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.

(Slate)   Conservatives long awaited Obamacare replacement bill is set to be unveiled, laughed at   (slate.com) divider line 473
    More: Amusing, obamacare  
•       •       •

2816 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 11:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 06:31:51 PM  

freak7: Right, but you're not being treated any differently than anybody else. You're at a bit of a disadvantage because there's no employer insurance available, but the rules aren't being applied to you any differently than anybody else.


I understand that. No one is intentionally out to get the self employed. However, it does create some new issues for them.
 
2013-09-18 06:35:30 PM  

phenn: freak7: Right, but you're not being treated any differently than anybody else. You're at a bit of a disadvantage because there's no employer insurance available, but the rules aren't being applied to you any differently than anybody else.

I understand that. No one is intentionally out to get the self employed. However, it does create some new issues for them.


It creates an issue for anybody that would rather go without insurance.
 
2013-09-18 06:37:22 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Now I am almost positive you don't have a clue what you are talking about, man. Keep nursing your wounded ego, though, and you'll get through the confusion.


I do admit that I'm a bit confused as to why you think I'm upset or wounded. I assure you that I know you don't intend to hurt my feelings and that I'm feeling good on this breezy afternoon.

I think that as long as we can keep talking, I won't be confused about that forever. What I'm talking about is how you're finally agreeing with the fact that both "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy that you're trying to fight against because they're both sides of the same coin. The metaphor allows me to focus on the important part (the part where I've defined them as equally bad because they're oppositional binary belief systems according to how the metaphor works).

Thankfully, no one is arguing that I'm wrong. Because that would just prove my point even more! But look at me, preaching to the choir a bit here: you already know that those who argue against your empirical points just make your points even more right because that's how the argument has been metaphored. Even when they don't know it.
 
2013-09-18 06:48:02 PM  

Lucky LaRue: jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: Oh.  I see, now.  I hurt your feelings by comparing your patterns of belief to those of the evangelicals, didn't I?  Well, I am sure if you study it out, you'll see the correlations.  Don't take it so hard, though.  You have been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that you adopt some of it to form your own world view.

Oh no, no, no, please don't get the wrong impression. You didn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm just gladdened that you understand how the two "two-sides-of-the-same-coin" metaphors work as precisely equal to each other because they're definitional defined to work that way.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad we're talking about this and that you're seeing new things.

I am sorry, you were just about to reach your triumphant conclusion that your empirical observations that all republicans want to kill the poor and the elderly could not possibly be refuted by men of reason when I so rudely interrupted to observe how similar your thinking is to evangelical Christians.

Do go on.


Not kill, "care about." The conclusion was reached in this manner:

You showed (via the coin metaphor) that both sides are bad.
Bad means not caring about.
Republicans don't care about because they're one extreme side (Dems are the other).
If one side cares, they aren't both bad, so both sides don't care.
Republicans are bad.
Republicans don't care.

I thought, since you're the one who understand the power of "both-sides-of-the-coin" metaphorical argumentation that such would be easily understood, but I guess I just skipped over the necessary steps.

The next step is to get you to fully understand that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy you've been talking about all day. Both are bad because they're both-sides-of-the-same-coin.
 
2013-09-18 06:49:26 PM  

jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: Now I am almost positive you don't have a clue what you are talking about, man. Keep nursing your wounded ego, though, and you'll get through the confusion.

I do admit that I'm a bit confused as to why you think I'm upset or wounded. I assure you that I know you don't intend to hurt my feelings and that I'm feeling good on this breezy afternoon.

I think that as long as we can keep talking, I won't be confused about that forever. What I'm talking about is how you're finally agreeing with the fact that both "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy that you're trying to fight against because they're both sides of the same coin. The metaphor allows me to focus on the important part (the part where I've defined them as equally bad because they're oppositional binary belief systems according to how the metaphor works).

Thankfully, no one is arguing that I'm wrong. Because that would just prove my point even more! But look at me, preaching to the choir a bit here: you already know that those who argue against your empirical points just make your points even more right because that's how the argument has been metaphored. Even when they don't know it.


Ah... I see what you are trying to get at, here.  You are trying to establish that my metaphor comparing your belief system to the evangelical Christian one is functionally equivalent to the argument you would have rather I made (that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" is the opposite side of the coin to "the moderate middle is good").  Sorry for the confusion.
 
2013-09-18 06:59:54 PM  

sprawl15: Carn: sprawl15: "We've obviously fought very hard to repeal the bill, to unravel different pieces on it that are falling on its own weight, anyway," Scalise said in a brief phone interview at the time. "But we've also been working to put together a true alternative that would lower market costs and fix some real problems that existed before Obamacare that are made worse with it."

[i.imgur.com image 396x303]

Ok, I used to be a Latin geek (been too long, forgotten most of it) but I had to look up to see if indeed there was a latin word potato.  There is a very close word and I can now say with utmost veracity: "Potator sum".

potator, potatoris
noun
declension:  3rd declension
gender:  masculine
Definitions:
1. drinker, one who drinks
2. tippler, drinker of intoxicants

I typed 'potato' into Google translate and got 'solanum' but I am pretty sure that is not correct.


Potatoes are American, they Romans didn't have them.
 
2013-09-18 07:11:09 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Ah... I see what you are trying to get at, here.  You are trying to establish that my metaphor comparing your belief system to the evangelical Christian one is functionally equivalent to the argument you would have rather I made (that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" is the opposite side of the coin to "the moderate middle is good").  Sorry for the confusion.


Well, I have to admit that I think I'm more confused now than I was before. If your point wasn't "not being extreme is good," I'm really confused.
 
2013-09-18 08:14:47 PM  

PanicMan: This thread has gone from funny, to boring, back to funny, back to boring.

Too bad.  There was some good potential discussion that was overshadowed by all the noise.


Yeah, how many times can "someone who has a different opinion" respond with the same crap and keep getting bites?  Weaksauce.
 
2013-09-18 09:22:33 PM  
Man lucky sure got a lot of bites. I like his style. Best troll to come around for a while.
 
2013-09-18 10:37:52 PM  

phenn: So, we checked out the premium calculator online and it would be quite dear for my husband and myself. Both of us are self-employed. I also mentioned that, because of the mandate, we would be fined if we didn't participate and chose to do something else - such as self-insuring or concierge care.


If you're worried about the cost of these subsidized plans, why would you want to do an even more expensive option?  Concierge services pay a (generally) inflated rate for the cheapest of services, and then don't cover any expensive services at all.

When I talked about that in a previous thread, a lot of responses were that the premiums didn't seem that high. Ours would have been close to 20% of our total income and I just don't see that as being affordable.

Hubs and I have some small advantages in that we aren't in hock up to our eyeballs, no car payments, credit card debt, etc. But, the average family has those expenses to deal with and 20% of total income could be rather hefty to swing.


Over half of the country is eligible for premium assistance at some level, and that means that you can get at least two silver plans (and probably any bronze plan) for less than 9.8% of your adjusted gross income.
 
2013-09-18 10:50:05 PM  
I'll admit, 9.5% of your gross is damn expensive.
 
2013-09-18 11:04:17 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Dedmon: You're making a complete ass of yourself. You're argueing against no one, and painting everybody in a broad brush. How can you consider yourself rational or reasonable when you can't even make a point? It's people like you who are the problem with this country.

I get it, both sides are bad, so vote republican. I getcha.

My god, you don't know how much I hate this trope.  If we are going to look at the political spectrum through your black-and-white filters, then, Yes. Absolutely.  Both extremes are bad.  They are f*cking horrible.

In the real world, though, there aren't just teahadist and herbal teabaggers flinging shiat back and forth at each other.  In the real world, rational, educated people see the nuances of political theory and work together to get shiat done.

But, go on with your bad self and tell me how you are right and the conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry, asshole.


Who the hell do you think you are? You have absolutely no idea who I am or what my political of ideological beliefs are.
 
2013-09-18 11:12:44 PM  

jgbrowning: I have to admit that I think I'm more confused now than I was before


Confused? Relax, you have company

tvmedia.ign.com
 
2013-09-18 11:25:51 PM  

phenn: The mandate itself takes a few options off the table (self-insuring, concierge care) and premiums can end up rather dear if you make a decent living. I know, if you make a decent living, you should be insured. But, the offerings - gold, platinum, etc - are quite costly (according to the online calculator) and coverage percentages and out of pocket expenses don't seem quite worth it to me.


Also, I should just mention - the alternatives you've offered in this thread and others are in fact cheaper, but they're cheaper for the same reason that a rusted-out 1977 Gremlin with 300,000 miles on it and a wrecked transmission is going to be cheaper than a new car - you get what you pay for.

Even bronze health plans are better than what 50% of the country has today.  Silver plans would put you in the top 15% of today's market and gold would put you in the top 2%.  The alternatives you mention are far, far below bronze - they can offer a low cost because they also offer low coverage.
 
2013-09-19 09:31:44 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Chummer45: Seriously, what could the GOP possibly propose that would even come close to addressing the rising cost of health care, or the pre existing condition issue?  It seems to me their primary opposition to Obamacare has always been (1) it was proposed by a democrat, and (2) it was enacted by a democrat.

I mean, what are they going to propose?  "Free market" health care?  Ok... if they're serious about that notion, then they'd have to do away with medicaid and medicare and privatize the entire system.  That'll go over well.  And it will totally reign in costs and improve health care in the US.

It's funny to watch the GOP struggle when asked what their own ideas are.  I remember Romney's response was "oh, well, we'll make sure pre existing conditions are covered, and kids can stay on their parents' plans, and (basically all the popular elements of the ACA), but we're going to do away with the individual mandate.

Yes, that's the GOP - the party of "personal responsibility."

My guess is something like the following:
- Eliminate corporate and personal income taxes
- Everybody now has a job
- Employer-sponsored insurance already bans pre-existing-condition discrimination

More seriously, it'll probably just be the usual claptrap about interstate insurance sales, tort reform and whatnot, in an attempt to bring the magic of the free market to an industry that exhibits every market failure in the book (and a few specific to it).



Health insurance is one of the most government-manipulated industries around, and has been for 40 or 50 years or so.

So, naturally, when that industry's costs and benefits get distorted all to hell, people (like you) call it a "market failure."  Brilliant.

Here's the basic, unavoidable reality -- pre-existing conditions are UNINSURABLE.

Here's another basic, unavoidable reality -- insurance for ordinary expenses is not economically sound.  (in common parlance, one might say it's "stupid.")

If a pre-existing condition causes a certain portion of the US population to become disabled (not fake-disabled, like the Obama-era disability rules provide, which is just a euphemism for Obama-era unemployment), then it would be far cheaper to just give those people welfare.

The other basic reality (though avoidable) is that, in modern American society, the majority of health expenses are caused by self-inflicted lifestyle choices -- obesity, lack of exercise, and recreational toxins (smoking, boozing and drugs).  The ONLY way to solve that problem is to expect people to pay for the results of their own decisions -- the way that people treat a car better if they own it as opposed to the car they rent.  Simple microeconomics.
 
2013-09-19 01:06:54 PM  

Phinn: not fake-disabled, like the Obama-era disability rules provide, which is just a euphemism for Obama-era unemployment),


Could you explain what you mean here?
 
2013-09-19 01:26:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Phinn: not fake-disabled, like the Obama-era disability rules provide, which is just a euphemism for Obama-era unemployment),

Could you explain what you mean here?


Forget it, he's rolling.
www.sondrakistan.com
 
2013-09-19 01:34:27 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Phinn: not fake-disabled, like the Obama-era disability rules provide, which is just a euphemism for Obama-era unemployment),

Could you explain what you mean here?



The number of people who are on disability (SSI and SSDI) has rapidly increased.  It's become a proxy for unemployment benefits, driven in part by the unusually long time that this economic depression has lasted.
 
2013-09-19 01:49:39 PM  

Phinn: The number of people who are on disability (SSI and SSDI) has rapidly increased. It's become a proxy for unemployment benefits, driven in part by the unusually long time that this economic depression has lasted.


Those are effects. But I am asking what you mean about eh CAUSES.

What do you mean when you say "Obama-era disability rules" and "fake-disabled "?

Are there different rules since Obama than before?
 
2013-09-19 01:59:12 PM  

Phinn: Health insurance is one of the most government-manipulated industries around, and has been for 40 or 50 years or so.

So, naturally, when that industry's costs and benefits get distorted all to hell, people (like you) call it a "market failure."  Brilliant.

Here's the basic, unavoidable reality -- pre-existing conditions are UNINSURABLE.

Here's another basic, unavoidable reality -- insurance for ordinary expenses is not economically sound.  (in common parlance, one might say it's "stupid.")


I'm talking about health care, not health insurance, being full of market failures. You certainly don't have rational, well-informed consumers making free choices in a competitive market. Heck, just try even finding out what procedures cost, leading me to:

As for not using insurance for ordinary expenses, if there was some pricing consistency and transparency it might be feasible. As it is, take a look at what "out-of-network" things cost - it can be literally 5x as much (I've personally experienced this). An infinite-deductible insurance plan, if it gave you access to PPO pricing, would have significant value because of this (where e.g. infinite-deductible fire insurance would be pointless).

Phinn: The other basic reality (though avoidable) is that, in modern American society, the majority of health expenses are caused by self-inflicted lifestyle choices -- obesity, lack of exercise, and recreational toxins (smoking, boozing and drugs).


See theincidentaleconomist.com FAQ section for hard numbers and references on this. Of the delta between what Americans pay for healthcare and the rest of the world, about 5% is attributable to disease prevalence (including porkitude and drunkenness, as well as things like canceraids).

It's not just a matter of subsidizing innovation for the rest of the world either - the amount we spend is several times as much as would cover that.
 
2013-09-19 02:07:53 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: just try even finding out what procedures cost


Perhaps that's a problem because of a governmental ban on medical and pharmaceutical advertising and price publication.
 
2013-09-19 02:26:58 PM  

Phinn: Gaseous Anomaly: just try even finding out what procedures cost

Perhaps that's a problem because of a governmental ban on medical and pharmaceutical advertising and price publication.


Is there?
And Gas wasn't talking about advertisements. Why can't we call a hospital and ask what a bag of saline costs? Why does it show up on the bill at $500?
 
2013-09-19 02:48:16 PM  
Phinn: The number of people who are on disability (SSI and SSDI) has rapidly increased. It's become a proxy for unemployment benefits, driven in part by the unusually long time that this economic depression has lasted.

Those are effects. But I am asking what you mean about eh CAUSES.

What do you mean when you say "Obama-era disability rules" and "fake-disabled "?

Are there different rules since Obama than before?
 
Displayed 23 of 473 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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