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.

(NBC News)   Profiles of uninsured who would rather pay the fine than join Obamacare. Yes, they are exactly as you expect   (m.nbcnews.com) divider line 267
    More: Dumbass, obamacare, health cares, hold outs, socialized medicine  
•       •       •

7956 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 5:13 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-05 10:05:15 PM

MrSplifferton: Il Douchey: Well, who did you think was crashing the exchanges trying to get in?  The young healthy people looking to increase their contribution to the collective, or the already costly unhealthy people looking to have someone else pick up most of their tab?

/Does it really surprise you that the intended victims of this ponzi scheme aren't eager to be fleeced?

I feel the same way, I've never been in an accident or had a ticket for almost 18 years.  So why should I have to pay for car insurance?  I'm just getting fleeced, having to pay for bad drivers making mistakes.

/What do you mean that's how insurance pools work?


I totally agree. I've not used my auto insurance in nearly 20 years. Ergo, by the same logic that says healthy people don't need health insurance, I do not need auto insurance. My home has never been robbed or damaged in an earthquake; why should I bother having homeowner's insurance? My brother-in-law is not a shady contractor, why does he need liability insurance? My boss is not a crooked lawyer, why must he carry malpractice insurance?

Why can't anyone just not have insurance until they actually need it? Obviously it's just a scheme by insurers and the government to fleece money from honest law-abiding citizens to support bad drivers, crooked lawyers and gypsy contractors!
 
2013-10-05 10:06:59 PM
Conservative thinking will destroy this country once and for all...

Farking idiots the whole lot.
 
2013-10-05 10:15:29 PM

Delay: HotIgneous Intruder: Why is health care so expensive that every single person needs insurance to pay for it?
Why does any US citizen need insurance?

Good question. Base health care costs in the US are mostly set by the government. Here is 2012:

The formula for calculating 2012 physician fee schedule payment amount is as follows:
2012 Non-Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Non-Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * Conversion Factor (CF)
2012 Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * CF
The conversion factor for CY 2012 is $34.0376.

All clear?


I'm good on PFS, actually; where were you when I was elbow-deep in OPPS/ASC methodology this afternoon?
 
2013-10-05 10:30:39 PM

iron de havilland: I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.


It's easy. Look at it thsi way: First, imagine someone who has a comfortable or better standard of living, and is a selfish asshole who doesn't give a fark how bad others have it, as long as he and his are OK. Then imagine the kind of person who repeats such sayings as "gubmint bad" and "gubmint can't do anything right" and "I should be free to do whatever the hell I please on my land" In other words, someone just like the first asshole, but poor. Finally, imagine the type of person who is such a peice of shiat that he thinks things like "Well, I ain't got it so great, but I'll be damned if them wetbacks and darkies are going to get a dime of my tax money"

Now multiply those 3 people by about 25 million, and you've got the stupidest, stubbornest, most selfish group of the American public who won't give a goddamned dime to anyone they don;t like. And believe me, there's a LOT of people they don't like. Add to this the fact that the majority of them will GLADLY cut off their nose to spite their face, and you'll see why the "greatest country in the world" spends more money per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world for worse healthcare

tl;dr: It's because there are a lot of stupid, short-sighted, selfish assholes in the US who put the teabaggers into national political offices.
 
2013-10-05 10:31:27 PM
swaniefrmreddeer:  if you could have been insured and chose not to be, then you're on your own. The boot-strap crowd can get all boot-strappy with their own emergency medical care.

Someone insisting on learning the hard way makes that person pretty disposable, in my book
 
2013-10-05 10:53:35 PM

FloydA: "I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said.


I calculated that it's cheaper for me not to have car insurance, as long as I am not in an accident.  It's cheaper for me to not have homeowner's insurance, as long as nothing happens to damage my house.  It's cheaper for me to not have health insurance, as long as I don't get sick or injured.

However, I realize those things could happen, so I bought the insurance anyway, to protect me from unexpected tragedies.  That's what insurance is for.  If I do get sick or injured, the money I spent on insurance will be more than offset by the money I save getting my care paid for.

Why is that concept so hard for Republicans to grasp?


no long term strategy.
this seems to be a consistent theme with republicans.  Even the business minded ones don't usually think past the next quarter/cycle, etc..
 
2013-10-05 10:58:20 PM

iron de havilland: [i.imgur.com image 850x462]
[howdemocracyworks.files.wordpress.com image 675x349]

I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.


The ACA doesn't get us any closer to other countries than we are right now.
 
2013-10-05 11:05:59 PM
A true solution is a change to the Hippocratic oath: help only those with insurance or who can pay cash, everyone else is a leach and should be allowed to die in the gutter.  I guarantee that the "Obama haters" would be weeded out of the gene pool in 10 years.

Besides, what "software developer" in his 40's doesn't already have access to better insurance than Obamacare.  If you don't, you suck as a software developer or are a cheap bastard and deserve what you get.

Additionally, if you have any number of kids and are employable, you should be able to pay for them 100%; otherwise, don't have kids - ya freaking hypocritical leaches.  Separatist 'tards in Idaho do not add any value at all to the US or the world.
 
2013-10-05 11:10:44 PM

ginandbacon: "Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance plan for people with low income and children who are not covered."

*sigh*


It's either that or medical experiments for the lot of 'em.

content9.flixster.com
 
2013-10-05 11:12:25 PM
To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.
 
2013-10-05 11:13:52 PM

vartian: swaniefrmreddeer: ER's are going to have to deny treatment to anybody without health insurance. Maybe this whole death panel thing isn't actually that bad of an idea, if you could have been insured and chose not to be, then you're on your own. The boot-strap crowd can get all boot-strappy with their own emergency medical care.

Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

Coco LaFemme: Maybe the lesson to be learned here is not to breed like the human race is dying out when you can't properly take care of all your spawnlings.  The United States is not an agrarian society anymore, we don't need people having 10+ children to make sure there's enough manual labor for the farms.

A wish for denial of treatment, Invoking of untreated sickness and a call for child limitation. This is not a fun thread.


I agree, simply put people seem to feel self righteous with no empathy for other people. I has a sad :(.

The children are covered, I see no reason why the adults should have to be legally required to pay a private company for a service they have no financial means to afford.  It reeks of the worst kind of right wing ideology.
 
2013-10-05 11:18:12 PM
I'm sure someone has said it already, but....

Having 10 kids and not having health insurance is child abuse. They should be taken from that home.

Medicaid....Jesus farking Christ you farking piece of shiat.
 
2013-10-05 11:22:17 PM

cepson: To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.


Wow, that's Oliver Stone grade battshiat crazy, paranoid, conspiratorial insanity right the brotha.
 
2013-10-05 11:24:38 PM

cepson: To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.


Neat post. Kinda helps explain the whole "refusal to switch to the metric system" thingy too.
 
2013-10-05 11:27:07 PM

likefunbutnot: In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0


So you haven't had even a routine physical in years?  That sounds like a good idea.
 
2013-10-05 11:28:51 PM

Gyrfalcon: Why can't anyone just not have insurance until they actually need it?


I know your not being serious here but this is actually what a lot of people think.
 
2013-10-05 11:29:52 PM

GhostFish: Wait, his ten kids are covered by medicaid but he doesn't even want that?

And this guy is a software developer?

Did someone put acid in my morning coffee?


There's a lot of idiot software developers out there. Believe me.
 
2013-10-05 11:36:02 PM
Why should a young healthy person buy anything? They'll have an inflated premium to pay for the subsidized people, there are laws that guarantees treatment and it's illegal to exclude preexisting conditions.

If this surprises you, then you're an idiot.
 
2013-10-05 11:39:47 PM

Pincy: likefunbutnot: In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0

So you haven't had even a routine physical in years?  That sounds like a good idea.


If you don't go the the doctor, you can't find out if you are sick. Getting sick is the expensive part.

CHECKMATE LIBTARD!
 
2013-10-05 11:43:38 PM

MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment


All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.
 
2013-10-05 11:45:20 PM

Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment

All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.


What's your point?
 
2013-10-05 11:45:55 PM

MugzyBrown: Why should a young healthy person buy anything? They'll have an inflated premium to pay for the subsidized people, there are laws that guarantees treatment and it's illegal to exclude preexisting conditions.

If this surprises you, then you're an idiot.


I agree.  And if a condition occurs unexpectedly, that person should be allowed to die a painful death unless they foot the bill entirely.  Their choice.  They should be kicked repeatedly for being idiots.  I hate idiots.  The first question someone should be asked in a car wreck is if they have insurance.  If not, they should be told that MugzyBrown is laughing at them and calling them idiots.  Or a heart attack.  Or a stroke.

I agree with you.  I love it when idiots and leaches die.

Oddly, life is a pre-existing condition.  Money is not.  I have never heard of a fetus who bought his/her way out of the womb.
 
2013-10-05 11:54:57 PM

MugzyBrown: Why should a young healthy person buy anything? They'll have an inflated premium to pay for the subsidized people, there are laws that guarantees treatment and it's illegal to exclude preexisting conditions.

If this surprises you, then you're an idiot.


Why should we be legally required to purchase something from a private company?
 
2013-10-06 12:03:26 AM

cepson: To those people outside the U.S. who don't understand why the world's richest, most powerful country lacks a universal healthcare system:

I'm sure you've heard people talk about American exceptionalism. That's the belief by some Americans that the United States is the culmination of historical trend toward freedom, democracy, and economic perfection. We are special, a singular monument to the aspirations of all people, everywhere. And, since we have no real health care "system", then no health care system must be the best health care system there is. If we instead adopt something like the ACA, we'll start sliding downward into socialism and fascism and all the other isms that afflict the rest of the entire world--we'll stop being special. So really what this comes down to is, a small but extremely powerful and vocal minority of people in the United States think that if we adopt a system that provides everyone with access to health care, then we'll be like every other country in the world. And they can't live with the thought. So they're willing to destroy the country to keep that from happening.

Yes, it's completely delusional. But don't act like you've never had batshiat insane leaders before.


I agree completely, except to point out that the United States has actually been exceptional in many ways. Both good and bad. I try to remind myself of this when talking to conservatives.
 
2013-10-06 12:06:56 AM

Pincy: Gyrfalcon: Why can't anyone just not have insurance until they actually need it?

I know your not being serious here but this is actually what a lot of people think.


And the flip side, seen just as often is: People SHOULD HAVE bought insurance before they needed it! If they don't have insurance, why should they expect treatment they can't afford?

It's like people never listen to the crap that comes out of their mouths.
 
2013-10-06 12:17:04 AM
Idaho, 10 kids, hates Obamasocialismhealthcare, but thinks medicare covering his spawn is just fine.
/Bet the guy is Mormon
 
2013-10-06 12:34:34 AM

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment

All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.

What's your point?


I'll give you an example of the problem with the guaranteed treatment theory.  Schizophrenia usually surfaces in late teens early 20's.  You get psychotic and are hospitalized for a month because you are guaranteed treatment at the ER.  However, all your psych meds that can cost over $600/month for generics will not be guaranteed.

So what happens then?

You get psychotic once your meds run out and end up back in the ER then the psych ward for another month, ad nauseum.  Or, if you get real unlucky you kill a bunch of people like we've been seeing with a lot of the mass shootings.

Your treatment is assured, follow up not so much.
 
2013-10-06 12:45:39 AM

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: there are laws that guarantees treatment

All the ER is obliged to do is stabilize you if you have a life-threatening condition.  If this surprises you then you're an idiot.

What's your point?


I'm sure those with chronic medical conditions might have an issue with what you consider adequate "guaranteed treatment".
 
2013-10-06 12:50:48 AM

MountainClimber: Idaho, 10 kids, hates Obamasocialismhealthcare, but thinks medicare covering his spawn is just fine.
/Bet the guy is Mormon


Actually, he doesn't want his kids covered either. Other than that you nailed it.
 
2013-10-06 01:14:42 AM

The Dynamite Monkey: gaspode: Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid

I don't wish DIAF on anyone as a rule, but here is what he feels is not worth insuring:


A couple of those kids are not like the others...
 
2013-10-06 01:27:12 AM

likefunbutnot: Karac: And you know that ... how?

14 out of the last 15 years, I've had zero medical expenses. I'm at low risk for developing chronic health issues over the next five years and the most likely way that I would be injured is in an automobile accident, in which case my car insurance would provide coverage.

I don't think it makes rational sense for me to pay slightly more than half what I pay to have a home each month for the right to 60% off coupon of expenses that I will either not use at all *or* will still be so vastly expensive that I will be bankrupted after care has been provided.


Let me tell you a story. I'm a bit of an exercise nut, I ride around 15km a day on my bike to and from work, etc. When I was 29 I suddenly developed an  inability to climb stairs, or walk fast without being left gasping like I'd run a marathon. Ended up in emergency and found out I'd had a "multiple, massive bilateral pulmonary embolism." Basically, out of the blue as far as I knew, my body decided to end me by clogging up my lungs with blood clots. The doctors kept saying shiat like "How does a healthy 29 year old throw a clot like this?" and "are you sure you don't smoke?  Have you ever smoked? Travelled anywhere?" I survived, only to lose the lower part of my right lung a year later to the same shiat. During the intervening time I had to spend a couple months taking an injectable anti-coagulant that cost 1400 bucks a month. Turns out I have a genetic clotting disorder and I'm going to have to take blood thinners for the rest of my life. Luckily for me I'm Canadian so I didn't have to pay out of pocket for the endless CTs, MRI, and all the other alphabet soup tests. I would've had to pay for the prescriptions if I did not have supplementary insurance so the 1400$ a month drug cost me 2$.

Point is I could've saved like 20$ a month by not getting that supplementary insurance, and then I would've been broke. If you're an American then you'd have it worse because you have no public healthcare. Being stuck in the hospital for a couple weeks could easily get very expensive. The whole point of insurance is to try to mitigate unforeseen disasters. Saying "Well I've never gotten sick before..." is kind of irrelevant, I could've said the same thing at my 29th birthday, but a couple months later I would likely have said "fark, I can't slow my breathing long enough to sleep, or eat"

/actually doing a lot better now
//hard motherfarker
 
2013-10-06 01:36:29 AM

vudutek: I think the Dems should go ahead and give up the individual mandate, totally.
But.... with a caveat. A big one.
Anyone that opts out, needs to be totally out. No insurance at all. You want to be a boostrappy individualist, you pay 100% for all care. No exceptions. And just like student loans, no discharge through bankruptcy.

All right, Randians, time to put up or shut up.


One more condition, no emergency room access if you can't pay for it.  Somalia rules.  If you cant pay for care, and have a serious illness, you die.
 
2013-10-06 01:44:32 AM

pueblonative: "I don't think that the government should be involved in health care or health insurance," says Greg Collett, a 41-year-old software developer in Caldwell, Idaho, who would rather pay the fine for now -- $95 the first year -- than signup.

unless this guy's making $9500/year writing software (maybe school assignments on vDesk or something) sounds like he's in for a rude surprise.


I think a lot of people planning on paying "the $95" are in for the same surprise. Maybe they should have taken the time to learn more about the ACA.
 
2013-10-06 01:51:38 AM
FTFA: "Collett counts himself among the 29 percent of people who said in an NBC News/Kaiser poll they are angry about the health reform law. "The issue for me is that it is not the proper role of government," he said."

But he has 10 kids on Medicaid.

"Trying to get whatever you can back -- I have nothing against that. You have to at some point try and get your tax dollars back."

Oh. OK then.
 
2013-10-06 02:48:08 AM
Stop smoking butts! That's nasty.
 
2013-10-06 02:57:37 AM
That Greg Collette guy is just the type of foster parent I personally despise. My wife's career has centered around case management of foster children. There are two types of foster homes, ones where people are passionate about children in need, and those who figure they can bring in some money without getting a pesky job. Greg is absolutely the latter... As most are, sadly.
 
2013-10-06 02:57:59 AM
If you get health insurance within the next year insurance companies must ignore pre-existing conditions at enrollment and after.  However, if you wait beyond one year they can consider pre-existing conditions.  That way people can't wait years until they have a health problem before getting insurance.
 
2013-10-06 03:11:12 AM

kalor: I think if people want to opt out of the mandate they should be allowed; however, the law needs to be changed which classifies those medical debts and related debts incurred because you opted out as non-bankruptable.  If you decide to freeload then you don't get a chance to wipe out the debt due to your bad decision.

We'll see how many people decide to opt out when they realize the true weight of their decision and that they can't squirm out of it later.


Poasted elsewhere:

...I hereby decree that from this day, no, from this very hour forward, that any Tea Party member, GOP member, Fundamentalist Christian, Dominionist, or conservative who recieves any type whatsoever of healthcare services from any hospital, clinic or other medical facility, shall immediately be declared a terrorist and traitor to the United States and is to be punished in an appropriate manner by the appropriate law enforcement agency.
In fact, all medical facilities in GOP/Red Zones shall be declared unfit for use and demolished.
 
2013-10-06 03:14:49 AM

Delay: firefly212: Every farking thread... every farking one...

THE ER DOES NOT TREAT YOU FOR THINGS THAT ARENT EMERGENCIES!

Why do you post this when you can easily find that it is false? The ER treats everyone who comes in the door with a problem. More than half of all ER visits are for non-urgent care.

And there is obvious abuse. The Integrated Care Collaboration in Central Texas determined that nine patients accounted for about 2,700 emergency room visits there.


I'm not certain which of you is right. My anecdotal evidence is an incident that happened a number of years ago. I had an accident in which I had severe damage to my left ulna, I'd shattered about an inch of bone. 

I went to the ER. It was a Thursday. I did receive treatment but, that treatment consisted of a some pain pills, a soft cast, a prescription for more pain pills, and a referral to an orthopedic surgeon that I should call the next Monday to set up an intake appointment sometime later that week. I was then sent home.

I went to the ER with a broken bone (I was also in shock but I came out of that while I was waiting for the doc to check me out). The kind folks at the ER checked me out, made a diagnoses, stabilized me, and then sent me on my way with instructions telling me what I should do next. This was when I had insurance.

My point is that, while you will be treated in the ER, it will be just enough to stabilize you. Once they reach the point that you no longer need emergency or urgent care, they will send you home and tell you to contact a non emergency doctor. Without insurance that's not really an option, so you just go home. When your health problem flares up again you have no other option than to go to the ER and start the whole process again.
 
2013-10-06 03:48:08 AM

FloydA: "I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said.


I calculated that it's cheaper for me not to have car insurance, as long as I am not in an accident.  It's cheaper for me to not have homeowner's insurance, as long as nothing happens to damage my house.  It's cheaper for me to not have health insurance, as long as I don't get sick or injured.

However, I realize those things could happen, so I bought the insurance anyway, to protect me from unexpected tragedies.  That's what insurance is for.  If I do get sick or injured, the money I spent on insurance will be more than offset by the money I save getting my care paid for.

Why is that concept so hard for Republicans to grasp?


Wind energy is a boondoggle to these scum, because wind energy can't provide 100% of our power. Who cares if it can effectively provide 10 to 20 percent? If it's not 100%, it's a failure.

Simpleton binary thinking. Complex things are hard, so they have to be reduced to "yes" or "no." Can wind energy provide ALL our energy? No. So it's 100% useless.

Are they in 100% good health? Than health insurance is 100% useless.

Their idiots, basically.
 
2013-10-06 05:04:59 AM

impaler: FloydA: "I calculated it out and it is cheaper for me for the next four years to pay the fine rather than get coverage," Collett said.


I calculated that it's cheaper for me not to have car insurance, as long as I am not in an accident.  It's cheaper for me to not have homeowner's insurance, as long as nothing happens to damage my house.  It's cheaper for me to not have health insurance, as long as I don't get sick or injured.

However, I realize those things could happen, so I bought the insurance anyway, to protect me from unexpected tragedies.  That's what insurance is for.  If I do get sick or injured, the money I spent on insurance will be more than offset by the money I save getting my care paid for.

Why is that concept so hard for Republicans to grasp?

Wind energy is a boondoggle to these scum, because wind energy can't provide 100% of our power. Who cares if it can effectively provide 10 to 20 percent? If it's not 100%, it's a failure.

Simpleton binary thinking. Complex things are hard, so they have to be reduced to "yes" or "no." Can wind energy provide ALL our energy? No. So it's 100% useless.

Are they in 100% good health? Than health insurance is 100% useless.

Their idiots, basically.


Well said.
 
2013-10-06 07:08:57 AM

R.A.Danny: iron de havilland: [i.imgur.com image 850x462]
[howdemocracyworks.files.wordpress.com image 675x349]

I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.

I mean, I've seen the Fark threads that show up every now and then, with farkers begging for donations because their nearest and dearest are sick. And it's depressing to see. My mother survived breast cancer because, through general taxation, everyone in the UK has a basic safety net of the NHS.

She could have gone private, and paid for it, which would have cost big £££s. She may have got her treatment sooner, or in more comfortable conditions. But she didn't have to as healthcare is a basic foundation of society that everyone needs at some point.

And the ultimate irony is in those images I've posted. Americans spend the most on healthcare, with the smallest returns.

/I'm not suggesting that the NHS is perfect, by the way. There have been several major scandals recently, but it seems better than what's available to your average American.

The ACA doesn't get us any closer to other countries than we are right now.


Before Obamacare: I couldn't afford private health insurance.
After Obamacare: I can.

Before Obamacare: With a lot of pre-existing conditions, you couldn't get health insurance, whether you could pay or not.
After Obamacare: You can.

Yes, I agree with you on one thing - we should go to single-payer like every other developed country.  But to say that the health care system in no better today than it was five years ago?  That's just being whiny.

It's like don't ask/don't tell.  Sure, it was a bad policy which forced gays who wanted to serve in the military to remain in the closet.  Sure, getting rid of the discrimination completely is what we should have done in the 90's instead of waiting another 15 years.  BUT - since the policy before Clinton was that gays couldn't serve AT ALL, and that investigators could bust through that closet door and search them out - then you have to admit that the situation, while still shiatty, stunk a lot less than it did before.

A perfect plan is better than a good plan.  But sometimes you just don't have the votes and support from the other guys to enact that perfect plan.  And a good plan today is better than a perfect plan ... at some unspecified time in the future that may or may not ever occur.
 
2013-10-06 08:49:54 AM

Karac: I cannot grasp why a modern, developed country would not have universal healthcare.


The sad thing is that the resistance to the ACA is either A) "the black guy is not on my team so I'm against it" or B) fear of change based opposition (created by A).  For just one example, the same people who say the ACA is "socialist" and "takes away our freedom" also believe that there are nine countries more "economically free" that the USA.... all have universal health care.  http://www.heritage.org/index/


If the Republicans were willing to work on this legislation like every other piece of legislation we could fix any problems with it.  No one suggested the law is or even could be perfect when first introduced but it has already benefited many people (pre-existing conditions, slowing down health insurance cost hikes, young people on their parent's insurance etc....).  It is sure as heck better than going back to the most expensive (for taxpayers like me) and least effective healthcare system....free emergency room visits.
 
2013-10-06 08:50:29 AM

FloydA: vpb: Hoban Washburne: I would hope that each of these assholes has a catastrophic health issue, but then they'd still get healthcare and just pass the costs on to the rest of us.

That raises an interesting question.

What happens when people get sick, don't have insurance and it isn't an open season?  I guess they get to be the example of why it's stupid to not have insurance?

Sadly, no.  They just go to the ER and get treated, and then when they can't pay, the hospital has to swallow the cost, which they pass on to everyone else.


Does that apply to chemotherapy, ongoing dialysis, or ongoing trestmemt for HIV?

I'm ignorant on this though I assumed that someone needing this sort of treatment without money or insurance might as well get measured for a coffin.
 
2013-10-06 08:56:56 AM

Il Douchey: cc1984:That's what you got out of this?

Yup.  The article is hardly representative of the population.  You could cite three or four anecdotes among millions of Americans to suggest whatever you like.  Mine was more of a general questioning of the viability of Obamamcare.


Was it not passed by Congress, the Senate and signed into law by the President? Has it not also passed the constitutional sniff test by the Supreme Court?
 
2013-10-06 09:17:28 AM

Daniels: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Daniels: likefunbutnot: I'm the libbiest lib ever, but it makes no rational sense for me to accept ACA coverage. I work for a very small business that is exempted from pretty much all employment law in the first place, so there's no mandate to provide or subsidize coverage; and I make too much money to be given any federal subsidy for my premiums. For me to enroll in a bronze-level plan, I'm looking at monthly premiums that cost about 9.5% of my income to get 60% coverage. In 14 of the last 15 years, my health care costs have been $0 and coincidentally, I've been saving around 10% of my monthly income for the last eight or nine years. If I accept coverage, I'm looking at living paycheck to paycheck in order to have insurance that I'm not going to be using (and if  I do, the plan I'd be getting would only cover 60% of expenses) when I could be using that money to save for a home or a car or something other than letting an insurance executive make a yacht payment.

I really want to hold out for single payer. The deal I'm getting is a huge shiat sandwich.

No no.  It's excellent legislation -- which was not at all a handout to the health insurance industry -- that must be defended at all costs because we had to do SOMETHING~!

I think what dipshiat meant to say is: While you personally do not benefit from the new healthcare law, is the extra burden worth it for your less fortunate neighbors to have access to healthcare where they previously wouldn't?

No.  I meant exactly what I said.  I'm pro single-payer.  It was garbage when it was passed and it's garbage now.  Only now dipshiats are pretending it's not garbage when it pushed back what we actually need to do 30-50 more years.


Do you think single payer would ever become reality though? There's just too much resistance to it.
 
2013-10-06 09:18:13 AM
Mr. Splifferton:I feel the same way, I've never been in an accident or had a ticket for almost 18 years.  So why should I have to pay for car insurance?  I'm just getting fleeced, having to pay for bad drivers making mistakes.

You have car insurance for the next 18 years, not the last.  Car insurance companies can use your good record to assign low premiums to you; just as they use a drunk's six DWI's to assign high premiums or refuse to cover him.  Obamacare is different; it would take your expected cost and the drunk's, add them together and split the difference.  So you are penalized for his bad behavior and he is rewarded for your good behavior.

/Insurance can only work when there is uncertainty or when prospective likelihood of use is taken into account.  Once you know who is more likely to draw from the pool, you have to discriminate based on that likelihood, or else the system breaks down.
 
2013-10-06 09:24:46 AM
kg2095: Was it not passed by Congress, the Senate and signed into law by the President? Has it not also passed the constitutional sniff test by the Supreme Court?

Yes to all of that.  None of which means it's viable. It's not.
 
2013-10-06 09:25:16 AM

The Dynamite Monkey: gaspode: Collett, who is married and has 10 children, says the kids are covered by Medicaid

I don't wish DIAF on anyone as a rule, but here is what he feels is not worth insuring:


What sort of dickhead has a flag in his hallway?
 
2013-10-06 09:30:18 AM
In Idaho, foster parents are paid between $10-15 per day, per child by the state in addition to food stamps and Medicaid. The chance to indoctrinate ten helpless kids into your bizarre belief system AND be hailed as saints for taking on the burden? Priceless.

I'd be curious to know how many foster children the family has adopted outright. My guess would be none, unless there was some financial incentive/tax break for doing so which outweighed all that pesky government interference in their live$.
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report