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.

(Fox News)   I once bought a Ford Focus with a stick shift and roll-down windows and that's why there's no such thing as a "substandard" health plan   (foxnews.com) divider line 141
    More: Stupid, President Obama, health insurance, cost sharing  
•       •       •

2171 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2013 at 1:43 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-08 02:16:30 PM

Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.



He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense,  When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do,   If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste,  people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.
 
2013-11-08 02:16:45 PM
The ACA wants me to have a car with power windows and automatic transmission.  Fox News wants me to have a horse with a bum leg.
 
2013-11-08 02:16:57 PM
Clearly you should have bought a Geo Metro instead.
 
2013-11-08 02:18:57 PM

Mikey1969: Let me guess, this is just a trained monkey on a type...

Edward P. Lazear, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor and Hoover Institution fellow, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009.

Really?


Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers ... for an administration which pissed away a surplus from the prior office-holders, and during the years in which the economy started circling the drain and finally went completely down the shiatter.  It's entirely possible, likely even, that this guy's previous job could have been better carried out by the monkey.
 
2013-11-08 02:19:40 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?


Ah so they have once again articulated that the GOP healthcare plan is, "Die quick if you get sick."
 
2013-11-08 02:22:34 PM
verbaltoxin:

Ah so they have once again articulated that the GOP healthcare plan is, "Die quick if you get sick."

The ecomnists is making no judgment on advantages or disadvantages of preventative care.

They are making the the statment that people being responsible for their own expenses lead to more reasonable costs of those expenses.
 
2013-11-08 02:22:45 PM

TheManMythLegend: Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.


He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense,  When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do,   If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste,  people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.


Sorry, but "makes sense" is not proof that anything occurs in reality. It "makes sense" that the world is flat, or that an object in motion will tend towards rest.

A doctor visit is not a car. No one wants to go to the doctor.
 
2013-11-08 02:25:51 PM

TheManMythLegend: Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.


He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense,  When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do,   If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste,  people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.


Here's the problem with that idea: if you happen to fall into the top 1% of spenders because you got cancer or were hit by a bus, you're going to fork over a TON of money. The top 1% of health care spenders top six figures in a year. How many people do you personally know that have $100,000 or more in liquid assets? My guess is for most of us on Fark, you can count that number on zero hands. Hell, I don't know very many people with even a tenth of that!
 
2013-11-08 02:29:38 PM

TheManMythLegend: Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.


He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense,  When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do,   If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste,  people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.


That (and he) completely ignores the fact that a few $300 doctors visits are a lot cheaper than a $100k ER bill when you require acute care of something that preventative care could have prevented.

Additionally, how are you supposed to say "Holy Crap that was a waste" and demand more reasonable medical costs when you get hit by a meteor and require immediate care?  You're treating healthcare (not insurance, actual care) like a commodity you can chose to go without (like a car).  That's stupid.
 
2013-11-08 02:30:46 PM

TheManMythLegend: He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense, When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do, If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste, people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.


I'm going to choose whichever one fixes the problem I walked into my doctor's office for in the first place.

FTA: The greater problem is that incentives to use care only when appropriate are missing from most plans, especially the ones that meet the "standard" to which the president implicitly refers.

This guy's whole point is that if people have affordable health insurance, then they'll be encouraged to use the hell out of it - that if you make it so someone can afford to get sick without going bankrupt, why then the next thing you know that person will be taking baths in feces so he can spend all his time at the doctor's office!

My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to.  No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong.  And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.
 
2013-11-08 02:32:20 PM

Pocket Ninja: I'd make the argument that a Ford Focus *with* a stick shift is a vast improvement on one without. As is the case in almost any automobile.


I think that was the least amount of text I have seen you post in years.
 Manual FTW

/REAL manuals with a clutch that is.  Not the no clutch manual/automatic stupidity i'm starting to see lately.
 
2013-11-08 02:33:40 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: TheManMythLegend: Tman144: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

The key word is "economist." Meaning, he didn't look at any real data. He made up numbers and assumed what people would do based on his fantasy world.


He's not explaining it real well but it does make sense,  When you are responsible for the total cost of something you make more efficent decisions bout things.

Heres what co-pays or do,   If you know that a no matter what vehicle you choose is only going to cost you $10,000 are you going to choose the Toyota Carrrola or the Mercedes E class?

Our current situation where many people have insurance with co-pays has made most people with insurance not really care what medical expenses costs.

When you see your doctor for 10 minutes and it costs you a $25 co-pay you dont care that the actual bill was $300 for that vistit.

Now with high deductable plans you go Holy Crap that was a waste,  people will now start demanding more reasonable medical costs when they have to front more of the bill.

That (and he) completely ignores the fact that a few $300 doctors visits are a lot cheaper than a $100k ER bill when you require acute care of something that preventative care could have prevented.

Additionally, how are you supposed to say " ...


Just because something is an economic truth, doesn't change the fact that having insurance is still a damn good idea....
When you don't have to pay the full cost for something, you will tend to not care what it costs. It's just human behavior. Now, you don't always have the choice (like emergency situations), nor do we have a proper functioning market where the consumer can make informed decisions.
 
2013-11-08 02:35:03 PM

Karac: My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to. No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong. And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.


In some cases, getting "medical help" can be a bad thing. Health care really is overutilized in this country by many people. I highly recommend people check out the below book:

ecx.images-amazon.com

But as I said previously on this thread, just because many Americans overutilize health care does not exclude many American underutilizing it at the exact same time.
 
2013-11-08 02:37:04 PM
I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills.  Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.
 
2013-11-08 02:37:22 PM
Super trolly idiotic headline and a Faux "News" link. Yeah, no.
 
2013-11-08 02:37:59 PM

Karac:
FTA: The greater problem is that incentives to use care only when appropriate are missing from most plans, especially the ones that meet the "standard" to which the president implicitly refers.

This guy's whole point is that if people have affordable health insurance, then they'll be encouraged to use the hell out of it - that if you make it so someone can afford to get sick without going bankrupt, why then the next thing you know that person will be taking baths in feces so he can spend all his time at the doctor's office!

My rebuttal to that argument: someone please tell me the last time they decided to take a day off work and go to a doctors office when they didn't need to.  No one goes to the doctor because they're healthy as a horse - they go when they're sick or hurt or something is otherwise wrong.  And here this guy is arguing that people getting medical help is a bad thing.


No....

Take prescriptions for instance. The drug companies have been rolling out prescription drug cards. So let's say you have the choice between a generic and a name-brand drug. The name-brand costs the insurance company $400 and the generic costs them $50. They try to save you money by letting you get the generic for $10, but they charge you $100 for the name-brand. The drug companies step in and give you a card for $90. Your out of pocket is still only $10, but now you are costing your insurance company an extra $350. The insurance companies could work to incentivize you to take the generic instead of the name brand.
 
2013-11-08 02:40:13 PM

TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills.  Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.


THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.
 
2013-11-08 02:42:53 PM

Jim_Callahan: Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper.  I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up.  But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.


If you're going to get a Focus, I suggest 2004 or later, unless you really enjoy replacing wheel bearings.
 
2013-11-08 02:45:55 PM

LedLawless: Jim_Callahan: Since the article is stupid, I am instead going to talk about the car design metaphor as if it were the literal point of discussion.

A manual focus is a good deal, since you get almost the gas mileage savings of going hybrid but you get it cheaper.  I wouldn't necessarily recommend the manual transmission over the electric hybrid for anything much heavier, though, since long-term the relatively minor mileage advantage of hybrid at higher weights will add up.  But then, at the VERY heavy weights you're probably going to want better direct control of your gearage and the manual is the cheapest way to accomplish this.

The only really universal rule is fark the (non-hybrid/electric) automatic transmission, it's so mediocre that it's second-best at everything and ends up being worst overall.

If you're going to get a Focus, I suggest 20042012 or later, unless you really enjoy replacing wheel bearings.


FTFY. The older ones were complete crap and hideous to boot.
 
2013-11-08 02:48:35 PM
"First, the president's rejection of "substandard" plans may result in eliminating the plans that are most efficient.

The problem of rising health care costs in large part results from the usual problem that arises when there is cost sharing, in this case between consumer and insurance company.

Because patients bear a small fraction of the cost of treatment, they do not make efficient decisions on health care.

Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently."

This part describes the entire article for me... They feel we need to allow people to keep substandard plans because otherwise they might actually use their healthcare when they need it or even worse they might use it for preventive care and screening to help identify things like cancer early when its easier and cheaper to treat. Yep that would be a real tragedy if that happened. I just can't believe these were the same people complaining about fake "Death Panels" and "Healthcare Rationing" since the start of the law.. now all the sudden we're not encouraging people to ration their own healthcare.
 
2013-11-08 02:49:11 PM

kidgenius: TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills.  Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.

THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.


Maybe 1%, but not much more than that. How can an individual rationally choose to forego $100,000 or more in life-saving care?
 
2013-11-08 02:50:40 PM

Serious Black: In some cases, getting "medical help" can be a bad thing. Health care really is overutilized in this country by many people. I highly recommend people check out the below book:


There is a difference between everyone seeing their doctor once a year and patients with good insurance getting 6 tests when they only need 2.

Single-payer improves health outcomes and reduces costs by both eliminating unnecessary medical procedures/tests while increasing regular (relatively inexpensive) preventative care.

When "experts" look at the US health care system from only within the US perspective, they really are clueless.
 
2013-11-08 02:50:50 PM

kidgenius: TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills.  Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.

THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.


Sure, you tend to care, but by how much? We don't know because this guy just made up random bullshiat to make a political point, not to engage in scientific inquiry.

Insurance companies are free to negotiate a high bill just as much as you are. Do individuals get better deals than insurance companies? I would think not. Putting individuals in charge of heathcare costs also  tends to make people put off care they need until it's an emergency, costing way more than the care would have cost if they had done something about it earlier. Which of these trends is greater?
 
2013-11-08 02:52:19 PM

Serious Black: Maybe 1%, but not much more than that. How can an individual rationally choose to forego $100,000 or more in life-saving care?


Not advocating that we forego necessary care at all. And maybe it is in the single digit percents.

Hopefully, ACA can help bring some of the costs under control with things like the 80/20 rule, the various new rules about hospital re-admissions, etc.
 
2013-11-08 02:52:21 PM

mrshowrules: Serious Black: In some cases, getting "medical help" can be a bad thing. Health care really is overutilized in this country by many people. I highly recommend people check out the below book:

There is a difference between everyone seeing their doctor once a year and patients with good insurance getting 6 tests when they only need 2.

Single-payer improves health outcomes and reduces costs by both eliminating unnecessary medical procedures/tests while increasing regular (relatively inexpensive) preventative care.

When "experts" look at the US health care system from only within the US perspective, they really are clueless.


Exactly. America does health care wrong in so many different ways at the same time that it's sometimes hard to tell where one problem ends and another begins.
 
2013-11-08 02:53:14 PM
Just to easily illustrate how dumb this analogy is... a stick shift IS a standard, as opposed to an automatic, so it can't be substandard.
 
2013-11-08 02:56:46 PM
Some other right wing kook teabag nutjob trying to say there is a 2nd Obamacare crisis coming...
Dont' know who he is,  but he must be some FOX NEWS lackey or something.


"Former VT Gov. Howard Dean appeared on Morning Joe earlier today and dropped a bombshell. Dean told the Obama faithful that there is another Obamacare crisis looming, even after the website gets fixed.
It's not sticker shock as Americans find out that they will be paying more for their health insurance than they were paying before Obamacare.


The segment leads off with NBC's David Gregory offering the Obama administration's point of view: "The White House says that what's key to making this successful is to get the risk pools right."
Dean countered, "David I know they say that. I've thought they were wrong from the beginning. This is the same consultants that put together Romneycare. They believe that.
"I don't believe it, and I don't believe it 'cause I've got 20 years of experience in making this work. So we can go into that another time. The bottom line though, is the next crisis here, assuming we get through all this, is the tax subsidies. Because it is gonna make the federal budget more expensive."



http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/08/howard-dean-says-theres-another -o bamacare-crisis-coming-its-not-the-one-you-think-it-is/


Thinks this will make the Fed Budget MORE expensive... Puhllleeeassse.    Obamacare is going to save the budget and make things much cheaper and better.

Who is this guy anyways...
 
2013-11-08 02:59:17 PM
I just love how our per capita healthcare costs are 50% greater than the next highest country. According to the OECD, we had a per capita cost of $8,233 in 2010, while Norway came in #2 at $5,388. If we lowered our costs to match theirs, we would save $902 billion dollars per year. Nope, can't have that.
 
2013-11-08 03:01:27 PM

pslong009: I just love how our per capita healthcare costs are 50% greater than the next highest country. According to the OECD, we had a per capita cost of $8,233 in 2010, while Norway came in #2 at $5,388. If we lowered our costs to match theirs, we would save $902 billion dollars per year. Nope, can't have that.


Think of how many private planes and luxury yachts would go un-bought under such a horrid scheme!
 
2013-11-08 03:03:13 PM

keldaria: Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce high and excessive use of care.


Is there really an epidemic of hypochondriacs sitting in Dr's offices?  I can think of about a 1000 things I'd rather do.  It's time out of a busy day.  It often involves lots of waiting, undressing, getting poked and prodded.  I think there's enough disincentive to get medical care that we don't need a financial barrier too,
 
2013-11-08 03:03:28 PM

Tman144: Insurance companies are free to negotiate a high bill just as much as you are. Do individuals get better deals than insurance companies? I would think not. Putting individuals in charge of heathcare costs also  tends to make people put off care they need until it's an emergency, costing way more than the care would have cost if they had done something about it earlier. Which of these trends is greater?


This is less about negotiating, and just not getting unnecessary procedures done. Again, maybe you only need one or two tests, but you want 6 to be triple-y sure that nothing is wrong. Maybe a generic prescription will do the same good as a name-brand, but you think the name-brand has something "special" in it. These are all things that we, as individuals, can do to help control costs. As Serious Black mentioned though, maybe we are only in the single-digits.
 
2013-11-08 03:05:44 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Health economists, notably Daniel Kessler at Stanford, have demonstrated that the failure by the consumer to pay for health care on the margin induces high and in many cases over usage.

Plans that have low co-pays, first-dollar coverage, and insure routine predictable health care events are induce [sic] high and excessive use of care.

By contrast, those like catastrophic care plans that do not insure the routine and cover only unpredictable high cost events, induce consumers to behave more efficiently.

So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?

Seriously?

Yes.  Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.


The politicians involved are owned by the insurance companies, and that is exactly what they want: you pay them but they never pay you. Massive profits.
 
2013-11-08 03:06:15 PM
I hope his Ford Focus did not allow for pre-existing conditions and had a life-time cap.
 
2013-11-08 03:08:29 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: So your argument, Fox News person, is that routine preventative care is WORSE than waiting until you collapse from what would have been an easily treatable INSERT_CONDITION_HERE if it had been caught months or years earlier?


Sure, because you might die before you get any medical treatment, and then everyone who owns an insurance company wins.
 
2013-11-08 03:13:45 PM
Did this guy ever take his Ford Focus in for an oil change, get the tires rotated, get new tires when the old ones' treads wore out, get his clutch adjusted, replace brake pads, add anti-freeze, make sure his radiator was topped up? Preventative care is important to reducing long term costs.
 
2013-11-08 03:17:20 PM

red5ish: Did this guy ever take his Ford Focus in for an oil change, get the tires rotated, get new tires when the old ones' treads wore out, get his clutch adjusted, replace brake pads, add anti-freeze, make sure his radiator was topped up? Preventative care is important to reducing long term costs.


This

And the big difference between car care and health care is if your car bites the dust due to lack of preventative care, you either get another or take the bus.  When it happens in health care to people with no or shiatty insurance, you die or mooch off others.
 
2013-11-08 03:18:31 PM
A new Gallup poll brings more 'not so good' terrible news for President Obama and his signature health plan, showing that only 22% of uninsured Americans intend to buy insurance  Ford Focus through the ObamaCare exchanges.

Maybe that is the 22% that don't understand oil changes
 
2013-11-08 03:34:46 PM

kidgenius: TheManMythLegend: I don't see where the economist said low deductable plans were bad just that they lead to higher costs.

Since going on a high deductable plan a couple years ago we have negotiated and reduced quite a few bills.  Moslty by arguing that certain tests were not needed or approved.

THIS.

That's all the argument the economist is trying to make. When you are on the hook for the bill, you tend to care.

We, as individuals, are part of the problem that healthcare costs are so high. Doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies also have a hand in it as well.


This assumes two rational parties with full knowledge negotiating at a table without any undue pressure or burdens on one side (like, say, the pressure on the chest you feel when you're having a FARKING HEART ATTACK!).  Sick people do not make rational negotiators.
 
2013-11-08 03:35:23 PM
It was impossible to have a sub-standard health care plan before there were standards.
 
2013-11-08 03:52:21 PM

netcentric: A new Gallup poll brings more 'not so good' terrible news for President Obama and his signature health plan, showing that only 22% of uninsured Americans intend to buy insurance  Ford Focus through the ObamaCare exchanges.

Maybe that is the 22% that don't understand oil changes


that's why obama is gutting the insurance industry.  he'll then have millions of people who have been purchasing insurance already.  the ones who don't currently have insurance are the ones who aren't interested in it.  he won't need them if the insurance purchasing public loses their plans.
 
2013-11-08 03:56:03 PM
This article is so stupid it makes you wonder how the author has managed to be a professor at Stanford.  He must write this for some easy money knowing his audience of Fox News followers will mindlessly believe anything.  And he gets paid to write this.  As a former Ford pinto owner I know substandard.  If anything, car purchasing is much like Obamacare.  Those roll-down manual crank windows the author so longs for I don't believe are available nor have they been for years.  The last 2 cars i purchased came with option packages that included many things I really did not want or need but I couldn't choose things like a radio that only tuned into AM stations that aired Rush Limbaugh.  Plus, you just have to accept those damn safety features.
 
2013-11-08 04:08:38 PM
That was the worst POS I have ever read.
ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE IS NOT A LUXURY ITEM YOU farkING TEABAGGING RETARD
 
2013-11-08 04:11:25 PM

Petey4335: Pocket Ninja: I'd make the argument that a Ford Focus *with* a stick shift is a vast improvement on one without. As is the case in almost any automobile.

I think that was the least amount of text I have seen you post in years.
 Manual FTW

/REAL manuals with a clutch that is.  Not the no clutch manual/automatic stupidity i'm starting to see lately.


Just got a 2013 outback that has that...thingy. from what I understand, the transmission is variable- she can't move like her sister, the 2006 sti sedan (probably the only car I'll ever own with a number)
6 speed. She goes.
But, her sister was purchased for reliability and mileage... also my husband with RArthritis has an easier time in the stop-go-stop-go of work traffic not having to shift and use both feet.

Which brings me to the point of commenting on this article...
There are many docs out there that won't put you through a battery of vaguely related tests to get some cash. Especially if they outsource the tests. When they make no money, it changes perspective to a point, I think.

Also, we've been to the ER enough to know they are truly the ones that will do a bizillion things that turn out to be super expensive, etc. We try not to do the ER thing as much as possible- bringing me in for a nasty staph infection 3 other doctors said was a-ok (as it grew. Disgusting I know but I had 3 fist-sized infections that needed surgery to drain and treat.)
My husband caught MRSA from the ER itself. They've been having trouble keeping it under control.


Anyway, TMI. But, as young 'uns with chronic diseases, we've always paid for fed bluexblueshield out the nose- however, we can make our own decisions on doctors,etc. Both the kid's stuff from maternity to hpv inoculations has been paid in full.
We save about $3,000 a month using the mail-order-pharmacy options, no lie... it seems ridiculous that Humira at the local cvs costs nearly $1500 when it comes in the mail for $35 (now it's $50) and that includes their negotiated price for the meds! Without insurance the price triples.

So, with the rapidly rising costs for the plan, and the services and meds we need, we have really been squeezed- didn't see a nearly 20% rise in costs over the last few years coming.

And don't get me started on the barely exsistant dental coverage. Or the price of even basic dentistry. It's a rip-off. The only reason to even have dental on our plan is to keep the cost as low as possible thru the insurance negotiation.

So, monthly, our out-of-pocket expenses for just me and my husband and 2 kids equals a mortgage payment. It sure would be nice to have a little shack in the woods or on the beach somewhere.

TL:DR Middle class problems with health insurance.

/I'd gladly pay more taxes to counterbalance the windfall we'd receive were we covered with little to no out-of-pocket expense..because the government needs to tax higher to pay for everyone else.
//health care should be a right. No I don't think the government should fix everything, but if electric and other basics are price-fixed or regulated by government intervention, health care certainly should be.
 
2013-11-08 04:13:21 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: What's the over/under on how many years we have to wait before "Hands off my Obamacare!" placards at conservative rallies decrying the horrors of single-payer?


I've got my money on 25-30 years.
 
2013-11-08 04:14:16 PM
media.cagle.com
 
2013-11-08 04:18:47 PM
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-08 04:19:18 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Yes. Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.


A health plan that a consumer actually gets to use IS a substandard plan as far as the insurers are concerned.  The person paying $52 a month for $50 of coverage is the perfect plan!
 
2013-11-08 04:21:37 PM

jigger: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/08/obamacare-forcing-cancer-patient - make-life-or-death-decision-im-going-let-nature-take-its


Yes, cancer patients were never faced with life-or-death decisions prior to the ACA.
 
2013-11-08 04:23:33 PM
I can only applaud the right wing. They've convinced people to  actually want shiat sandwiches because they hate real food. That's amazing.
 
2013-11-08 04:24:48 PM

d23: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Yes. Apparently the Conservative idea of insurance is that people should pay for it but never use it.

A health plan that a consumer actually gets to use IS a substandard plan as far as the insurers are concerned.  The person paying $52 a month for $50 of coverage is the perfect plan!


Agrees

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report