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

(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  
•       •       •

6971 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report