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 42
    More: Stupid, President Obama, health insurance, cost sharing  
•       •       •

2171 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2013 at 1:43 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-08 01:27:34 PM
10 votes:
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.
2013-11-08 12:38:13 PM
8 votes:
Did the Ford Focus also not have airbags, seatbelts, rearview mirrors, brake systems, child restraints, rear impact protection, or one of the other many minimal safety regulations all cars have to have? Because why is Obamacare forcing you to buy airbags when Jesus is your backseat driver? (As long as it's not Baby Jesus, of course, because then you would need the child restraints)
2013-11-08 01:14:34 PM
5 votes:
Oh my god, just hurry the fark up and get universal health care like the rest of the damn world. This may be the stupidest shiat I've ever seen.
2013-11-08 01:07:46 PM
5 votes:
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?
2013-11-08 01:52:50 PM
4 votes:
The car had a standard, stick shift transmission, roll-down windows and manual locks. My car was "substandard" compared to the almost all other autos in the White House lot, but it was a fine car that served me well.

That car did what you needed it to do, and it did what it was advertised to you as being able to do.

This lady's plan, on the other hand, cost her $54 a month.  She thought that it would pay all but $50 for a doctor's visit, and all but $15 per prescription.  But in reality, it paid only $50 per visit and $15 per prescription.  That plan did absolutely nothing of what she needed, and was in no way or shape what she thought it was.  Now, if you had been sold what was said to you was a running automobile only to find a block away from the dealership that the engine block was full of ferrets, then you may have a comparison.

Oh, who am I kidding.  You go on to spend the rest of the article arguing that good health insurance is bad for people because they use too much of it.  Which can only lead me to believe that you think people with no health insurance are the healthiest people in the world.
2013-11-08 12:42:01 PM
4 votes:
Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine. Link
2013-11-08 02:03:54 PM
3 votes:
Holy fark...   THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DEBUNKED CBS LAST FARKING WEEK!!!

You know, the ones who showed JUST how farking "substandard" a "heathcare plan" can really be. Remember the woman who was paying $54/month, and getting $50 towards a doctor's visit, $15 off a 'script, and $50 towards a hospital visit IF it was due to "complications from pregnancy"? Yeah, FOX FARKING NEWS brought that to our attention, rebutting CBS.

Do these people not communicate internally?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalis ms -cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/

And no, you don't need shiatty insurance to be more efficient, you retarded farking tool. I have awesome insurance, and the best part is that a non-essential ER visit is a $100 copay, but if you get admitted, the copay is $0. We also pay about $120/month for a family of 5, have $25 copays, $3 'scripts, my wife's entire pregnancy was covered, a 2 day hospital stay for me, on morphine and saline for the weekend, followed up by a visit to my primary care, and an MRI cost about $250.

So no, you don't need garbage insurance in order to be efficient, and the insurance companies can provide decent farking coverage and still make sick profits. Pun intended...
2013-11-08 02:01:10 PM
3 votes:

Endive Wombat: Slight rant time:

I am sorry, I reject the idea that most young people believe that they do not need insurance, or only need catastrophic insurance with high deductibles.  Sure, they may be misinformed, or may lack the foresight to really comprehend what it is that they are saying "no thanks!" to.

They fail to take into account exactly how expensive something can be.  I am so thankful that I had insurance this past June when I got horrible food poisoning and was hospitalized for 3 days.  $9000 is the final bill.  $9, farking G's!!!  My out of pocket expense was a mere $150.  There is no way I could have predicted my illness, nor could have I paid for it had I not had insurance.

The anti-ACA folk simply refuse to take stuff like this into account, it is disingenuous and shows weak arguments.


You'd be right to reject that idea:

kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com

theincidentaleconomist.com

/both images hotlinked to survey results
2013-11-08 01:57:52 PM
3 votes:
Slight rant time:

I am sorry, I reject the idea that most young people believe that they do not need insurance, or only need catastrophic insurance with high deductibles.  Sure, they may be misinformed, or may lack the foresight to really comprehend what it is that they are saying "no thanks!" to.

They fail to take into account exactly how expensive something can be.  I am so thankful that I had insurance this past June when I got horrible food poisoning and was hospitalized for 3 days.  $9000 is the final bill.  $9, farking G's!!!  My out of pocket expense was a mere $150.  There is no way I could have predicted my illness, nor could have I paid for it had I not had insurance.

The anti-ACA folk simply refuse to take stuff like this into account, it is disingenuous and shows weak arguments.
2013-11-08 04:08:38 PM
2 votes:
That was the worst POS I have ever read.
ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE IS NOT A LUXURY ITEM YOU farkING TEABAGGING RETARD
2013-11-08 03:13:45 PM
2 votes:
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 02:50:40 PM
2 votes:

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 02:30:46 PM
2 votes:

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 02:16:30 PM
2 votes:

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 02:13:01 PM
2 votes:
What the arguement is, from an economics standpoint, is that when you have to pay less of the brunt of a set of procedures, you are less likely to care about what procedures are, or are not necessary. This American Life covered this a few years back on TWO separate shows. From their show:

"But that win-win-win in the human health care world, it creates big problems. Doctors feel free to order more tests, patients don't care because they're not paying the bill. Everyone is so busy winning the system wastes money."

"And insurance fundamentally, is a lousy way to pay for things. It separates people from the money they're spending. Which inevitably leads to us winding up with tests and drugs and procedures we don't really need, just to be safe."

This is what the economist meant....and they're right. For example, if a doctor checks you out and gives you 2 options, an X-ray or a CAT scan, and you only have to pay the same amount for each one, which are you going to go with? Probably the CAT scan. But, teh X-ray may be enough to tell the doc what is necessary, and its quite a bit cheaper.
2013-11-08 01:52:19 PM
2 votes:
FTFA: "...the president's rejection of "substandard" plans may result in eliminating the plans that are most efficient." ...Because patients bear a small fraction of the cost of treatment, they do not make efficient decisions on health care."

I stopped reading right there!  Look bud, I do not have any control when I am in the hospital and they decide to charge me $9 for two Tylenol, then bill my insurance for it.   I have zero control over that.
2013-11-08 01:13:21 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-11-08 06:33:10 PM
1 votes:

syrynxx: Jackpot777: You were led to believe what you had was what you needed. You were lied to. You were made to be a patsy, a fool, and there's nothing you can do about it now.

Kittens are cute.  Who wants a pet pig?


Not a kitten. An alley cat.
2013-11-08 04:57:20 PM
1 votes:

sprawl15: Witty_Retort: WTF am I reading?

i liked this:

MEGYN KELLY: Why do you believe it was due to Obamacare?

BILL ELLIOT: I believe it was beyond the catastrophic previous condition.

the fark does that mean


I believe he's saying Obamacare forced his insurance provider to cancel his plan because he has a really bad pre-existing condition.  Which is actually completely the opposite of what Obamacare actually does.
2013-11-08 04:30:43 PM
1 votes:

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.


If that argument holds, insurers would start offering plans that use an affordable level of coinsurance instead of a copay (or perhaps a bit of both) may very well turn up and outcompete copay-only plans.  If your plan offered an 8% coinsurance instead of a $25 copay, you wouldn't necessarily care that the doctor's visit was $300 when you paid only $25 out of pocket, but when the full bill is $600 and you pay $50 out of pocket, you might well care about the extra $25.

The reason that isn't necessarily a good idea is that, medical care being a field requiring a  lot of expert knowledge, most people cannot possibly be optimal consumers of health care on their own.  To borrow and tweak someone's example upthread - if the patient paid a lot more for an MRI than an X-ray, how many patients would opt for the X-ray even if the doctor honestly thought the MRI was necessary?  What you'd really need would be a system that provided financial incentives to  doctors to provide more cost-efficient care, since it's doctors, not patients, that have the knowledge needed to make intelligent cost/benefit tradeoffs.
2013-11-08 03:35:23 PM
1 votes:
It was impossible to have a sub-standard health care plan before there were standards.
2013-11-08 03:05:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:27 PM
1 votes:

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 02:53:14 PM
1 votes:
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 02:50:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:48:35 PM
1 votes:
"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 02:37:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:34 PM
1 votes:
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 02:18:57 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:33 PM
1 votes:
Well, my sister had a three cylinder Chevy Sprint, automatic.  Thing was built like a tin can, but it got something like 50 miles to the gallon or some shiat.  Anyway, one winter day we were driving around through snow-covered wheat fields, following behind this douchebag in a Black Camaro (cool!) who was poking around doing like, I don't know, 30 miles an hour or something.

Out of the corner of my eye (sitting in the passenger seat) I saw this greyish animal running through the snow.  I just assumed it was someone's German shepherd or something, and I didn't think anything of it as it disappeared behind a snowbank.  Suddenly a mule deer pops into view alongside the Camaro, making head-fakes as if it's going to cross in front of it, and then shying back, and then moving to cross, etc.  After a beat, you can see the thought run through its head "Ah, hell! I can make it!".
The deer zips out into the lane in front of the Camaro, which promptly nails it and the deer flies, spinning like a top, over the car and then lands on its neck in front of us, with trim pieces and the passenger mirror of the Camaro raining down around it.
Miraculously, the deer then gets to its feet and runs across the road into the snowbank and off into the fields.

My point?  Um.  Obamacare is like that deer, or, no, like the Camaro.  Anyway, when we got home we bought beer, so, yay!
It was Stroh's light, so boo.
2013-11-08 02:02:18 PM
1 votes:
It would be a better analogy to compare this guy's health insurance biatching with the 25/50/25 policy he probably had on that Focus... after he had an at-fault accident with an SL65 AMG.
2013-11-08 02:02:08 PM
1 votes:
2013-11-08 02:01:49 PM
1 votes:
Of course, most of these plans were cardboard boxes with wheels drawn in crayon and the word Ford written on the side, also in crayon.
2013-11-08 01:58:57 PM
1 votes:
my 2003 ford zx2 has a 5 speed, no power windows, no power door locks, and a cassette player, but will never suck as much as george w. bush
2013-11-08 01:55:45 PM
1 votes:
Unrelated, and NOT a metaphor, but I wish I could get a new car with roll-down windows now.  Automatic ones just break all the damn time and cost a fortune to fix.
2013-11-08 01:49:43 PM
1 votes:
2013-11-08 01:47:56 PM
1 votes:
Just because many Americans overspend on health care and get overtreated does not automatically exclude that many Americans underspend on health care and fail to get vital treatments.
2013-11-08 01:29:38 PM
1 votes:

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?


I'm certain Daniel Kessler consulted with the health departments in every other developed country in the world which have concluded the opposite of what he wrote.  Specifically, that increasing regular visits and preventative care reduces overall health care costs.
2013-11-08 01:07:52 PM
1 votes:
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.


People that couldn't access health insurance before might use it now that they have access. That was sort of the point of the legislation.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report