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.

(The New York Times)   Minnesota insurer inadvertently speaks the truth about the ACA: "We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has"   (nytimes.com) divider line 210
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2424 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 2:17 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-13 11:15:48 AM
but all of those experts who are smarter than everyone else said these plans would be better.

No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network - or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.
 
2014-05-13 11:26:43 AM
in the marketplace before ACA, large networks and choice was valued higher.  the government mandated that other aspects of health insurance be given priority.  to keep health insurance affordable, insurers had to cut costs in other ways.  one way to do that was to shrink networks.

and what do you think the doctors and hospitals most willing to charge lower prices look like?  the worst ones.  who are the doctors and hospitals most likely to be dropped from coverage if the plans are focusing mostly on price?  the best ones.
 
2014-05-13 11:43:07 AM
About 10 million people now have insurance because of ACA... something like that, right?  So like 3% of the population?  I dunno, I'm pretty farking stupid but taking away options for a lot of Americans in order to help 3% seems pretty crappy.  Maybe things will just take time to balance out.  I'll wait ten years and then pass judgement on this.
 
2014-05-13 12:13:24 PM
Eh?  Choose a health plan?  What is this evil?
 
2014-05-13 12:40:29 PM
Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.
 
2014-05-13 12:42:06 PM

Somacandra: Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.


This "pay through the nose" plans are pretty cheap when you have a couple of kids and actually use them .
 
2014-05-13 12:56:38 PM
Forget choice, I'd be happy if there were any doctors in my network who are accepting new patients before September.
 
2014-05-13 01:14:53 PM

SlothB77: but all of those experts who are smarter than everyone else said these plans would be better.

No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network - or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.


You get to pick any plan you want offered by the free market, sir.
 
2014-05-13 01:48:24 PM

netizencain: I dunno, I'm pretty farking stupid but taking away options for a lot of Americans in order to help 3% seems pretty crappy.


Yeah! Those 3% didn't need health insurance anyway. I WANT TO GO TO THE DOCTOR THAT'S 3.2 MILES CLOSER TO ME, DOGGONIT.
 
2014-05-13 01:59:53 PM
A lot of people can now choose to have health insurance.  That's a better choice than "Don't get sick" or "Die quickly"
 
2014-05-13 02:02:12 PM

netizencain: About 10 million people now have insurance because of ACA... something like that, right?  So like 3% of the population?  I dunno, I'm pretty farking stupid but taking away options for a lot of Americans in order to help 3% seems pretty crappy.  Maybe things will just take time to balance out.  I'll wait ten years and then pass judgement on this.


Are you willfully ignorant or just trolling?

Everyone benefits under the ACA because preexisting conditions and lifetime limits are no longer allowed. Everyone benefits because people without insurance will stop using the ER as a PCP.
 
2014-05-13 02:20:30 PM

Somacandra: Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.


I remember when HMOs really got big in the 1990s and dealing with them made not having insurance a more viable option.
 
2014-05-13 02:22:07 PM

Somacandra: Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.


ACA made very few changes for people who already had insurance provided by their employers.
 
2014-05-13 02:23:43 PM
ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.
 
2014-05-13 02:23:49 PM

SlothB77: in the marketplace before ACA, large networks and choice was valued higher.  the government mandated that other aspects of health insurance be given priority.  to keep health insurance affordable, insurers had to cut costs in other ways.  one way to do that was to shrink networks.

and what do you think the doctors and hospitals most willing to charge lower prices look like?  the worst ones.  who are the doctors and hospitals most likely to be dropped from coverage if the plans are focusing mostly on price?  the best ones.


Sounds more like an argument to go full single payer and cut out the profit-driven insurance companies who don't give a fark if suffer so long as they can make money off you. That you have these networks to deal with is a result of a bunch of cronyism between insurance companies and hospital/clinical organizations; if it weren't for that the money paid out by any insurance company or Uncle Sam would spend just as well.
 
2014-05-13 02:24:11 PM

netizencain: About 10 million people now have insurance because of ACA... something like that, right?  So like 3% of the population?  I dunno, I'm pretty farking stupid but taking away options for a lot of Americans in order to help 3% seems pretty crappy.  Maybe things will just take time to balance out.  I'll wait ten years and then pass judgement on this.


I'm so glad we're going back to good old American values. The kind the founding fathers believed in, like "Minorities aren't people", and "If you don't own land you don't have rights".
 
2014-05-13 02:25:46 PM
Paying for a healthcare plan that has 2 available doctors within 50 miles, neither of which is accepting new patients

That's a feature, not a flaw.
 
2014-05-13 02:25:50 PM
But while there is evidence that consumers are willing to sacrifice some choice in favor of lower prices, many critics, including political opponents of the new health care law, remain wary about narrowing networks

The editorialist/narrative pusher writes this then has two quotes from republicans running for office as evidence, could you find people with less credibility to quote? I honestly don't think it would be possible even if you tried to.
 
2014-05-13 02:26:12 PM
weak sauce, subby - weak sauce. Had you integrity, you would present numbers like : number of plans a person could realistically choose before and after the ACA.
 
2014-05-13 02:27:51 PM
Again, I don't understand how this is shocking.

Prior to the ACA, certain people were priced out of the market either because they were poor or because their health issues resulted in gargantuan premiums.  The ACA has allowed both of these groups of people to get insurance by providing subsidies and removing bans on preexisting conditions.

But laws can't change the actuarial science behind those calculations, and other people are going to have to suffer to allow those people to benefit.  I'm not necessarily saying it is a bad thing (although I think it's bullshiat they're forcing the young into insurance against their will, just another way the boomers are screwing the young over), but it will result in people being worse off than they were before the ACA.

The ACA isn't magic.  Some people benefit, some people suffer.
 
2014-05-13 02:27:53 PM

Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.


Are you trolling or are you a sincere asshole? I just want to know.
 
2014-05-13 02:27:59 PM

netizencain: About 10 million people now have insurance because of ACA... something like that, right?  So like 3% of the population?  I dunno, I'm pretty farking stupid but taking away options for a lot of Americans in order to help 3% seems pretty crappy.  Maybe things will just take time to balance out.  I'll wait ten years and then pass judgement on this.


As long as you think of that 3% as "THOSE PEOPLE", instead of "potentially ME or anyone I care about who loses their job or develops a preexisting condition", you won't see the point of the ACA.

Like federal unemployment or natural disaster insurance. "It charges the rest of us to help the small percentage who get unemployed/hurricane'd from starving to death with their families? I dunno if it's worth the cost to us of helping them, we'll see how it works out..."
 
2014-05-13 02:28:01 PM
It's forcing people with pre-existing conditions to choose between having no insurance vs. obtaining insurance. I'm so tired of Fart O'Nambla ruining my America.
 
2014-05-13 02:28:44 PM

Crotchrocket Slim:
Sounds more like an argument to go full single payer and cut out the profit-driven insurance companies who don't give a fark if suffer so long as they can make money off you. That you have these networks to deal with is a result of a bunch of cronyism between insurance companies and hospital/clinical organizations; if it weren't for that the money paid out by any insurance company or Uncle Sam would spend just as well.


Amen to that. These insurance leeches shouldn't even be in the picture, much less adding their profit margins to our healthcare costs. Just eliminate the rent-seeking middlemen leeches and health costs instantly drop by what, 25%? More, maybe?

All this useless arguing over "plans," "networks" and stuff is utterly unnecessary - just eliminate insurance and make sure all citizens have access to healthcare, period. Cripes, it's like we're a century behind the developed countries.
 
2014-05-13 02:29:02 PM
obamacare made it illegal for me to buy a car from anyone but government owned gm
 
2014-05-13 02:29:06 PM

SlothB77: in the marketplace before ACA, large networks and choice was valued higher.  the government mandated that other aspects of health insurance be given priority.  to keep health insurance affordable, insurers had to cut costs in other ways.  one way to do that was to shrink networks.

and what do you think the doctors and hospitals most willing to charge lower prices look like?  the worst ones.  who are the doctors and hospitals most likely to be dropped from coverage if the plans are focusing mostly on price?  the best ones.


So now you're against the free market? I'm glad you're finally coming around, Froth.
 
2014-05-13 02:29:31 PM

mrshowrules: SlothB77: but all of those experts who are smarter than everyone else said these plans would be better.

No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network - or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.

You get to pick any plan you want offered by the free market, sir.


That would be illegal, sir.
 
2014-05-13 02:29:58 PM
Newsflash: cheap insurance is cheap.
 
2014-05-13 02:30:03 PM
It's amazing how many people want the right to buy cheap-o insurance that won't actually cover anything.
 
2014-05-13 02:30:16 PM

Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.


Yes, that's exactly it.  We libs were just so angry at all those people that work hard that we created a healthcare policy that would finally get back at them by making it possible for people to get insurance for the first time and without those pesky loopholes that insurance companies have used to avoid payouts or insuring people.  Your "logic" is infallible.
 
2014-05-13 02:30:22 PM

Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.


Oh, obvious as it is, that will get some bites.  (quiet golf clap)
 
2014-05-13 02:31:00 PM

Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.


Thank you for providing the mainstream Republican talking point for this thread.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:16 PM
And to follow up on my previous point, I think a lot of the anger directed at the ACA is because it was presented as some sort of magic solution where no one would suffer.  Somehow we would get insurance to the poor and sick, and it wouldn't result in more expensive or worse insurance for anyone else.  Clearly that is impossible, so people feel like they were lied to.  Some people also hate black people.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:23 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: SlothB77: in the marketplace before ACA, large networks and choice was valued higher.  the government mandated that other aspects of health insurance be given priority.  to keep health insurance affordable, insurers had to cut costs in other ways.  one way to do that was to shrink networks.

and what do you think the doctors and hospitals most willing to charge lower prices look like?  the worst ones.  who are the doctors and hospitals most likely to be dropped from coverage if the plans are focusing mostly on price?  the best ones.

So now you're against the free market? I'm glad you're finally coming around, Froth.


I can't take you people seriously at all anymore.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:28 PM

menschenfresser: Crotchrocket Slim:
Sounds more like an argument to go full single payer and cut out the profit-driven insurance companies who don't give a fark if suffer so long as they can make money off you. That you have these networks to deal with is a result of a bunch of cronyism between insurance companies and hospital/clinical organizations; if it weren't for that the money paid out by any insurance company or Uncle Sam would spend just as well.

Amen to that. These insurance leeches shouldn't even be in the picture, much less adding their profit margins to our healthcare costs. Just eliminate the rent-seeking middlemen leeches and health costs instantly drop by what, 25%? More, maybe?

All this useless arguing over "plans," "networks" and stuff is utterly unnecessary - just eliminate insurance and make sure all citizens have access to healthcare, period. Cripes, it's like we're a century behind the developed countries.


America is the last bastion of unbridled capitalism in the Western world.  Of course they're going to drag their feet and scream and kick and do whatever they can to avoid having to join the rest of the civilized world.  There's less money in it for them.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:29 PM

Lionel Mandrake: A lot of people can now choose to have health insurance.  That's a better choice than "Don't get sick" or "Die quickly"


They also now can leave their shiatty jobs and start their own businesses, thereby becoming Job Creators.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:42 PM

Geotpf: ACA made very few changes for people who already had insurance provided by their employers.


No more lifetime maximums is a pretty big change.
 
2014-05-13 02:31:58 PM

Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.

Are you trolling or are you a sincere asshole? I just want to know.


With all the possible solutions available, the Democrats choose the one that steals money out of the pockets of the middle class, but I'm the asshole.. Liberals love to bemoan the death of the middle class, but they and their redistribution of wealth taxation plans are to blame for it.
 
2014-05-13 02:32:15 PM

Gary-L: Somacandra: Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.

I remember when HMOs really got big in the 1990s and dealing with them made not having insurance a more viable option.


HMOs were pretty cool when they first rolled out in the late 70's.  Then then started sucking.  I think the accountants and MBAs got involved and ruined them.
 
2014-05-13 02:32:39 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Lionel Mandrake: A lot of people can now choose to have health insurance.  That's a better choice than "Don't get sick" or "Die quickly"

They also now can leave their shiatty jobs and start their own businesses, thereby becoming Job Creators.


Job Creators don't want the competition, you know.
 
2014-05-13 02:33:42 PM

Lucky LaRue: Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: ACA isn't about choice - it's about bringing everyone down to the lowest denominator so that poor and lazy people aren't offended by people who work hard to get ahead in life.

Are you trolling or are you a sincere asshole? I just want to know.

With all the possible solutions available, the Democrats choose the one that steals money out of the pockets of the middle class, but I'm the asshole.. Liberals love to bemoan the death of the middle class, but they and their redistribution of wealth taxation plans are to blame for it.


nuh uh
 
2014-05-13 02:34:26 PM
"Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!
 
2014-05-13 02:34:53 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Paying for a healthcare plan that has 2 available doctors within 50 miles, neither of which is accepting new patients

That's a feature, not a flaw.


Let me guess, last year you had 20 doctors paying you to come in for checkups.
 
2014-05-13 02:35:07 PM

Muta: Gary-L: Somacandra: Odd. My employer had one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the nose) before the ACA. Since the ACA my employer has......one HMO plan and one PPO (pay through the farking nose) plan. On the HMO you go through the network...and on the PPO you go to pretty much anyone you want. The ACA wasn't designed to change that structure.

I remember when HMOs really got big in the 1990s and dealing with them made not having insurance a more viable option.

HMOs were pretty cool when they first rolled out in the late 70's.  Then then started sucking.  I think the accountants and MBAs got involved and ruined them.


MBAs are farking retarded. We've got a couple making decisions for our pricing structure and they keep lowering prices in order to make the revenue stream nice and fat. Well, it had gotten to the point where we had a massive revenue stream, but we had a negative profit margin so our salesmen were pushed to sell more and more so we could make up for the profit loss with high volume...
 
2014-05-13 02:36:20 PM

Lucky LaRue: With all the possible solutions available, the Democrats choose the one that steals money out of the pockets of the middle class, but I'm the asshole.. Liberals love to bemoan the death of the middle class, but they and their redistribution of wealth taxation plans are to blame for it.


You totally glossed over your broad generalization that those who would be most benefitted from the ACA are "poor" and "lazy". You can rant about taxes if you'd like, but that's not what you got called out on.
 
2014-05-13 02:36:27 PM

Headso: But while there is evidence that consumers are willing to sacrifice some choice in favor of lower prices, many critics, including political opponents of the new health care law, remain wary about narrowing networks

The editorialist/narrative pusher writes this then has two quotes from republicans running for office as evidence, could you find people with less credibility to quote? I honestly don't think it would be possible even if you tried to.


Bagdhad Bob and Joe Isuzu?
 
2014-05-13 02:36:31 PM

MattStafford: The ACA isn't magic.  Some people benefit, some people suffer.


Then why isn't evidence of the "suffering" readily apparent? Every ACA horror story trotted out by the right inevitably turns out to be bunk or hyperbole. Got concrete evidence of any kind of widespread suffering resulting from the ACA?
 
2014-05-13 02:36:34 PM
Of course.

The REAL choice for most people buy health insurance through ACA is between paying (at least in part) for health insurance/preventative care and having us (the taxpayer) paying for them when they get sick (either through the emergency room or bankruptcy).
 
2014-05-13 02:36:40 PM
I wonder what happens when the critics take their criticism to its natural conclusion and decide that publicly funded single payer is a far better option for the nation.
 
2014-05-13 02:37:02 PM
Think on it this way: the most important aspect of modern medicine is timeliness. Timely intervention is what lets Cuba have better health outcomes than the US. For a tiny fraction of the cost. Not just less per capita. Less as a percentage of their teeny GDP. If you're desperately poor and have to wait to get care, you're going to die sooner. If you know you can afford  care because you have some kind of insurance, the other stuff is just icing on the cake. Poor health is anomalous for humans until we're very old. So, if you can get some kind of care when you need it, you'll live to be very old. Most of the time.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report