employees fair wages. Where the fark did you get that from?


No, you said that everyone ought to be able to afford to buy a home and have a family for no other reason than they punch a clock and do a job.  Why should someone's wage be a function of the lifestyle that they want?  Is a single person with no kids who rents an apartment deserving of a same wage if they do the same job as a breadwinner with a mortgage?

Fart_Machine: So you didn't say what was quoted above?


Yeah, I really didn't.  Are you literate?  we pay taxes so government can do things the private sector cannot do.  we dont pay taxes as a means of proving employment or sustaining the lifestyle that someone expects because of choices they willingly made.  I'm happy to pay local gasoline taxes to fund the roads where I live but it is moronic to suggest people pay higher taxes because all the guys on the road crew bought homes and started families.  Again, since you're retarded:  I cannot go to my boss and ask for a raise because I bought a house and need more money.

Fart_Machine: And now you've shifted to "provide an amount of value to the company" instead of that you are an asset that makes them money (which is entirely subjective).


I didn't shift anything. I had to re-state what I said because you're too stupid to understand it the first time around. There's nothing different between saying that an employee's labor is valuable to a company and that the employee's labor is an asset.

The very definition of an asset is that it is something ofvalue and you just suggested that they are two different things.
Just stop.  You really aren't as smart as you think you are.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-06-20 08:36:30 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Wolfmanjames: Forgive me, subby if I fail to trust implicitly a source that declares itself, 'Real Liberal Politics' when it cheers Obamacare.

You read that but didn't see their source? The super liberal WSJ


Nonono, that's unpossible. So long as the article is from one of those commie lib marxist socialist kenyan islamofascist supporter sites, the content is void of any value. And the WSJ? EVEN MORE SO
 
2013-06-20 08:39:20 AM  
Our rates went up 25% last year, so...whatever.
 
2013-06-20 08:49:06 AM  
Lower for who?
the layabouts I'm guessing.
 
2013-06-20 08:51:58 AM  

tuna fingers: great_tigers: Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.

Good for you!
I'm glad you are opting for choice.
I call bullshiat.

Three years ago, your wife was probably employed and now she isn't.  Or some other piece of the puzzle is missing.


Mine went up too. Copay for E.R. increased 300%. Amount deducted from paycheck is also higher. Costs are probably only "lower" for the insurance companies.
 
2013-06-20 08:53:10 AM  
Yeah, I find it hard to take an article seriously when the site header is "Real Liberal Politics" and it's praising of something Liberals did. Very much like I would feel the same about a site that boasted "Real Conservative Politics". They both translate to "Real Deluded Morons" to me.
 
2013-06-20 08:54:34 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Our rates went up 25% last year, so...whatever.


Sucks. Mine dropped. If you get insurance through your employer, then they are likely the ones screwing you. if not, then you should change insurance companies.
 
2013-06-20 09:02:15 AM  
iaazathot:
Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag
Conservative rag

Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern.  Some of those articles have been shown to be complete horseshiat, and the others probably aren't far behind.

That chicken has to be just a bloody lump of feathers by now.


You will note that they are all "is going to" and "will increase" and "expected to"
-as opposed to anything that has actually happened
 
2013-06-20 09:03:09 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Our rates went up 25% last year, so...whatever.


Mine went down.
So did my employees
 
2013-06-20 09:06:45 AM  

cman: DAMMIT ORTON


Find shiat in your gym bag again?
 
2013-06-20 09:11:04 AM  

Reverend Monkeypants: You Are All Sheep: Our rates went up 25% last year, so...whatever.

Mine went down.
So did my employees


Our company's went down by 7%, directly due to ACA.

Company sent out letters explaining the rate decrease.  Short letter that directly listed how this was due to the ACA.  Oddly, the die hard True Conservatives never made one mention whatsoever of the insurance rate going down.
 
2013-06-20 09:12:09 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Reverend Monkeypants: You Are All Sheep: Our rates went up 25% last year, so...whatever.

Mine went down.
So did my employees

Our company's went down by 7%, directly due to ACA.

Company sent out letters explaining the rate decrease.  Short letter that directly listed how this was due to the ACA.  Oddly, the die hard True Conservatives never made one mention whatsoever of the insurance rate going down.


Our company's stayed the same.  This was a welcome change, as it had gone up every year prior.
 
2013-06-20 09:13:38 AM  
Republicans should totally run on repealing the ACA in 2014. I'm sure it will go well for them.
 
2013-06-20 09:37:35 AM  

RyanAntiHero: Yeah, I find it hard to take an article seriously when the site header is "Real Liberal Politics" and it's praising of something Liberals did. Very much like I would feel the same about a site that boasted "Real Conservative Politics". They both translate to "Real Deluded Morons" to me.


While I understand such skepticism, if you had at least looked at TFA, you would have seen that it is just repeating what was reported in the Wall Street Journal, which itself was just reporting the results of the just released Labor Department's price index for medical care.
 
2013-06-20 09:40:20 AM  
Then why did my premiums double and are slated to double again when Obamacare is fully implemented?
 
2013-06-20 09:43:47 AM  
Mine went down about 8% yearly.  No increases in deductibles or reductions in coverage.  BCBS even.

No one here has said anything about the decrease.  Of course they won't, it doesn't fit into their "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but 0bummer is history's greatest monster!!!111!!" theme.
 
2013-06-20 09:56:06 AM  

Realist29: Then why did my premiums double and are slated to double again when Obamacare is fully implemented?


Because your company/insurance company sucks and are out to rape you with any excuse they can?
 
2013-06-20 10:11:18 AM  

RyanAntiHero: Yeah, I find it hard to take an article seriously when the site header is "Real Liberal Politics" and it's praising of something Liberals did.


Yeah, like those liberals in the Cato Institute that originally proposed the program, the liberals in the Republican House under Newt Gingrich that offered it up in the '90s, and that liberal Mitt Romney who implemented it in Massachusetts.  This is such a libby lib lib program.

/PROTIP:  Obama's not a liberal either
//nor are most elected Democrats
 
2013-06-20 10:20:40 AM  

HeartBurnKid: RyanAntiHero: Yeah, I find it hard to take an article seriously when the site header is "Real Liberal Politics" and it's praising of something Liberals did.

Yeah, like those liberals in the Cato Institute that originally proposed the program, the liberals in the Republican House under Newt Gingrich that offered it up in the '90s, and that liberal Mitt Romney who implemented it in Massachusetts.  This is such a libby lib lib program.

/PROTIP:  Obama's not a liberal either
//nor are most elected Democrats


Many libs have been saying that Obama is not a liberal for a long time now. Obama is a moderate.

It's the conservatives that keep pushing the "Obama is the libbyist lib who ever libbed" line. And yes, I've actually heard someone say that exact statement with full sincerity (it was my mother-in-law).
 
2013-06-20 10:25:19 AM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: You then came back with saying that taxes fund streetlights, etc.

Obviously those appear by magic.

Levying taxes to pay for a streetlight (which is probably paid for via your property tax) is necessary.
Levying taxes to pay for a lifestyle that a particular individual wishes to live is up for debate and it is the question I've asked.  You and firefly countered with "But we need streetlights"

One day the goalposts may come back around and I'll get a straight answer out of you.

I have no idea what goalposts you're referring to and the fact that you only got "streetlights" out of his entire statement indicates the point was entirely lost on you.


img.fark.net

/Also, why was it necessary for the headline and the first two paragraphs of the story to repeat the same exact information in slightly different ways??
 
2013-06-20 10:28:43 AM  

o5iiawah: Yeah, I really didn't. Are you literate?


You don't know how quotes work.  See I took what you actually said and simply re-posted it.  Maybe you should ask yourself the same question.

o5iiawah: we dont pay taxes as a means of proving employment or sustaining the lifestyle that someone expects because of choices they willingly made.


Um, which orifice did you pull this argument from since nobody has made it.

o5iiawah: Again, since you're retarded: I cannot go to my boss and ask for a raise because I bought a house and need more money.


Again, since you're retarded:  A decent wage isn't the same thing.  This whole argument began because you made the retarded comment that government employees are somehow exempt from a decent wage because an able bodied man (A) owes a percentage of his wage to another able bodied man (B) how?  That's what you said.  Own it dumbass.

o5iiawah: I didn't shift anything. I had to re-state what I said because you're too stupid to understand it the first time around. There's nothing different between saying that an employee's labor is valuable to a company and that the employee's labor is an asset.


So you don't understand that words mean stuff.  One is subjective and the other one isn't.  The point is you're no different than the government employee.

o5iiawah: You really aren't as smart as you think you are.


You mean after you just compared the average public employees salary to what the wealthiest in DC earn?  LOL!
 
2013-06-20 10:37:27 AM  

Fart_Machine: firefly212: Fart_Machine: Dusk-You-n-Me: The Hill highlights a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers showing that "medical inflation will likely fall to 6.5 percent next year - a 50 year low." Link

Makes sense considering how much the pool of recipients will grow.

THATS NOT HOW INFLATION METRICS WORK!

Seriously, this is like a farking technical engineering thread with a bunch of literature majors commenting about how they don't think SN curves accurately describe material fatigue.

Because a literature major would have RTFA he linked instead of being a pompous ass?



As a Lit major turned IT professional, I assure you, this is not the case.  My peer group from college would likely have claimed to have read the article and waved their degree around as "proof" that they did.  All the while, making up their version of content.  And yes, they would be the FIRST people to be pompous asses.  It is their main defense from criticism.
 
2013-06-20 10:50:19 AM  

bwilson27: theknuckler_33: Stupid libs. Ever hear of the clam before the storm? The storm is coming and when it come it will be shoved down our throats!

Don't mix Absinthe with LSD.


Now that's just terrible advice.

Always mix absinthe with LSD. Just make sure your schedule is clear for the next day or two.
 
2013-06-20 11:01:48 AM  

hugram: Republicans should totally run on repealing the ACA in 2014. I'm sure it will go well for them.


Seems that this would be a great platform to run, if the ACA is going to be so bad, since it will be full in effect then.
Almost like they know people will like it and are trying to overturn it and/or get as much misinformation out as they can.
 
2013-06-20 12:21:39 PM  

o5iiawah: firefly212: That wasn't my argument at all, my argument wasn't about "making everyone's lives better"... it was about paying public sector employees fair wages. Where the fark did you get that from?

No, you said that everyone ought to be able to afford to buy a home and have a family for no other reason than they punch a clock and do a job.  Why should someone's wage be a function of the lifestyle that they want?  Is a single person with no kids who rents an apartment deserving of a same wage if they do the same job as a breadwinner with a mortgage?



Ok, O';; bite:

Here's my original statement:

"I didn't realize that screwing over workers by making full-time jobs into multiple part time jobs had become something that local governments were doing. Seriously, when did this country get so off course that paying a person an honest days wage (enough for healthcare, food, and housing) for an honest days work started to seem like such an onerous burden. The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick. These aren't wacky demands from some lazy welfare queens... these are people who WANT to work, who want to put in a hard day's labor... giving them the shaft in this manner is just wrong, and we shouldn't tolerate it from either our government or our businesses. Good, hard-working people should have access to real jobs, not McJobs. "

Where in that does it say that we need to use taxes to make *everyones* lives better? As I read it, the only section relevant to taxes is "The reality for these towns is that taxes should be slightly higher, high enough that civil servants and public employees can feed their families, pay their mortgage AND go to the doctors office when they are sick "... and you turned it into some sort of socialism debate because it's YOU that wants all the services public servants provide without paying them.

As for owing anyone anything, saying that "everyone ought to be able to afford to buy a home and have a family for no other reason than they punch a clock and do a job" is a far cry from saying it's the government's role to make all those things happen, just a statement of basic morality. Yes, people should get paid enough (whether single or married, they should be paid based on the work they do, not their family situation) to put a roof over their head (I dont care whether they rent or buy), to eat adequately on a daily basis, and to have healthcare. You may call it socialism, but I call it the core morality of Christianity... when these people put in 60 hours a week to help themselves and care for their children, yes, we, as a society, and for some of us as business owners, should ensure that they can live reasonably, if not comfortably.
 
2013-06-20 12:24:31 PM  

RyanAntiHero: Yeah, I find it hard to take an article seriously when the site header is "Real Liberal Politics" and it's praising of something Liberals did. Very much like I would feel the same about a site that boasted "Real Conservative Politics". They both translate to "Real Deluded Morons" to me.


As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.
 
2013-06-20 01:14:15 PM  

Fissile: Of course health care costs fell, the sick/old are being sent off to Obama death camps.


citation?
 
2013-06-20 01:16:00 PM  
firefly212: 
As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.

I've read all the comments in this thread.  You don't find your anaysis in this statement alone to be just a wee bit baiting?  Over arching assertions about "conservatism" seem a bit misplaced- specifically since they are not based in anything factual beyond your feelings.  I thought you were better than that.

Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB?  Regan?  That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?  You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme- would you now say they hate him because he is from a different party?  Or will the arguement become "he was just helping his buddies"?  Because I assure you, Obama has just as many "buddies" in the insurance industry.

I only ask this because I want to approach this from a fairness of opinion standpoint.  The whole idea of debate comes apart at the seams if we are simply allowed to sit in judgement of others and do not recognize our own potential for poor logic that is driven solely by feelings.
 
2013-06-20 01:50:21 PM  
What color is the red truck?
BLUE!!!
 
2013-06-20 01:51:56 PM  

TaskMan: Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB? Regan? That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?


Unlike with conservatives and Obama, liberals were able to articulate specific, consistent, and coherent criticisms against Bush.

TaskMan: You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme


Because if there's one thing liberals love, it's giving rich people more money with no strings attached. *eyeroll*
 
2013-06-20 02:04:43 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TaskMan: Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB? Regan? That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?

Unlike with conservatives and Obama, liberals were able to articulate specific, consistent, and coherent criticisms against Bush.

TaskMan: You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme

Because if there's one thing liberals love, it's giving rich people more money with no strings attached. *eyeroll*



Individuals might have been able to articulate themselves, but for the most part, as with conservatives, people always locate the worst examples of the opposite number and then accuse everyone of being just like them.  I can certainly articulate what I don't like about Obama's policies.  But that isn't really what my post was about.  It was about trying to pretend that one side has the moral high ground by extrapolating your positions based on feelings.

Also, one could say that Liberals would LOVE that the bailout went to all the Unions with no strings attached so they could be directed back to the Democrats to fund Liberal ideas.  Afterall, it was investors that got the shaft when the government bought into the company, not the workers.
 
2013-06-20 02:08:44 PM  

TaskMan: HeartBurnKid: TaskMan: Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB? Regan? That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?

Unlike with conservatives and Obama, liberals were able to articulate specific, consistent, and coherent criticisms against Bush.

TaskMan: You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme

Because if there's one thing liberals love, it's giving rich people more money with no strings attached. *eyeroll*


Individuals might have been able to articulate themselves, but for the most part, as with conservatives, people always locate the worst examples of the opposite number and then accuse everyone of being just like them.  I can certainly articulate what I don't like about Obama's policies.  But that isn't really what my post was about.  It was about trying to pretend that one side has the moral high ground by extrapolating your positions based on feelings.

Also, one could say that Liberals would LOVE that the bailout went to all the Unions with no strings attached so they could be directed back to the Democrats to fund Liberal ideas.  Afterall, it was investors that got the shaft when the government bought into the company, not the workers.


So what you are saying is that you don't understand the role of equity in a capital structure.
 
2013-06-20 02:26:45 PM  

2farknfunny: TaskMan: HeartBurnKid: TaskMan: Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB? Regan? That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?

Unlike with conservatives and Obama, liberals were able to articulate specific, consistent, and coherent criticisms against Bush.

TaskMan: You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme

Because if there's one thing liberals love, it's giving rich people more money with no strings attached. *eyeroll*


Individuals might have been able to articulate themselves, but for the most part, as with conservatives, people always locate the worst examples of the opposite number and then accuse everyone of being just like them.  I can certainly articulate what I don't like about Obama's policies.  But that isn't really what my post was about.  It was about trying to pretend that one side has the moral high ground by extrapolating your positions based on feelings.

Also, one could say that Liberals would LOVE that the bailout went to all the Unions with no strings attached so they could be directed back to the Democrats to fund Liberal ideas.  Afterall, it was investors that got the shaft when the government bought into the company, not the workers.

So what you are saying is that you don't understand the role of equity in a capital structure.


Not the case at all.  Simply illustrating that as long as we solely base our discussion on feelings and preconceived notions, we cannot have an honest debate.  His arguement was based on the idea that a bunch of "rich guys" got the money with "no strings".  We all know that this is not true in any capacity- the money went to corporations with plenty of strings attached- up to and including firing the CEO and choosing who gets what percentage of the bailout.  Are there rich guys in the upper eschelons of the company?  Sure.  Are there rich people in the upper eschelons of the Union?  Absolutely.

It is dishonest to assert that only one side benefited and the other side got "screwed".  Conservatives and Liberals alike got the best and worst of the deal.  It was never about liking or hating the president at the time because they are of the opposite party.  Being a proponent or detractor of the Bailout is possibly without attaching it to someone and then lauding or condemning the idea based on the person.
 
2013-06-20 02:42:28 PM  

Joe Blowme: What color is the red truck?
BLUE!!!


How many lights?
 
2013-06-20 02:43:29 PM  

TaskMan: firefly212: 
As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.

I've read all the comments in this thread.  You don't find your anaysis in this statement alone to be just a wee bit baiting?  Over arching assertions about "conservatism" seem a bit misplaced- specifically since they are not based in anything factual beyond your feelings.  I thought you were better than that.

Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB?  Regan?  That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?  You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme- would you now say they hate him because he is from a different party?  Or will the arguement become "he was just helping his buddies"?  Because I assure you, Obama has just as many "buddies" in the insurance industry.

I only ask this because I want to approach this from a fairness of opinion standpoint.  The whole idea of debate comes apart at the seams if we are simply allowed to sit in judgement of others and do not recognize our own potential for poor logic that is driven solely by feelings.


During Bush and Reagan, we didn't see the president use the opposing party's ideas, and then have that party all-of-a-sudden hate the idea that they were previously trying to pass.

However, we do see that with the Republican Party and Obama. More than once have the Republicans all-of-a-sudden started hating their own policies as soon as Obama was on board, to the point of some of them even filibustering their own bills.
 
2013-06-20 03:14:56 PM  

mgshamster: TaskMan: firefly212: 
As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.

I've read all the comments in this thread.  You don't find your anaysis in this statement alone to be just a wee bit baiting?  Over arching assertions about "conservatism" seem a bit misplaced- specifically since they are not based in anything factual beyond your feelings.  I thought you were better than that.

Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB?  Regan?  That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?  You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme- would you now say they hate him because he is from a different party?  Or will the arguement become "he was just helping his buddies"?  Because I assure you, Obama has just as many "buddies" in the insurance industry.

I only ask this because I want to approach this from a fairness of opinion standpoint.  The whole idea of debate comes apart at the seams if we are simply allowed to sit in judgement of others and do not recognize our own potential for poor logic that is driven solely by feelings.

During Bush and Reagan, we didn't see the president use the opposing party's ideas, and then have that party all-of-a-sudden hate the idea that they were previously trying to pass.

However, we do see that with the Republican Party and Obama. More than once have the Republicans all-of-a-sudden started hating their own policies as soon as Obama was on board, to the point of some of them even filibustering their own bills.


Firstly, Republican or Democrat shouldn't (but often are) be used interchangably with Liberal and Conservative.  The point that was attempted earlier in the thread was that Conservative ideas are put forward by Obama and suddenly Conservatives hate them- solely because Obama is involved.  I take issue with this.

During the Regan and GWB eras, we DID see similar things- the difference was how it was presented to the consumer.  If the Republicans present an idea to Mr. Obama and he says "sure, i'm on board with this, let me just change all the critical parts so they fit my vision", is that really them turning their backs on their own ideas?  Or are they strongly objecting to changes introduced in the eleventh hour?

Let me give you a case in point using Ted Cruz (because I know you all love him).  He plans on amending the immigration bill with a provision that says States can require ID for voting.  Will Democrats be portrayed as "going against" their own bill, just to spite Republicans?  Afterall, they ARE going with the bill, right?

The presentation of ideas that demonizes one side or the other is inherantly divisive.  You can win an arguement that way, but you cannot unite people.  I often wonder if that is the intent of government at all.
 
2013-06-20 03:23:43 PM  
Lower for who?

/not me
 
2013-06-20 03:42:04 PM  

TaskMan: Individuals might have been able to articulate themselves, but for the most part, as with conservatives, people always locate the worst examples of the opposite number and then accuse everyone of being just like them.


Maybe, but the conservatives certainly make it easy to locate those worst examples, by giving them lucrative speaking gigs, plastering them all over TV, and electing them to higher office.

TaskMan: I can certainly articulate what I don't like about Obama's policies.


Perhaps you can.  But I'd say you'd be the exception, not the rule.

TaskMan: Also, one could say that Liberals would LOVE that the bailout went to all the Unions with no strings attached so they could be directed back to the Democrats to fund Liberal ideas. Afterall, it was investors that got the shaft when the government bought into the company, not the workers.


Now see, I thought you were talking about the bank bailouts, where Bush actually had a hand in how things were structured.  I didn't realize you were talking about the auto bailouts, where Bush's biggest contribution was to kick the can down the road so Obama could deal with it and add little things like accountability and equity that were sorely missing from Bush's bank bailouts.

Also, again, the Democrats are not a liberal party.  They may have some liberal members, and they may be left of their counterparts in the Republicans, but no liberal party would have let the public option go without a fight like they did (and then got a fight anyway, because God forbid reforms should be made while a Democrat is in office).
 
2013-06-20 03:58:00 PM  

TaskMan: firefly212: 
As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.

I've read all the comments in this thread.  You don't find your anaysis in this statement alone to be just a wee bit baiting?  Over arching assertions about "conservatism" seem a bit misplaced- specifically since they are not based in anything factual beyond your feelings.  I thought you were better than that.

Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB?  Regan?  That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?  You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme- would you now say they hate him because he is from a different party?  Or will the arguement become "he was just helping his buddies"?  Because I assure you, Obama has just as many "buddies" in the insurance industry.

I only ask this because I want to approach this from a fairness of opinion standpoint.  The whole idea of debate comes apart at the seams if we are simply allowed to sit in judgement of others and do not recognize our own potential for poor logic that is driven solely by feelings.


I'm saying that CATO (a conservative think tank) introduced the idea, and the GOP supported it when they were calling the uninsured "freeloaders" and trying to kill HillaryCare... but then once HillaryCare was dead, after they had promised to make a "better" bill, the GOP sat on that idea for a decade and a half and did absolutely nothing with it, despite prominent people who called themselves "conservatives" having espoused it. Then along came "liberal" Obama (read: Democrat) and picked up, nearly verbatim, the old conservative idea, dusted it off, and implemented it. The reality is that though conservatives are mad now, in a decade or two, they'll be shouting from the rooftops about how THEY deserve credit for the idea... this current intransigence is purely about partisanship, and nothing about ideology.

WRT Obama just helping his buddies... absolutely, most of the people who voted for this bill were helping their insurance company buddies, none more so than Max Baucus (Democrat who effectively killed the public option). Then again, my argument was that it was the least liberal thing he's done, not that it's the best thing anyone's ever done. FWIW, my view on Obamacare is that it's good that someone finally did something... sector inflation in healthcare has been out of control, and we're enjoying mediocre results at top-tier prices... I don't particularly love the way it is constructed, but it is more than the alternative, which was another two decades of inaction and sky-high insurance inflation and medical cost inflation putting reasonable healthcare out of reach of millions of Americans.
 
2013-06-20 04:44:39 PM  

Witty_Retort: hugram: Republicans should totally run on repealing the ACA in 2014. I'm sure it will go well for them.

Seems that this would be a great platform to run, if the ACA is going to be so bad, since it will be full in effect then.
Almost like they know people will like it and are trying to overturn it and/or get as much misinformation out as they can.


The GOP is really going to regret that they disowned it and insisted on calling it Obamacare.
 
2013-06-20 05:00:36 PM  

firefly212: TaskMan: firefly212: 
As a liberal, I can say that giveaways to big insurance companies while not providing a public option is probably the least liberal thing Obama could have done. The "conservative" problem is just that Obama does anything, because it reminds them that he's president, and that someone actually listens to their ideas and tries to implement them, but it isn't the party that claims to be for them.

I've read all the comments in this thread.  You don't find your anaysis in this statement alone to be just a wee bit baiting?  Over arching assertions about "conservatism" seem a bit misplaced- specifically since they are not based in anything factual beyond your feelings.  I thought you were better than that.

Seriously, would you have said the same thing about Liberals under GWB?  Regan?  That they just don't like HIM and it has nothing at all to do with his policies?  You would think that Liberals would have fallen instantly in love with GWB for his contributions to the Bailout scheme- would you now say they hate him because he is from a different party?  Or will the arguement become "he was just helping his buddies"?  Because I assure you, Obama has just as many "buddies" in the insurance industry.

I only ask this because I want to approach this from a fairness of opinion standpoint.  The whole idea of debate comes apart at the seams if we are simply allowed to sit in judgement of others and do not recognize our own potential for poor logic that is driven solely by feelings.

I'm saying that CATO (a conservative think tank) introduced the idea, and the GOP supported it when they were calling the uninsured "freeloaders" and trying to kill HillaryCare... but then once HillaryCare was dead, after they had promised to make a "better" bill, the GOP sat on that idea for a decade and a half and did absolutely nothing with it, despite prominent people who called themselves "conservatives" having espoused it. Then along came "liberal" Obama (read: Democrat) a ...


I'm curious as to who these Conservatives are who promised change but did nothing.  I specifically remember Tort Reform legislation that was proposed but would not even be allowed to be heard by Dems.    Personally, I don't think that forcing people to buy something is a particularly Conservative idea.  I would respectfully disagree with the CATO institute if this WERE a Verbatim reinactment of their proposal.  I strongly suspect that by "verbatim" you may mean "permutation".  If I remember correctly, whe Hillary Care was being proposed, most Conservatives were in favor of Tort Reform as a first line of changes.  When they were openly ridiculed in the Media for proposing it, they were ordered by the American People to come up with something else.

For as much as people say Conservatives say No a lot, look back at all the instances where Liberals wouldn't even allow an idea to come to a vote.  There is plenty of that to go around- both parties have used whatever means they can to achieve their goals- regardless of who is president at the time.
 
2013-06-20 08:24:31 PM  

TaskMan: I specifically remember Tort Reform legislation that was proposed but would not even be allowed to be heard by Dems.


Eh, Tort Reform is a red herring.
 
2013-06-21 01:34:06 AM  

porterm: they will trot out any darn pony they can to make this look like a good deal


Yeah, how dare they trot out the "truth pony"? Sure it's not as dramatic as the "made up scandal" ponies they are trying to build a rodeo around, but the change is nice.

You're right though, 40 years isn't all that impressive, I'd rather see it represent the lowest rate in 40 THOUSAND years, because health care costs have been a factor since before we've had doctors, right?
 
2013-06-21 01:44:09 AM  

great_tigers: Because health cost benefits have decreased for those working. An MRI for my wife three years ago would have been an out of pocket cost of 100 bucks. Now it is 1100, we are too scared to see what her hip surgery will cost. We are choosing to deal with it.


3 1/2 years ago, I went to the hospital for the weekend. Went to the E.R. Friday night, got discharged Sunday about 6 pm. I spent the entire weekend on morphine, and a large portion of it on a saline and glucose drip. I followed that up the next Friday with an MRI. Cost to me? About $250. Cost now? About the same. Premiums have gone up about $10, and the cost of an E.R. visit when you don't get admitted went to $100 from $75(if you get admitted, there is no copay), otherwise our insurance hasn't changed.

My advice to you is to find a job with decent insurance or learn to lie better. As for the cost of the surgery, they aren't going to charge you for an estimate. Quit being such a pushy.
 
2013-06-21 09:40:15 AM  

Fart_Machine: TaskMan: I specifically remember Tort Reform legislation that was proposed but would not even be allowed to be heard by Dems.

Eh, Tort Reform is a red herring.


Did you really just site Ezra Klein as your source?  So you would readily accept me sighting an article by Rush Limbaugh and accept it as fact?
 
2013-06-21 09:45:41 AM  

TaskMan: Fart_Machine: TaskMan: I specifically remember Tort Reform legislation that was proposed but would not even be allowed to be heard by Dems.

Eh, Tort Reform is a red herring.

Did you really just site Ezra Klein as your source?  So you would readily accept me sighting an article by Rush Limbaugh and accept it as fact?


How has tort refom worked in Texas?
 
2013-06-21 10:16:17 AM  

Halli: TaskMan: Fart_Machine: TaskMan: I specifically remember Tort Reform legislation that was proposed but would not even be allowed to be heard by Dems.

Eh, Tort Reform is a red herring.

Did you really just site Ezra Klein as your source?  So you would readily accept me sighting an article by Rush Limbaugh and accept it as fact?

How has tort refom worked in Texas?


Let's see here:

The number of doctors per 10,000 patients decreased (went from 11th from the bottom to 9th from the bottom).

The rate of new doctors decreased, and has not kept up with the average across the us.

Medical malpractice costs went down (this was what tort reform was supposed to do, so I guess it worked in this regard).

The goal was to cut malpractice suits, which in turn would cut medical costs (because malpractice insurance would cost less, which would allow doctors and hospitals to lower what they charge and still make the same amount of income). That's the classic trickle down theory. What happened was that malpractice costs went down, so malpractice insurance costs went down, and the hospitals and doctors just pocketed the extra money. They simply kept their costs high, and patients still paid more. Looks like tort reform failed in this regard.

But hey, at least the rich made more money.
 
Displayed 293 of 293 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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