Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Rand Paul: "Obamacare enrolled my son in Medicaid as if he were one of those filthy poor people." Kentucky Health Dept.: "No, he did that himself"   (salon.com) divider line 181
    More: Dumbass, Rand Paul, Medicaid, obamacare, Poverty in the United States, Democrat Party  
•       •       •

6006 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2014 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-07 04:05:36 PM  

Tricky Chicken: You can't possible justify that that much writing is necessary just to address pre-existing conditions.


No one's trying to. The goal of the ACA was not limited to "eliminating pre-existing conditions".
 
2014-01-07 04:08:20 PM  

Corvus: But it's ok to become "dependent on government" when "Libertarians" do it.


www.toothpastefordinner.com
 
2014-01-07 04:08:57 PM  

BlastYoBoots: Dr Dreidel: Ironically, it looks like - had KY accepted the Medicaid expansion - his son WOULD have been auto-enrolled.

"J'accuse!" - Rand Paul

You got that slightly wrong, there. Kentucky expanded Medicaid, they just didn't implement selective auto-enrollment. Quoth the article:

"Obamacare had a provision allowing states to automatically enroll into Medicaid those citizens who were already receiving government-provided social services, Kentucky rejected that option, choosing instead to simply notify relevant Kentuckians of their eligibility."

Just pointin' it out.


urbangirl: Kentucky has accepted the expansion.  But instead of automatically enrolling people, the state decided to just offer them the option.  So literally the only way he could have been enrolled in Kentucky is if he specifically agreed to it.

The explanation seems pretty simple.  RAND PAUL saw something in ACA that he thought he could make an issue of and RAND with it.


Yeah, but my way FEELS more correct. So therefore I win, and you both have to listen to "Sarah Palin Reads 'Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie' in the Style of Shakespeare in the Park".
 
2014-01-07 04:08:59 PM  

obenchainr: Tricky Chicken: Yes, you answered a question.  It just wasn't what I was asking.  I conceede that the pre-existing condition problem was serious before ACA.  I simply assert that the pre-existing condition problem could have been solved without resorting to something as convoluted as the ACA.  How does mandating that the entire population have insurance address pre-existing conditions?  How does forcing businesses to offer insurance address pre-existing conditions? How does forcing companies to cancel existing policies because they don't offer pre-natal care for men address pre-existing conditions?

Because people, especially those who run insurance companies, tend to act like assholes.

Let's say we just pass a bill saying, "you can no longer deny someone coverage based on a pre-existing condition."  Fine.  Insurers will just make the premiums high enough that people can't afford them.  Problem not solved.

"Okay," you say, "so then let's put in something about price caps.  Find some way to keep premiums down."  So we toss in a bunch of stuff on how health care has to be managed (namely, "efficiently and evidence-based"), and we also put in caps on price.  Now insurance companies just start offering plans for the maximum possible price with pretty much no actual coverage.  Problem not solved.

"Okay," you say, "so then let's put in minimums for what has to be covered."(insert extremely huge glossing over of everything else ACA does )  And you're at the PPACA.


there, FTFY
 
2014-01-07 04:09:08 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am only arguing against the need for implementing ACA to address the pre-existing condition problem.


ACA was written to be a plan for close to universal healthcare including poor people & people with per-existing conditions to get covered not ONLY for people with pre-existing conditions. You premise is wrong and you don't really seem to understand the ACA much at all.
 
2014-01-07 04:12:11 PM  
Tricky Chicken: Can you explain to us how your universal healthcare plan is going to pay for the poor without taxes going up on the rich and going to make the US government the health insurance provider for everyone in the US without being a "bureaucracy" like ACA?
 
2014-01-07 04:14:10 PM  

Corvus: Tricky Chicken: Can you explain to us how your universal healthcare plan is going to pay for the poor without taxes going up on the rich and going to make the US government the health insurance provider for everyone in the US without being a "bureaucracy" like ACA?


Trickledown Healthcare.

Book it, Done!
 
2014-01-07 04:14:52 PM  
I'm assuming someone else has said it, but it's also quite possible someone else signed up his son for it.  I mean, if I wanted to break a few laws, it really wouldn't be that hard to get the required information to do it.  And, given he's a public figure and the propensity of people to stick their thumbs in the eyes of politicians, I'd say the chances are it happened just to spite him.

/did break the law and signed up his cats and dogs, though!
 
2014-01-07 04:16:42 PM  

Heliovdrake: Corvus: Tricky Chicken: Can you explain to us how your universal healthcare plan is going to pay for the poor without taxes going up on the rich and going to make the US government the health insurance provider for everyone in the US without being a "bureaucracy" like ACA?

Trickledown Healthcare.

Book it, Done!


Probably that's what he thinks. Maybe him hearing the right wing talking point of "people on the left think government healthcare is free" made him finally think that was actually the case.
 
2014-01-07 04:17:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.


...living on $90k/year without having to work for one single second of the year does, in fact, seem "rich" to me.
 
2014-01-07 04:20:27 PM  

Leader O'Cola: Out of morbid curiosity--- to the TF'ers ...

Has any derper submitted this new "examiner" proof that Walmart HRA's are better than Obamacare?

Ooooh boy I expect the blogs, facebooks, and fwd:fwd:emails to be flying with that one tomorrow



guess that's a no.
 
2014-01-07 04:21:05 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.

...living on $90k/year without having to work for one single second of the year does, in fact, seem "rich" to me.


It would to a parasite moocher taker like you...

Id give you a copy of the best book ever written Atlas Shrugged, but its against my enlightened self interest.
 
2014-01-07 04:25:11 PM  

qorkfiend: Tricky Chicken: You can't possible justify that that much writing is necessary just to address pre-existing conditions.

No one's trying to. The goal of the ACA was not limited to "eliminating pre-existing conditions".


Corvus: Tricky Chicken: I am only arguing against the need for implementing ACA to address the pre-existing condition problem.

ACA was written to be a plan for close to universal healthcare including poor people & people with per-existing conditions to get covered not ONLY for people with pre-existing conditions. You premise is wrong and you don't really seem to understand the ACA much at all.


OK, I think I see the problem here. You guys are jumping into a reply I made to Zargberg where he championed the ACA because he couldn't change jobs because of a pre-existing condition.  My position was that passing the ACA just to address a problem with pre-existing conditions would have been extreme overkill.  I don't think I said that it didn't do much more than that. And if I implied it, that would be wrong and I retract it.  I am saying that if your only reason to support ACA is that it eliminates pre-existing conditions, then there are ways that could have been addressed that would not require an omnibus overhaul of the entire healthcare system.

I am also offering that I believe (note that I don't know for sure) that a single payer program would be simpler and more equitable than the current ACA system of taxes and subsidies.  That part of my position is entirely founded on wishful thinking.  But when I saw a photo of the ACA legislation printed out, I feel secure in assuming that it is full of unnecessary crap.
 
2014-01-07 04:26:17 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Ironically, it looks like - had KY accepted the Medicaid expansion - his son WOULD have been auto-enrolled.

"J'accuse!" - Rand Paul


Ky did accept the Medicaid expansion, but not auto-enrollment. Someone actually has to sign themselves up.
 
2014-01-07 04:26:22 PM  
I'm curious why Republicans rail on all the things that society does to make life better for everyone as 'taxing the rich to pay for the poor' like it's a bad thing.

Up until very recently, it was considered a duty among wealthy people to care for the society that made them wealthy in the first place.  It's like buying a hyper-expensive car.  Sure, you ge tthe status of having the coolest and most expensive car around.  But there's also a responsibility to care for that hyper-expensive piece of machinery.  And repairs are kind of expected to be more expensive.

The same is true of society.  The rich get more benefits of a 'rising tide' than the poor.  They have the mansions, the yachts, the jets...But that all comes at a price.  To say that the mere fact of 'having money' means you have no responsibility to the society that made your wealth possible is childish.  It's reminiscent of the same kind of elitism that gave rise to the French revolution.  In fact, wealth disparity has given rise to more social revolts than even religion has.

The very poor will always be envious and even jealous of the rich.  It's been that way throughout history.  The problem comes when there are simply so many poor people that they reach a 'critical mass' and re-write their social contract.  either peacefully, by means of voting, or forcefully by way of revolt.

Let us hope that peaceful means will prevail.

"I love paying my taxes.  With them, I buy civilization" - Andrew Carnegie (There are many other versions of this quote throughout history from a wide range of very wealthy people)
 
2014-01-07 04:26:34 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Tricky Chicken: It went from millionaires to people making over $500K, to people making more than 250 then 200 and now $150K all in one election cycle.

Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.


Unless one is really overextended with debt, and depending on how long one makes that amount, yes, one should be able to eventually become a millionaire at 150k a year.  I do around that depending on the year, and try to max out my retirement accounts, which should put me there eventually.

That said, I also have a shiatload of expenses, so after taxes and everything else comes out, it isn't as if I am walking around throwing money in the air.

/though I know people who are on the same tier as me who live that way
//they're all really, really far in debt
///150k is a good chunk of change for sure, but it also isn't nearly as much as people assume it is -- it's not "jet money" -- hell, if you're responsible, it's really not even porsche money, IMO
////yes, I am OK with being taxed more to help people who need it get health insurance
 
2014-01-07 04:26:47 PM  

FlashHarry: i say again: if your cause is so just, conservatives, why do you have to lie all the time?


Because they're just too good for this sinful liberal moocher world.
 
2014-01-07 04:28:21 PM  

Tricky Chicken: zarberg: what_now: My employer changed my health insurance company on January 1st and I didn't have any say.

THANKS OBAMA :(

Obamacare -specifically the pre-existing condition part- allowed me to look for a new job for the first time in 6 years because I have a dependent with what is a potentially terminal condition if she were to go off prescription meds and regular doctor visits. I got that new job, start in 2 weeks, and it's an almost 10% raise with much better benefits.

THANKS OBAMA  :(

So is Obamacare the only way we could have addressed pre-existing conditions?  that is like trying to use a sledge to drive a nail.


Under a truly free market the nails will drive themselves.
 
2014-01-07 04:31:54 PM  

Heliovdrake: Corvus: Tricky Chicken: Can you explain to us how your universal healthcare plan is going to pay for the poor without taxes going up on the rich and going to make the US government the health insurance provider for everyone in the US without being a "bureaucracy" like ACA?

Trickledown Healthcare.Herp

Book it, Done!Derp


I didn't say it wouldn't be a tax on the rich or a beaurocracy.  It would however be a tax on everybody working sort of like social security.  My argument is that if you set up one massive bloated beaurocracy, then it becomes entrenched and politically protected.  then if you want to replace it with a better system like single payer, you will run into the same crap we are seeing now.  But now it is against ACA, and in the future it will be supporting ACA.

Why not just get it right the first time?
 
2014-01-07 04:32:43 PM  

12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.


You got that right.  I'm almost there at 43, and it really doesn't feel like what I imagined being 3/4 of a millionnaire would be like when i was a kid.  I don't have miniature giraffes or Bentleys, just a diabetic cat and a rusty Civic.
 
2014-01-07 04:33:46 PM  

A Cave Geek: I'm curious why Republicans rail on all the things that society does to make life better for everyone as 'taxing the rich to pay for the poor' like it's a bad thing.

Up until very recently, it was considered a duty among wealthy people to care for the society that made them wealthy in the first place.  It's like buying a hyper-expensive car.  Sure, you ge tthe status of having the coolest and most expensive car around.  But there's also a responsibility to care for that hyper-expensive piece of machinery.  And repairs are kind of expected to be more expensive.

The same is true of society.  The rich get more benefits of a 'rising tide' than the poor.  They have the mansions, the yachts, the jets...But that all comes at a price.  To say that the mere fact of 'having money' means you have no responsibility to the society that made your wealth possible is childish.  It's reminiscent of the same kind of elitism that gave rise to the French revolution.  In fact, wealth disparity has given rise to more social revolts than even religion has.

The very poor will always be envious and even jealous of the rich.  It's been that way throughout history.  The problem comes when there are simply so many poor people that they reach a 'critical mass' and re-write their social contract.  either peacefully, by means of voting, or forcefully by way of revolt.

Let us hope that peaceful means will prevail.

"I love paying my taxes.  With them, I buy civilization" - Andrew Carnegie (There are many other versions of this quote throughout history from a wide range of very wealthy people)


I agree with everything you said, except the level at which "rich" is defined does not get people mansions, jets, and yachts.  A family making 250k a year even in cost reasonable cities does not have the money for any of those things, unless they've made that amount for a very long time and invested wisely.  A family making 250k a year in expensive cities has not even a remote chance in hell of having any of those things.  It really all ought to be indexed to where you live, IMO.  If you're in my city making 250k year, yeah, you're making a shiatload more than the average bear, and have cash left over.  If you're in LA or Hawaii, you aren't sitting with much cash left over at the end.

Part of the issue, IMO, is that we've lowered the definition of rich, which makes a lot of people think the entire discussion is stupid.  When you talk about people doing good works for the public, that dollar amount was never what it is today.  People who had the equivalent of 250k (today's dollars) in a year, which can be taken down to realistically $80k-$100k left over after no expenses, did not fund public works.  The people who did that would be more the equivalent of those today drawing total $2mil+ /yr compensation.  I know a few people pulling that down, and they don't seem to have any issues with some more of their money going to the public.

Then again, my group of friends is somewhat liberal, and the guys pulling down 2mil+ a year are, strangely enough, also very liberal, even though they work in finance.   I do know people at $400-600k a year who are super conservative and don't believe they should have to pay a dime in taxes, which always annoys the crap out of me.  (I pay more than they do at the end of the year, despite making far less.  But they also have really awesome/expensive CPAs).
 
2014-01-07 04:34:56 PM  

Tricky Chicken: My position was that passing the ACA just to address a problem with pre-existing conditions would have been extreme overkill.  I don't think I said that it didn't do much more than that.


Again, the ACA wasn't passed "just to address a problem with pre-existing conditions", so I'm not sure why you keep harping on the point that pre-existing conditions could have been dealt with without the ACA.

Tricky Chicken: I am saying that if your only reason to support ACA is that it eliminates pre-existing conditions, then there are ways that could have been addressed that would not require an omnibus overhaul of the entire healthcare system.


Not really. Removing pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, which in turn requires some additional regulations. Yes, there are portions of the bill that don't deal directly with this. No, that's not really a problem.

Tricky Chicken: I am also offering that I believe (note that I don't know for sure) that a single payer program would be simpler and more equitable than the current ACA system of taxes and subsidies.


Almost certainly.
 
2014-01-07 04:36:08 PM  

Flab: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

You got that right.  I'm almost there at 43, and it really doesn't feel like what I imagined being 3/4 of a millionnaire would be like when i was a kid.  I don't have miniature giraffes or Bentleys, just a diabetic cat and a rusty Civic.


The fact that you have a rusty Civic is likely why you're almost there at 43.    Sounds to me like you're a good decision maker.
 
2014-01-07 04:37:15 PM  

Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.


But you will be at least one of the 99.6 percenters. ;->

s14.postimg.org
 
2014-01-07 04:40:19 PM  
Rand Paul: Hi.  I'm a conservative Republican; therefore, a habitual liar and I am mouthing words.
All Teabaggers: We believe those words as if they were spoken by God, because thinking is too elitist and then we can't drink beer.
 
2014-01-07 04:40:39 PM  

FitzShivering: Flab: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

You got that right.  I'm almost there at 43, and it really doesn't feel like what I imagined being 3/4 of a millionnaire would be like when i was a kid.  I don't have miniature giraffes or Bentleys, just a diabetic cat and a rusty Civic.

The fact that you have a rusty Civic is likely why you're almost there at 43.    Sounds to me like you're a good decision maker.


Possibly.  Although I think most of it has to with my wife being such a bad decision maker that we never get to spend any of our money.  To quote a coworker: "I want an inground pool, and my wife wants an outdour spa and neither of us will concede.  Best $20,000 I never spent".
 
2014-01-07 04:43:11 PM  

sdd2000: Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.

But you will be at least one of the 99.6 percenters. ;->

[s14.postimg.org image 636x480]


I heard this one at a bar the other night.  I'd also just assumed it was the Fox News tripe and that no real person ever says that.  But no -- someone actually pointed out to another guy that all these poor (use the derogatory inclination) people have refrigerators, microwaves and Xboxes.

I've started to get depressed about the fact that the things I didn't believe anyone actually believed seem to be making their way into peoples' actual consciousness now, though.  I would hope to farking God that in 2014 every single damned poor person in America would at least have a refrigerator.  If not, I'm just going to make "www.refrigeratorstarter.com" and hope people donate to get them cheap ones.  The right wing in our country has gone insane.  :/

/still hoping that dude was just a drunk aberration
 
2014-01-07 04:43:56 PM  

FitzShivering: thurstonxhowell: Tricky Chicken: It went from millionaires to people making over $500K, to people making more than 250 then 200 and now $150K all in one election cycle.

Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Unless one is really overextended with debt, and depending on how long one makes that amount, yes, one should be able to eventually become a millionaire at 150k a year.  I do around that depending on the year, and try to max out my retirement accounts, which should put me there eventually.

That said, I also have a shiatload of expenses, so after taxes and everything else comes out, it isn't as if I am walking around throwing money in the air.

/though I know people who are on the same tier as me who live that way
//they're all really, really far in debt
///150k is a good chunk of change for sure, but it also isn't nearly as much as people assume it is -- it's not "jet money" -- hell, if you're responsible, it's really not even porsche money, IMO
////yes, I am OK with being taxed more to help people who need it get health insurance


The $90K number I am shooting for will likely not be all that much money per year during my retirement.

My father paid $30K for the house I grew up in and he had a 30 year mortgage.  I just paid that much for a car that I financed for only five years.  150K is good money, and you CAN live extravagantly on it.  But people also make fun of athletes that make 5 million a year and end up broke at the end of their contract.  Sure the athlete had every opportunity to be set up for life, but they were never encouraged to develop the skills to handle money.  They come from meager backgrounds and are prevented from earning through their schooling.  They are encouraged to focus on athletic development at the cost of their education.  They go from being absolutely destitue to earning an entire lifetime's worth of money in 5-6 years and are expected to plan it out themselves.  Then wneh they inevitably fail, we mock them for it.  Tragic really.

But you probably started out earning a much more modest income and adapted to it.  And as your income went up, you constantly adjusted and found a way to save for the future.
 
2014-01-07 04:44:56 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Vlad_the_Inaner: Tricky Chicken: So is Obamacare the only way we could have addressed pre-existing conditions? that is like trying to use a sledge to drive a nail.

Nope.  For example the old method in Florida  tused when you lost coverage but had recent 'credible coverage', was a 'shall issue' law.  Companies had to offer you a policy.

But because you had a pre-existing condition, they were allowed to offer 'please go away and die' rates that were several multiples of what you may have had before.

I lost coverage when a company went Chapter 7.  No COBRA.  No 'conversion policy' (which would have been a mere double the old rate), because the company was based in another state, and that insurance company didn't offer policies in my state.  (Never mind that it was a Blue Cross company, and Florida has a Blue Cross company too).   So I went around and was first told outright "No, you have a pre-existing condition", and when I cited Chapter and Verse of the FL Statutes, then they deigned to let me submit an application (with the certificate of credible coverage) , which weeks later came back with the go away and die quotes.

So the answer is yes, there existed something besides the ACA that addressed pre-existing conditions.  It was useless.

/knew ACA was coming, so I wasn't too gloomy when forced to use a limited medical liability policy that would have sucked long term..

Yes, you answered a question.  It just wasn't what I was asking.  I conceede that the pre-existing condition problem was serious before ACA.  I simply assert that the pre-existing condition problem could have been solved without resorting to something as convoluted as the ACA.  How does mandating that the entire population have insurance address pre-existing conditions?  How does forcing businesses to offer insurance address pre-existing conditions? How does forcing companies to cancel existing policies because they don't offer pre-natal care for men address pre-existing conditions?


Adding pre-existing conditions into the same risk pool would dramatically increase the cost per person on average. Same with removing policy lifetime limits. To reduce that impact (or arguably as a handout to the insurance carriers) the mandate was added- the larger risk is diluted by increasing participation.


Since we can't get anywhere with single payer, the law incentivises companies to leverage their group negotiating power to get better deals than an individual could. Inefficient but sort of effective.

The male prenatal care thing reeks of strawman. Got a link?
 
2014-01-07 04:45:07 PM  

Flab: FitzShivering: Flab: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

You got that right.  I'm almost there at 43, and it really doesn't feel like what I imagined being 3/4 of a millionnaire would be like when i was a kid.  I don't have miniature giraffes or Bentleys, just a diabetic cat and a rusty Civic.

The fact that you have a rusty Civic is likely why you're almost there at 43.    Sounds to me like you're a good decision maker.

Possibly.  Although I think most of it has to with my wife being such a bad decision maker that we never get to spend any of our money.  To quote a coworker: "I want an inground pool, and my wife wants an outdour spa and neither of us will concede.  Best $20,000 I never spent".


Nice.  I won't be there by 43, but I admit I'm not the greatest decision maker.  Well, I am now, but I made a lot of really, really bad decisions when I was younger and got to "start over" completely from less than 0.  On the plus side, I get the feeling my girlfriend and I would have the same arguments, so if we ever marry, I may have a chance!
 
2014-01-07 04:46:58 PM  

FitzShivering: A Cave Geek: I'm curious why Republicans rail on all the things that society does to make life better for everyone as 'taxing the rich to pay for the poor' like it's a bad thing.

Up until very recently, it was considered a duty among wealthy people to care for the society that made them wealthy in the first place.  It's like buying a hyper-expensive car.  Sure, you ge tthe status of having the coolest and most expensive car around.  But there's also a responsibility to care for that hyper-expensive piece of machinery.  And repairs are kind of expected to be more expensive.

The same is true of society.  The rich get more benefits of a 'rising tide' than the poor.  They have the mansions, the yachts, the jets...But that all comes at a price.  To say that the mere fact of 'having money' means you have no responsibility to the society that made your wealth possible is childish.  It's reminiscent of the same kind of elitism that gave rise to the French revolution.  In fact, wealth disparity has given rise to more social revolts than even religion has.

The very poor will always be envious and even jealous of the rich.  It's been that way throughout history.  The problem comes when there are simply so many poor people that they reach a 'critical mass' and re-write their social contract.  either peacefully, by means of voting, or forcefully by way of revolt.

Let us hope that peaceful means will prevail.

"I love paying my taxes.  With them, I buy civilization" - Andrew Carnegie (There are many other versions of this quote throughout history from a wide range of very wealthy people)

I agree with everything you said, except the level at which "rich" is defined does not get people mansions, jets, and yachts.  A family making 250k a year even in cost reasonable cities does not have the money for any of those things, unless they've made that amount for a very long time and invested wisely.  A family making 250k a year in expensive cities has not even a remote chance in hell ...


And I'll definitely agree with you there.  Inflation creeps up on people.  So the 40K that used to pretty much assure a nice, comfortable living doesn't do much more than keep the house heated, and the family fed.  Doesn't leave a lot left over, and in cities, the problem is exacerbated by high COL.  It's much easier to make a living on 40K a year in the country than in the city.

The problem is, prices have continued their steady arch upwards, but wages have not.  It really kicked into high gear in the 80's, (at least in my own personal experience)  When businesses loved the rising prices, and automation (my field, ironically enough) made it possible to do the same job with fewer people.  So wages stayed the same.  We've reached a bit of a tipping point where in many places it's not even possible to 'make ends meet' on 40k a year.  Big companies like standards, and therefore wages end up being static across all areas, regardless of COL.
 
2014-01-07 04:48:27 PM  

Tricky Chicken: But you probably started out earning a much more modest income and adapted to it.  And as your income went up, you constantly adjusted and found a way to save for the future.


This is accurate.  I started very, very close to minimum wage and worked my way up, albeit kinda quickly (sadly, I was one of the few people from my generation willing to start at nothing, despite our degrees from Top 25 schools -- most of my friends partied for a few years knowing they were gonna get that 6 figure starting job that no longer exists).  I'm almost certain, given my decision making when I was younger, that had someone handed me 4 - 5 million dollars right out of college, I would have pissed through it as fast as any athlete.  Probably faster.  I always wanted a helicopter to crash.
 
2014-01-07 04:49:03 PM  
Rand Paul caught lying again?

Is it a day ending in "y"?
 
2014-01-07 04:50:20 PM  

FitzShivering: sdd2000: Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.

But you will be at least one of the 99.6 percenters. ;->

[s14.postimg.org image 636x480]

I heard this one at a bar the other night.  I'd also just assumed it was the Fox News tripe and that no real person ever says that.  But no -- someone actually pointed out to another guy that all these poor (use the derogatory inclination) people have refrigerators, microwaves and Xboxes.

I've started to get depressed about the fact that the things I didn't believe anyone actually believed seem to be making their way into peoples' actual consciousness now, though.  I would hope to farking God that in 2014 every single damned poor person in America would at least have a refrigerator.  If not, I'm just going to make "www.refrigeratorstarter.com" and hope people donate to get them cheap ones.  The right wing in our country has gone insane.  :/

/still hoping that dude was just a drunk aberration


I wish it was an aberration, but I am afraid it is not.I have also seen /heard complaints that the "poors" also have microwaves and TVs. The horror of that! I have also said replied they live inside and many have indoor plumbing.


 Your 90K may actually be a bit more than you think as you left out Social Security and you can "consume" a bit more than 3% if you don't want to leave anything to heirs. Dying on the day you spend your last dollar is a plan that I have heard others make. My problem with that is what happens if you can live longer than the money does?
 
2014-01-07 04:51:16 PM  

Tricky Chicken: obenchainr: Tricky Chicken: Yes, you answered a question.  It just wasn't what I was asking.  I conceede that the pre-existing condition problem was serious before ACA.  I simply assert that the pre-existing condition problem could have been solved without resorting to something as convoluted as the ACA.  How does mandating that the entire population have insurance address pre-existing conditions?  How does forcing businesses to offer insurance address pre-existing conditions? How does forcing companies to cancel existing policies because they don't offer pre-natal care for men address pre-existing conditions?

Because people, especially those who run insurance companies, tend to act like assholes.

Let's say we just pass a bill saying, "you can no longer deny someone coverage based on a pre-existing condition."  Fine.  Insurers will just make the premiums high enough that people can't afford them.  Problem not solved.

"Okay," you say, "so then let's put in something about price caps.  Find some way to keep premiums down."  So we toss in a bunch of stuff on how health care has to be managed (namely, "efficiently and evidence-based"), and we also put in caps on price.  Now insurance companies just start offering plans for the maximum possible price with pretty much no actual coverage.  Problem not solved.

"Okay," you say, "so then let's put in minimums for what has to be covered."(insert extremely huge glossing over of everything else ACA does )  And you're at the PPACA.

there, FTFY


So please, go ahead, tell us all about the other stuff the PPACA does that's so objectionable.
 
2014-01-07 04:52:09 PM  

qorkfiend: Tricky Chicken: My position was that passing the ACA just to address a problem with pre-existing conditions would have been extreme overkill.  I don't think I said that it didn't do much more than that.

Again, the ACA wasn't passed "just to address a problem with pre-existing conditions", so I'm not sure why you keep harping on the point that pre-existing conditions could have been dealt with without the ACA.

Tricky Chicken: I am saying that if your only reason to support ACA is that it eliminates pre-existing conditions, then there are ways that could have been addressed that would not require an omnibus overhaul of the entire healthcare system.

Not really. Removing pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, which in turn requires some additional regulations. Yes, there are portions of the bill that don't deal directly with this. No, that's not really a problem.

Tricky Chicken: I am also offering that I believe (note that I don't know for sure) that a single payer program would be simpler and more equitable than the current ACA system of taxes and subsidies.

Almost certainly.


You have entirely missed what I was talking about regarding Zargberg. and my reply to his/her post at 2:26.  You keep effectively saying nothing at best or are intentionally misrepresenting my position.  Please start re-reading from where I responded @ 2.26 and I am sure you will get it this time around.
 
2014-01-07 04:52:47 PM  

A Cave Geek: The problem is, prices have continued their steady arch upwards, but wages have not.  It really kicked into high gear in the 80's, (at least in my own personal experience)  When businesses loved the rising prices, and automation (my field, ironically enough) made it possible to do the same job with fewer people.  So wages stayed the same.  We've reached a bit of a tipping point where in many places it's not even possible to 'make ends meet' on 40k a year.  Big companies like standards, and therefore wages end up being static across all areas, regardless of COL.


As a great example, my grandfather never exceeded 2x minimum wage (obviously there wasn't one for most of his life, but I know what he was making after there was).  My grandmother never worked.  They raised 7 children on that income, and had money left over for vacations (reasonable ones), etc.

If I had 7 children, I'd have to work three jobs and whore myself out (ok, ok, whore myself out more often!) downtown to feed them and cloth them.  I can't even bloody imagine the college costs.

Then again, I admit I'm a leftist wacko when it comes to wage discussions.  While I'm as dismissive of lazy people as any Fox News viewer is (the problem is, I've only met 2 actual "lazy" adults who don't care, out of the supposed billions of them out there I hear about), I'm totally for everyone who actually does work not being shiat on by their employers.  The fact minimum wage is where it is is appalling.
 
2014-01-07 04:58:02 PM  

Prime: Tricky Chicken: Vlad_the_Inaner: Tricky Chicken:

The male prenatal care thing reeks of strawman. Got a link?


It may very well be a strawman. I'm prety sure I heard it from one of the talking heads on the Sunday talk shows.  It was said in passing and it sort of stuck in my head.  It could have been about men getting covered for something else exclusively female, but I thought it was pregnancy related.  I take it back since I have no idea where it came from.
 
2014-01-07 05:00:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken: You keep effectively saying nothing at best or are intentionally misrepresenting my position.


I'm basing my position of what you've said upon what you've said, so if I'm misrepresenting it, it's because you've been unclear. Perhaps you would be better served by clarification than sarcasm, hmm?
 
2014-01-07 05:01:24 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Yes, you answered a question. It just wasn't what I was asking. I conceede that the pre-existing condition problem was serious before ACA. I simply assert that the pre-existing condition problem could have been solved without resorting to something as convoluted as the ACA. How does mandating that the entire population have insurance address pre-existing conditions? How does forcing businesses to offer insurance address pre-existing conditions? How does forcing companies to cancel existing policies because they don't offer pre-natal care for men address pre-existing conditions?


Oddly enough, the Heritage Foundation has a whitepaper that explains the answer to these and other questions.

i.imgur.com

But to TL;DR it for you, because without a mandate its too easy to try and game the system by just not buying anything until you are completely farked up, say with cancer or heart failure, THEN you buy into a platinum plan.

/single payer has a mandate aspect too, in that taxes are mandated for most people.
//note that my case, I had a long history of coverage, so I wasn't trying to game the system. I was following the 'insurance as risk sharing' concept, like it's marketed.  Yet when they got a chance, the Insurance companies just basically said 'so long sucker, thanks for playing'
 
2014-01-07 05:04:43 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Heliovdrake: Corvus: Tricky Chicken: Can you explain to us how your universal healthcare plan is going to pay for the poor without taxes going up on the rich and going to make the US government the health insurance provider for everyone in the US without being a "bureaucracy" like ACA?

Trickledown Healthcare.Herp

Book it, Done!Derp

I didn't say it wouldn't be a tax on the rich or a beaurocracy.  It would however be a tax on everybody working sort of like social security.  My argument is that if you set up one massive bloated beaurocracy, then it becomes entrenched and politically protected.  then if you want to replace it with a better system like single payer, you will run into the same crap we are seeing now.  But now it is against ACA, and in the future it will be supporting ACA.

Why not just get it right the first time?


I guess that's why all the old people I know want Medicare and the prescription drug plan shut down.
 
2014-01-07 05:08:02 PM  

FitzShivering: sdd2000: Tricky Chicken: 12349876: thurstonxhowell: Similarly, the word "millionaire" went from "person with at least $1M" to "person who makes $1M/year". The way I remember it, a guy who made $150K/year could very well be a millionaire. Somewhere along the way, that changed.

Inflation is where it went.  Middle class couples can reach a million by the time they retire if you include IRAs, 401ks, and property values and still only be able to maintain a middle class lifestyle in retirement.

Currently, I consider $3Million to be a reasonable goal for a financial nest egg to retire. Based upon my intent that your funds should be self sustaining and you should only live off the interest, you should consider any pension or social security money as not dependable, a projected retirement income of $90K in perpetuity, and a rate of return of 3%. And while $3mil is a lot of money, I'd hardly consider living on $90K/year rich.

But you will be at least one of the 99.6 percenters. ;->

[s14.postimg.org image 636x480]

I heard this one at a bar the other night.  I'd also just assumed it was the Fox News tripe and that no real person ever says that.  But no -- someone actually pointed out to another guy that all these poor (use the derogatory inclination) people have refrigerators, microwaves and Xboxes.

I've started to get depressed about the fact that the things I didn't believe anyone actually believed seem to be making their way into peoples' actual consciousness now, though.  I would hope to farking God that in 2014 every single damned poor person in America would at least have a refrigerator.  If not, I'm just going to make "www.refrigeratorstarter.com" and hope people donate to get them cheap ones.  The right wing in our country has gone insane.  :/

/still hoping that dude was just a drunk aberration


I've heard damn near the same thing, it was "XBoxes and flat screens" though.

Additionally, I was at a Chinese restaurant when I overheard the older gentleman behind me start going off about how Obama really shouldn't be in the White House cause he's was born in "Nigeria or wherever", and this was two-three weeks ago.

The derp is not just online.
 
2014-01-07 05:10:20 PM  

Prime: The male prenatal care thing reeks of strawman. Got a link?


Considering that male babies benefit when their mother's receive pre-natal care, why shouldn't males chip in?
 
2014-01-07 05:12:48 PM  

qorkfiend: Tricky Chicken: You keep effectively saying nothing at best or are intentionally misrepresenting my position.

I'm basing my position of what you've said upon what you've said, so if I'm misrepresenting it, it's because you've been unclear. Perhaps you would be better served by clarification than sarcasm, hmm?


Tricky Chicken: zarberg: what_now: My employer changed my health insurance company on January 1st and I didn't have any say.

THANKS OBAMA :(

Obamacare -specifically the pre-existing condition part- allowed me to look for a new job for the first time in 6 years because I have a dependent with what is a potentially terminal condition if she were to go off prescription meds and regular doctor visits. I got that new job, start in 2 weeks, and it's an almost 10% raise with much better benefits.

THANKS OBAMA  :(

So is Obamacare the only way we could have addressed pre-existing conditions?  that is like trying to use a sledge to drive a nail.


I don't think I can clear it up any more than that.  Zarg said he had to wait to look for a new job because of a pre-existing condition.  I asked the above question

.

zarberg: Tricky Chicken: So is Obamacare the only way we could have addressed pre-existing conditions?  that is like trying to use a sledge to drive a nail.

Almost certainly not, but it's the only way that got past the logjam of idiots known as Congress.


then Zargberg answered the question above.  But then a torrent of folks seemed to take it that I was arguing that the ACA only addressed pre-existing conditions.  And I responded that I think it does a great many different things.  I also tried to point out that I think single payer would be a better option, but that I think the ACA only gets in the way of that.

I don't think I ever said that the only thing the ACA does is address the pre-existing condition which is what you seem to think is my position. I was stating that if that WERE the only reason that it was passed, then it is completely overkill.

I hope my subsequent posts after my initial question were consistent.  I may have mis-spoke, but I don't see it.
 
2014-01-07 05:53:16 PM  
"HE DID NOT INTEND FOR THAT TO BE A FACTUAL STATEMENT."
 
2014-01-07 06:02:30 PM  
Oh, so Rand Paul is a liar as well as a plagiarist? Well I'm sure he believes that the ends justify the means.
 
2014-01-07 06:03:48 PM  

Dimensio: The Salon article headline states that "Rand Paul's latest Obamacare whopper falls apart".

This, of course, is not accurate. Supporters of Senator Paul will continue to reference the "forcing" of the Senator's son onto Medicaid. Few, if any, will investigate the claim further. None will accept as valid the substantial debunking of the claim. The lie will become part of the overall anti-reform narrative, while the refutation -- however justified -- will have no impact upon that narrative.

That the assertion is false does not mean that the assertion is not useful.


I wish you weren't right.
 
2014-01-07 06:06:14 PM  

meat0918: I've heard damn near the same thing, it was "XBoxes and flat screens" though.


The "flat screen" talking point seems to be a favorite of elderly Republicans.  You know, the type of people that realize that CTR TVs are not commonplace anymore.

My wife is a product photographer, so we raid Goodwill fairly often in search of props, and an old CTR TV costs damn nearly as much as a new, small flat screen TV you might pick up at Wal-Mart.
 
2014-01-07 06:08:01 PM  

Zerochance: You know, the type of people that do not realize that CTR TVs are not commonplace anymore.


FTFM
 
2014-01-07 06:11:46 PM  
I forget what the Bible says about false witness.


/so do Right-wing Christians
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report