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
 
2013-06-20 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 43 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