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  
•       •       •

2428 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 2:17 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-05-13 02:37:27 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.


I question the assertion they're making. Two of the providers around here signed an agreement to allow people to use either network. They aren't huge, not anywhere near a BCBS, but in the area they have every specialty covered, and another joint agreement (both) with UW Children's Hospital. (that covers the fact that even most pediatric surgeons don't like uncommon procedures on the very young kids)

You may end up with 'smaller' provider networks, but the cooperating agreements may end up eliminating the difference. Of course, YMMV, and we've got to see what happens over the next 10 years. Still, I think it's cheaper for hospital groups / insurers to maximize small areas rather than try to duplicate it endlessly everywhere. That basic business, e.g. the trauma center here could certainly be challenged by the competing hospital (but the competitor doesn't even try, and this was well before the ACA), sense may end up keeping different hospitals / insurer groups in agreement. Another example: the hospital with the trauma center doesn't really try to challenge the NICU at it's competitor.
 
2014-05-13 02:37:29 PM

Killer Cars: 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.


Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.
 
2014-05-13 02:38:04 PM

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


Well of course the aqueduct, but except for removing lifetime caps on coverage, limiting profits to a percentage of care provided, letting kids stay on their parent's insurance longer, requiring the insurance to cover certain preventative care at no cost, and the aqueduct, what has the ACA done for us?
 
2014-05-13 02:39:29 PM
Thanks to Mitt Romney these issues must have already worked themselves out in MA or something because I have not had anything at all change since the ACA was implemented. Any other MA farkers have that same experience?
 
2014-05-13 02:42:07 PM
Why do so many "news" stories about the ACA include nothing but non-representative samples, anecdotal stories, and unverified talking points?

Is every reporter in America little more than a stenographer for thinly disguised special interest groups pushing an agenda?
 
2014-05-13 02:42:09 PM
Yes, rather than a simple, single payer health care, I'd much rather have to spend the time wading through tons of different insurance plans and the various benefits they provide.
 
2014-05-13 02:42:11 PM

Lucky LaRue: Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.


Hey, props for standing behind what you said.

I just don't want to mischaracterize your opinion that if someone were either uninsured or grossly underinsured (by any rational metric) before the ACA began to take effect, they were clearly at fault. If you're proud of that sentiment, that is.
 
2014-05-13 02:42:19 PM
In this thread:  Republican assclowns not infromed enough to regurgitate Benghazi talking points regurgitate 0bamacare ones.  Hey, there's no shame in being on the B team, fellas!
 
2014-05-13 02:42:55 PM

Lucky LaRue: Killer Cars: 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.

Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.


I hope you never have to face the "bad life choice" of getting very ill.  I don't think you would be able to handle it.

You better hope you are always "lucky".

/Some day you might realize having a less sick society (like having a more educated society) helps everyone in that society.
//or not.
 
2014-05-13 02:43:54 PM
My god, so many bites.
 
2014-05-13 02:44:47 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.


There were two possible viable solutions, the ACA and a single payer system like most of the rest world uses. Most liberals would have preferred a single payer system but they have been trying that for years with no success. The ACA was the system that could be implemented, everything else either didn't address the problem or didn't have a chance in hell of being passed.

And I am middle class and certainly haven't been hurt by the ACA. My insurance plan even enumerated the cost of the ACA on my bills, it comes out to a couple extra dollars a month, if something like that breaks anyone they aren't middle class.
 
2014-05-13 02:44:55 PM

Killer Cars: 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.


Well, in general the poor and lazy don't have to pay taxee (or actually get paid with taxes), so it is really the same thing isn't it? I mean the poor and lazy are taxes on the productive members of society.
 
2014-05-13 02:46:00 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: 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?


The people suffering are generally those that can afford to suffer.  Young healthy people who could afford insurance but didn't want to.  People with nice plans losing benefits.  Smaller networks.  Etc.  For the most part, the ACA is going to have very few people with a tale of woe that the average person will rally behind.  But that doesn't mean those people are happy about what is going on.  It also doesn't mean that the bill was presented in a misleading manner.

For full disclosure, I'm in favor of severing ties between employer and insurance, instituting a basic income program, and having government cover all medical costs exceeding a certain percentage of yearly income, something like 20% maybe?  I'm also in favor of Logan's Running people too (there is no easy way to pay for the medical care for the elderly, and they're just going to get more and more expensive).
 
2014-05-13 02:47:07 PM

karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!


Are you sure?  Because the ACA requires plans to meet specific criteria, and insurers have canceled plans that don't.

There is no logic in saying the ACA tells you which policy to buy, any more than the people who regulate vehicle safety are telling you which car to buy.  You get to pick from what's out there.
 
2014-05-13 02:48:13 PM

Lando Lincoln: 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.


I have doctors close to me that are taking new patients but God forbid something bad happen to me. There's no emergency physicians in my network at the hospital that is literally 2 blocks away from my house.

Thanks, insurance companies. Fark yourselves with a pointy stick.
 
2014-05-13 02:49:53 PM

Tricky Chicken: Killer Cars: 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.

Well, in general the poor and lazy don't have to pay taxee (or actually get paid with taxes), so it is really the same thing isn't it? I mean the poor and lazy are taxes on the productive members of society.


except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'
 
2014-05-13 02:50:53 PM

born_yesterday: In this thread:  Republican assclowns not infromed enough to regurgitate Benghazi talking points regurgitate 0bamacare ones.  Hey, there's no shame in being on the B team, fellas!


On that b team there is shame both deep and abiding.
 
2014-05-13 02:52:04 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.


2 "weiners" posts from you? do you have an alarm at your house that goes off when anyone mentions the ACA? 

Dude, the ACA is a thing now, it's not going away until we get single payer. Please do this:

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-13 02:52:11 PM

born_yesterday: In this thread:  Republican assclowns not infromed enough to regurgitate Benghazi talking points regurgitate 0bamacare ones.  Hey, there's no shame in being on the B team, fellas!


Whoah, did you just find a way to link ACA to Bengazi? I thought the Haram kidnapping was a stretch, but I like your style. Please tell me you found a way to wrap in the IRS and a birthcertificate, and you may have found a way to make a large number of the tin foil hat club die of a stroke.
 
2014-05-13 02:52:42 PM

Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

 
2014-05-13 02:54:04 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead


Wow, you've really moved this conversation forward with your enlightened observations.  Please, do go on..
 
2014-05-13 02:55:40 PM

jigger: 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.


No.
 
2014-05-13 02:56:15 PM
The honesty is refreshing.

Stop sticking it in my butt and telling me I'm pooping.
 
2014-05-13 02:56:17 PM
Lucky LaRue:

Do you ever back up anything you say with facts or examples or other sources?
 
2014-05-13 02:56:43 PM

Lucky LaRue: Killer Cars: 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.

Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.


Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

You still getting paid by the Romney campaign or did they just purchase your services for several years ahead of time, certain he'd win?
 
2014-05-13 02:56:48 PM

karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!


You can tell someone has no argument when he is forced to offer a false argument.
 
2014-05-13 02:57:25 PM

manwithplanx: Tricky Chicken: Killer Cars: 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.

Well, in general the poor and lazy don't have to pay taxee (or actually get paid with taxes), so it is really the same thing isn't it? I mean the poor and lazy are taxes on the productive members of society.

except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'


Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

 
2014-05-13 02:58:26 PM

Infernalist: It's amazing how many people want the right to buy cheap-o insurance that won't actually cover anything.


Huh? With the ACA, I get more covered for less money, as seems to be the case with most people who signed up.
 
2014-05-13 02:58:59 PM
Translation: Insurance companies need the power to walk away from the most expensive options in the marketplace, even if it means people have to change health care providers.

It's been known for a long time that large hospitals and hospital-centric healthcare networks end up costing a lot more, without necessarily providing better care. They have a de-facto monopoly over health care pricing in small and medium sized markets.

Color me OK with this.
 
2014-05-13 03:00:03 PM

mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.


Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.
 
2014-05-13 03:00:52 PM
I've been with an HMO most of the last 25 years.  When I joined they gave me a short list of family docs and said to choose one as my main provider.  I still see that same doc these many years later.  The limited choice hasn't been such a big problem.
 
2014-05-13 03:01:55 PM

MattStafford: UrukHaiGuyz: 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?

The people suffering are generally those that can afford to suffer.  Young healthy people who could afford insurance but didn't want to.  People with nice plans losing benefits.  Smaller networks.  Etc.  For the most part, the ACA is going to have very few people with a tale of woe that the average person will rally behind.  But that doesn't mean those people are happy about what is going on.  It also doesn't mean that the bill was presented in a misleading manner.


Fair enough. I understand there are trade-offs, but calling it "suffering" when the flipside was people with no hope of access to care is more than a bit callous. "Inconvenience" might be a better word, but it's hard to make that sound bad, I guess.

For full disclosure, I'm in favor of severing ties between employer and insurance, instituting a basic income program, and having government cover all medical costs exceeding a certain percentage of yearly income, something like 20% maybe?  I'm also in favor of Logan's Running people too (there is no easy way to pay for the medical care for the elderly, and they're just going to get more and more expensive).

Too many steps to be practical. Why not just adopt government funded free-to-access healthcare. You could do it simply by expanding Medicaid to cover everyone, or by nationalizing the healthcare system.

/I'm more of a Solyent Green than a Running Man type
//Americans have great fat/protein ratios
///a nation of walking foie gras we are
 
2014-05-13 03:02:15 PM

Lucky LaRue: The free market has been circumvented by government interference.


the fief market
 
2014-05-13 03:03:20 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Killer Cars: 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.

Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.

Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

You still getting paid by the Romney campaign or did they just purchase your services for several years ahead of time, certain he'd win?


Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically.  Making bad choices does that, and the liberal ideology that enforces the belief that the bad choices you make aren't your fault enables it.
 
2014-05-13 03:05:28 PM
60% of 47902 people, this isn't an article its an advertisement,  Better article http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_25639151/preferredone-grabs-big - share-new-marketfor-health-insurance. It took me a minute but then I remembered their hospital system here in MN http://www.startribune.com/local/149383215.html
 
2014-05-13 03:06:44 PM

Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.

Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.


Read again and pay attention to the words and such.
 
2014-05-13 03:07:17 PM

Chummer45: Yes, rather than a simple, single payer health care, I'd much rather have to spend the time wading through tons of different insurance plans and the various benefits they provide.


reminds me of the choice in electric providers that has been setup in several states (to encourage competition) but if you look deep enough the competition seems to be who can fool the most people into their plan.
 
2014-05-13 03:09:27 PM

SlothB77: in the marketplace before ACA, large networks and choice was valued higher.


This is not even remotely true. In the 1990s there was a boom in managed health care, HMO/PPO, type plans. Insurance companies and health care providers saw it as the new way for the market. An insurance company would guarantee a provider x number of procedures at a discounted rate. This directly led to the situation where a plan was restricted to those providers that they had deals with. Limited provider networks have been the standard literally for decades. The only value placed on large networks by insurance companies, then or now, is in comparison to competing plans so as to attract more customers, and given the lack of competition and the indirect relationship of the actual plan purchasers (as most people get their insurance through work) large networks were never actually valued much. Choice was never valued at all by insurance companies. They don't want you to choose, they want you to go to that provider that they had a contract with for discounted rates. Plans are designed so as to cost the insurance company the least, that is the only thing they are concerned about when it comes to providers. Nothing in regard to this has really changed with the ACA.

If you want to advocate complete choice of doctors then we're going to have to either go single payer or adopt a heavily regulated private but not for profit model like Germany's sickness funds. In the interests of choice would you support either of those options?
 
2014-05-13 03:09:34 PM

Lucky LaRue: Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically


An American born at the bottom has about an 8 percent chance of rising to the top, it found; the odds are twice that in Denmark.

Not great odds. According to the link, it's not any worse than it was 20 years ago, but we've fallen behind the rest of the industrial world. So much for exceptionalism.
 
2014-05-13 03:10:29 PM
Everything is going to work out perfectly and there will be no problems at all. We're just going through a simple transitory phase, from free market capitalism to some other economic system to be determined later.

This is all perfectly normal. Carry on and don't panic.
 
2014-05-13 03:11:26 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Fair enough. I understand there are trade-offs, but calling it "suffering" when the flipside was people with no hope of access to care is more than a bit callous. "Inconvenience" might be a better word, but it's hard to make that sound bad, I guess.


Yeah, suffering may not have been the best word to use.

UrukHaiGuyz: Too many steps to be practical. Why not just adopt government funded free-to-access healthcare. You could do it simply by expanding Medicaid to cover everyone, or by nationalizing the healthcare system.


Where is the incentive for providers to keep costs down?  My fear is that it'd end up like college tuition where there is essentially a limitless amount of money going from the government to the consumers (with college it'd be via loans, but the concept is the same) which results in no reason for the providers to keep costs down.  I feel market forces for day to day costs would result in lower prices and better service.

Also, I'd be out of a job.
 
2014-05-13 03:11:49 PM

mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.

Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.

Read again and pay attention to the words and such.


Well, one of us isn't paying attention to the words...  If I can pick any plan offered by the free market, then I can pick a plan that doesn't meet the ACA requirements.  I can't pick a plan that doesn't meet ACA requirements, so I can't pick any plan offered by the free market.

That tautology seems to make sense, unless you are defining "free market" to mean the market that is freed by the regulations and restrictions placed on it by government.
 
2014-05-13 03:13:38 PM
dims! dimmmmmms!!!!
 
2014-05-13 03:13:53 PM

Tricky Chicken: except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'

Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead


Hey, gotta work with what I am given here, not like  LaRue's interested in serious conversation when he posts debunked Limbaugh rhetoric.
 
2014-05-13 03:15:11 PM
I told you all right before George Bush signed this thing, that is was a bad idea.
 
2014-05-13 03:15:45 PM

Lucky LaRue: Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically. Making bad choices does that, and the liberal ideology that enforces the belief that the bad choices you make aren't your fault enables it.


Everyone makes bad choices in their life. The difference is that the richer and higher status you are the easier it is to recover from those bad choices. That poor people have any opportunities to better themselves is mostly thanks to liberal policies, from public schooling to Pell Grants to public transportion and school lunch program and food stamps.
 
2014-05-13 03:16:11 PM

Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.

Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.

Read again and pay attention to the words and such.

Well, one of us isn't paying attention to the words...  If I can pick any plan offered by the free market, then I can pick a plan that doesn't meet the ACA requirements.  I can't pick a plan that doesn't meet ACA requirements, so I can't pick any plan offered by the free market.

That tautology seems to make sense, unless you are defining "free market" to mean the market that is freed by the regulations and restrictions placed on it by government.


Are you being dense on purpose.  Insurance companies are only offering plans that are legal.  It is legal to pick any of those plans.  Why is this complicated?  You are wrong.  I was right.  Full stop.

If you want to talk about it being unfair to prevent insurance companies from offering any type of bullshiat plan they want to, that is another subject.
 
2014-05-13 03:16:43 PM

MattStafford: Where is the incentive for providers to keep costs down?  My fear is that it'd end up like college tuition where there is essentially a limitless amount of money going from the government to the consumers (with college it'd be via loans, but the concept is the same)


people gotta pay back student loans, there is certainly a limit on what that realistically can be. With medicare/caid you have the taxpayer footing the bill to take care of the sickest and oldest Americans, something private insurance won't touch with a 10,000 foot pole, just because right wing pundits assert that those programs are costly for what they are, I'd argue that it's total bullshiat or a private company would be doing it for a profit already.
 
2014-05-13 03:17:24 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'

Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

Hey, gotta work with what I am given here, not like  LaRue's interested in serious conversation when he posts debunked Limbaugh rhetoric.


"Debunked Limbaugh rhetoric"?  Seriously?  I think you are just making shiat up, now to avoid looking foolish.  What Limbaugh rhetoric, exactly, and how was it debunked?
 
2014-05-13 03:17:28 PM
"No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network "

I'm calling bullshiat on this. Everyone on my Healthcare Plan has the same number of facilities and doctors as we had 5 years ago, minus the doctors (like mine) who changed to another clinic, and plus the new facilities that have been built. None of our clinics have closed, the staff hasn't gone through any kind of major upheaval, and wait times haven't increased. Not only that, premiums haven't grown any more than they do in an average year.
 
2014-05-13 03:19:11 PM

mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.

Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.

Read again and pay attention to the words and such.

Well, one of us isn't paying attention to the words...  If I can pick any plan offered by the free market, then I can pick a plan that doesn't meet the ACA requirements.  I can't pick a plan that doesn't meet ACA requirements, so I can't pick any plan offered by the free market.

That tautology seems to make sense, unless you are defining "free market" to mean the market that is freed by the regulations and restrictions placed on it by government.

Are you being dense on purpose.  Insurance companies are only offering plans that are legal.  It is legal to pick any of those plans.  Why is this complicated?  You are wrong.  I was right.  Full stop.

If you want to talk about it being unfair to prevent insurance companies from offering any type of bullshiat plan they want to, that is another subject.


Oh, so you *were* arguing that a regulated market is a free market.  That makes sense.
 
2014-05-13 03:19:41 PM

Gwyrddu: Lucky LaRue: Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically. Making bad choices does that, and the liberal ideology that enforces the belief that the bad choices you make aren't your fault enables it.

Everyone makes bad choices in their life. The difference is that the richer and higher status you are the easier it is to recover from those bad choices. That poor people have any opportunities to better themselves is mostly thanks to liberal policies, from public schooling to Pell Grants to public transportion and school lunch program and food stamps.


But paying for these things is an utter inconvenience to the wealthy, even though it affords those poor the opportunity to become upwardly mobile and thus more economically productive members of society, allowing them to increase their income and become net tax payers themselves. But don't you see, it's still wrong to inconvenience the rich for reasons and some terrible writer said that was bad, see.
 
2014-05-13 03:21:21 PM

MattStafford: UrukHaiGuyz: Fair enough. I understand there are trade-offs, but calling it "suffering" when the flipside was people with no hope of access to care is more than a bit callous. "Inconvenience" might be a better word, but it's hard to make that sound bad, I guess.

Yeah, suffering may not have been the best word to use.

UrukHaiGuyz: Too many steps to be practical. Why not just adopt government funded free-to-access healthcare. You could do it simply by expanding Medicaid to cover everyone, or by nationalizing the healthcare system.

Where is the incentive for providers to keep costs down?  My fear is that it'd end up like college tuition where there is essentially a limitless amount of money going from the government to the consumers (with college it'd be via loans, but the concept is the same) which results in no reason for the providers to keep costs down.  I feel market forces for day to day costs would result in lower prices and better service.


We already have some of the worst health outcomes relative to per capita healthcare spending. Costs would be kept down due to the increased leverage an expanded Medicare/Medicaid would wield, or in a nationalized system we'd have a more direct say as a country in cost/benefit analyses.

Also, I'd be out of a job.

That's a bummer, but not really a reason to base policy on.
 
2014-05-13 03:22:13 PM

Lucky LaRue: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'

Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

Hey, gotta work with what I am given here, not like  LaRue's interested in serious conversation when he posts debunked Limbaugh rhetoric.

"Debunked Limbaugh rhetoric"?  Seriously?  I think you are just making shiat up, now to avoid looking foolish.  What Limbaugh rhetoric, exactly, and how was it debunked?


You were depantsed by another Farker responding to your response to mine.

UrukHaiGuyz: Lucky LaRue: Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically

An American born at the bottom has about an 8 percent chance of rising to the top, it found; the odds are twice that in Denmark.

Not great odds. According to the link, it's not any worse than it was 20 years ago, but we've fallen behind the rest of the industrial world. So much for exceptionalism.


Read up instead of ignoring posts you got nothing to argue against with.
 
2014-05-13 03:24:43 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.


This isn't the plan Obama wanted. He had to compromise with the obsructionist congress.
 
2014-05-13 03:25:07 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'

Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

Hey, gotta work with what I am given here, not like  LaRue's interested in serious conversation when he posts debunked Limbaugh rhetoric.

"Debunked Limbaugh rhetoric"?  Seriously?  I think you are just making shiat up, now to avoid looking foolish.  What Limbaugh rhetoric, exactly, and how was it debunked?

You were depantsed by another Farker responding to your response to mine.


Seriously, what are you contributing?  You come into this thread with juvenile bullying tactics and spend the rest of your effort on defending your childish behavior.  Have you added anything of value, yet?
 
2014-05-13 03:27:44 PM

Mugato: 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.

This isn't the plan Obama wanted. He had to compromise with the obsructionist congress.


Oh, I see.  Despite the fact that it was passed when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House, the Republican's are responsible for ACA.

I don't think there has ever been a time when one party controlled so much of the process of governing yet blamed the other party for it's failure to govern.
 
2014-05-13 03:29:28 PM

Lucky LaRue: Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: except that they do pay taxes, just not income taxes. They pay sales, payroll and any taxes their state or local governments enact that effect them. The poor are the people working jobs that keep society running smoothly for the 'productive members'

Oh, don't mind me, I was just having fun with the rhetoric. It was about as useless as the below post.

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: Look mommy, I don't understand anything about anything so I'll just make strawmen on Fark instead

Hey, gotta work with what I am given here, not like  LaRue's interested in serious conversation when he posts debunked Limbaugh rhetoric.

"Debunked Limbaugh rhetoric"?  Seriously?  I think you are just making shiat up, now to avoid looking foolish.  What Limbaugh rhetoric, exactly, and how was it debunked?

You were depantsed by another Farker responding to your response to mine.

Seriously, what are you contributing?  You come into this thread with juvenile bullying tactics and spend the rest of your effort on defending your childish behavior.  Have you added anything of value, yet?


I'm sorry, have you? You're not really the one to be criticizing others on the lack of adding anything that contributes to the thread, even while ignoring the one semi-serious post I did make to this thread.

Crotchrocket Slim: Gwyrddu: Lucky LaRue: Being born poor doesn't preclude you from bettering yourself economically. Making bad choices does that, and the liberal ideology that enforces the belief that the bad choices you make aren't your fault enables it.

Everyone makes bad choices in their life. The difference is that the richer and higher status you are the easier it is to recover from those bad choices. That poor people have any opportunities to better themselves is mostly thanks to liberal policies, from public schooling to Pell Grants to public transportion and school lunch program and food stamps.

But paying for these things is an utter inconvenience to the wealthy, even though it affords those poor the opportunity to become upwardly mobile and thus more economically productive members of society, allowing them to increase their income and become net tax payers themselves. But don't you see, it's still wrong to inconvenience the rich for reasons and some terrible writer said that was bad, see.


Argue against the bold.
 
2014-05-13 03:29:57 PM
You guys know he's a troll - you know it - and yet you continue feeding the troll. Is it still entertaining to some people even when the trolling is so transparent? By all means keep doing it if you want, but what's the point?
 
2014-05-13 03:30:12 PM

Lucky LaRue: Mugato: 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.

This isn't the plan Obama wanted. He had to compromise with the obsructionist congress.

Oh, I see.  Despite the fact that it was passed when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House, the Republican's are responsible for ACA.

I don't think there has ever been a time when one party controlled so much of the process of governing yet blamed the other party for it's failure to govern.


"Serious contribution to the thread" huh?
 
2014-05-13 03:30:18 PM
MattStafford:
Also, I'd be out of a job.

Look on the bright side.

Those coconuts won't sell themselves.
 
2014-05-13 03:31:46 PM

Lucky LaRue: Seriously, what are you contributing? You come into this thread with juvenile bullying tactics and spend the rest of your effort on defending your childish behavior. Have you added anything of value, yet?


Here, have a wheel of Swiss.  Sounds like you need it.
 
2014-05-13 03:32:40 PM

what_now: 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.


Whynotboth.jpg
 
2014-05-13 03:32:53 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: We already have some of the worst health outcomes relative to per capita healthcare spending. Costs would be kept down due to the increased leverage an expanded Medicare/Medicaid would wield, or in a nationalized system we'd have a more direct say as a country in cost/benefit analyses.


I understand that aspect of the argument, but I also look at something like Lasik and wonder if would see something similar if we let the market work with other health care situations.  To make a poor analogy, we could probably feed the US with a universal food stamp program, but wouldn't we rather let the market work and take care of the people who can't afford it?  Better prices, better (well, arguably) food, etc.

UrukHaiGuyz: That's a bummer, but not really a reason to base policy on.


Says you
 
2014-05-13 03:33:15 PM

Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: Lucky LaRue: mrshowrules: jigger: 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.

No.

Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.

Read again and pay attention to the words and such.

Well, one of us isn't paying attention to the words...  If I can pick any plan offered by the free market, then I can pick a plan that doesn't meet the ACA requirements.  I can't pick a plan that doesn't meet ACA requirements, so I can't pick any plan offered by the free market.

That tautology seems to make sense, unless you are defining "free market" to mean the market that is freed by the regulations and restrictions placed on it by government.

Are you being dense on purpose.  Insurance companies are only offering plans that are legal.  It is legal to pick any of those plans.  Why is this complicated?  You are wrong.  I was right.  Full stop.

If you want to talk about it being unfair to prevent insurance companies from offering any type of bullshiat plan they want to, that is another subject.

Oh, so you *were* arguing that a regulated market is a free market.  That makes sense.


I was trying to establish if you were being dense on purpose.  Still not clear.

New subject.  Should we call regulated markets free markets?  As all markets are regulated to some degree or another, I would say yes but perhaps a definition would be useful.

free market: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

by this definition, health insurance is still a free market service
 
2014-05-13 03:33:50 PM

Riothamus: Look on the bright side.

Those coconuts won't sell themselves.


Can't disagree with you there.
 
2014-05-13 03:35:20 PM

Gwyrddu: Everyone makes bad choices in their life. The difference is that the richer and higher status you are the easier it is to recover from those bad choices. That poor people have any opportunities to better themselves is mostly thanks to liberal policies, from public schooling to Pell Grants to public transportion and school lunch program and food stamps.


Wow the saddest part is progressives actually believe this. Only through their benevolence has anything gotten any better for anyone since well...forever. Anyone not a progressive doesn't care about anyone else and is basically a monster.
 
2014-05-13 03:37:02 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.


I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.
 
2014-05-13 03:37:04 PM
trollthreadbarbosa.jpg
 
2014-05-13 03:38:00 PM

walkingtall: Gwyrddu: Everyone makes bad choices in their life. The difference is that the richer and higher status you are the easier it is to recover from those bad choices. That poor people have any opportunities to better themselves is mostly thanks to liberal policies, from public schooling to Pell Grants to public transportion and school lunch program and food stamps.

Wow the saddest part is progressives actually believe this. Only through their benevolence has anything gotten any better for anyone since well...forever. Anyone not a progressive doesn't care about anyone else and is basically a monster.


Then why is private charity never been enough to replace the social infrastructure and make it so people do not have to resort to becoming modern-day highwaymen and the like?
 
2014-05-13 03:40:06 PM

Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.


And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?
 
2014-05-13 03:41:07 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here at people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?


Slim needs a proofreader
 
2014-05-13 03:42:31 PM

MattStafford: UrukHaiGuyz: We already have some of the worst health outcomes relative to per capita healthcare spending. Costs would be kept down due to the increased leverage an expanded Medicare/Medicaid would wield, or in a nationalized system we'd have a more direct say as a country in cost/benefit analyses.

I understand that aspect of the argument, but I also look at something like Lasik and wonder if would see something similar if we let the market work with other health care situations.  To make a poor analogy, we could probably feed the US with a universal food stamp program, but wouldn't we rather let the market work and take care of the people who can't afford it?  Better prices, better (well, arguably) food, etc.


Why couldn't you create "MARPA" or something to develop new cutting edge products and technologies, but with a primarily medical bent? As it is, DARPA's at the front of a lot of medical tech. I think the U.S. should be investing vastly more in basic research of all types, though.
 
2014-05-13 03:45:09 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: MattStafford: UrukHaiGuyz: We already have some of the worst health outcomes relative to per capita healthcare spending. Costs would be kept down due to the increased leverage an expanded Medicare/Medicaid would wield, or in a nationalized system we'd have a more direct say as a country in cost/benefit analyses.

I understand that aspect of the argument, but I also look at something like Lasik and wonder if would see something similar if we let the market work with other health care situations.  To make a poor analogy, we could probably feed the US with a universal food stamp program, but wouldn't we rather let the market work and take care of the people who can't afford it?  Better prices, better (well, arguably) food, etc.

Why couldn't you create "MARPA" or something to develop new cutting edge products and technologies, but with a primarily medical bent? As it is, DARPA's at the front of a lot of medical tech. I think the U.S. should be investing vastly more in basic research of all types, though.


Bonus income from other nations paying to use our publicly-financed tech development that isn't US taxpayer dollars. It's like how NASA tech development has always been an exceptionally profitable thing, if and when we actually fund NASA.
 
2014-05-13 03:45:21 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?


Oh, I do love me some Poe. But no student loans or grants. just a GI Bill that I paid dearly for.

But I did always see this as the other side of the 'we all have the same opportunities' argument.  Either they made bad choices with the same opportunities, or I am just naturally a far superior person given the same opportunities.
 
2014-05-13 03:46:40 PM

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I see.  Despite the fact that it was passed when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House, the Republican's are responsible for ACA


Yeah, definitely a troll. Sorry for biting.
 
2014-05-13 03:46:59 PM

Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Oh, I do love me some Poe. But no student loans or grants. just a GI Bill that I paid dearly for.

But I did always see this as the other side of the 'we all have the same opportunities' argument.  Either they made bad choices with the same opportunities, or I am just naturally a far superior person given the same opportunities.


A hypocrite is you, the military being the very definition of one of the most socialist organizations around.
 
2014-05-13 03:47:29 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.


What "Lucky LaRue" said is what wingnuts actually believe.
 
2014-05-13 03:47:40 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here at people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Slim needs a proofreader


Well, be a job creator and hire yourself one. Economy's not gonna fix itself, sweetheart.
 
2014-05-13 03:48:47 PM
BTW I'm a taxpayer now instead of a welfare recipient through the opportunity to go to college on a massive amount of student loans (which I'm repaying) and federal and state grants (which I now pay for for others to use by way of my state and federal income taxes).
 
2014-05-13 03:49:55 PM

rzrwiresunrise: Crotchrocket Slim: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here at people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Slim needs a proofreader

Well, be a job creator and hire yourself one. Economy's not gonna fix itself, sweetheart.


Maybe I could recruit a  redshirtmilitary recruit away from the Military Industrial Complex?
 
2014-05-13 03:53:32 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Maybe I could recruit a  redshirtmilitary recruit away from the Military Industrial Complex?


You'd just be giving him more of a reason to feel all superior and shiat.
 
2014-05-13 03:56:10 PM

Mugato: Lucky LaRue: Oh, I see.  Despite the fact that it was passed when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House, the Republican's are responsible for ACA

Yeah, definitely a troll. Sorry for biting.


Notice once I started posting as seriously as I care to on Fark, he bails from the thread.
 
2014-05-13 03:58:31 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Oh, I do love me some Poe. But no student loans or grants. just a GI Bill that I paid dearly for.

But I did always see this as the other side of the 'we all have the same opportunities' argument.  Either they made bad choices with the same opportunities, or I am just naturally a far superior person given the same opportunities.

A hypocrite is you, the military being the very definition of one of the most socialist organizations around.


Yeah, the whole military structure seems at odds with democracy in general.  But when you voluntarily join the military (not the guys screwed over by the draft), you agree to surrender the vast majority of your rights and priveledges in order to protect those of others.  For which you are given much less than a living wage, but are simultaneously given all the support you would get as if you lived in a parents house.  But you are not even a little bit 'free'.  Basically, I had one asset I could sell, and so I sold several years of my life to what amounts to indentured servitude. I'd hardly call it socialism. More like bondage.
 
2014-05-13 04:09:27 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Why couldn't you create "MARPA" or something to develop new cutting edge products and technologies, but with a primarily medical bent? As it is, DARPA's at the front of a lot of medical tech. I think the U.S. should be investing vastly more in basic research of all types, though.


You could, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.  Even if we are funding R+D via the government, the private sector would be better at getting the technology to the public in an affordable manner.

Off topic, but instead of government funded research, we should do prizes.  One billion dollars for the first team to develop a drug that does X, government gets the patent.  Just a thought.
 
2014-05-13 04:11:20 PM
I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.
 
2014-05-13 04:11:27 PM

Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Oh, I do love me some Poe. But no student loans or grants. just a GI Bill that I paid dearly for.

But I did always see this as the other side of the 'we all have the same opportunities' argument.  Either they made bad choices with the same opportunities, or I am just naturally a far superior person given the same opportunities.

A hypocrite is you, the military being the very definition of one of the most socialist organizations around.

Yeah, the whole military structure seems at odds with democracy in general.  But when you voluntarily join the military (not the guys screwed over by the draft), you agree to surrender the vast majority of your rights and priveledges in order to protect those of others.  For which you are given much less than a living wage, but are simultaneously given all the support you would get as if you lived in a parents house.  But you are not eve ...


And how is paying student loans back or paying income taxes "free"? And how is that fair to people whose physical conditions preclude military service yet they might have sharp minds and the drive and ability to still be contributing members of society, but lack the financial means to better themselves and be upwardly mobile?
 
2014-05-13 04:11:35 PM
If you want affordable healthcare you'll need to get over the society of hypochondria and close about half the teaching hospitals, or at least make sure the foreigners who come here to learn medicine GO HOME AND PRACTICE THERE. We have to reduce demand, and we have to curtail supply. There's just too damned much "healthcare" going on in this country and it's not healthy.
 
2014-05-13 04:11:47 PM

Lucky LaRue: Oh, so you *were* arguing that a regulated market is a free market.  That makes sense.


Most free-marketeers don't know what they mean when they say "free market" in their blithe advocacy for it; the rest are being completely disingenuous. The fact is there can never be a "free" market that allows anyone to execute commerce in any fashion they like since there will always be the call for some kind of regulation somewhere in the production-distribution-consumption chain. No business wants to have to test out their back-end manufacturer or raw materials producer only to find they sell a shoddy product. Businesses demand some level of standardization and regulation upfront because litigating bills of goods every time they fall short of specs is wasteful. It's also wasteful for businesses to have to enforce those spec standards instead of having government regulators do it. Allowing the government to regulate the market streamlines the process and makes it possible to operate in one where almost all players play by the rules. It's much more efficient than a wild west "free market" scenario that these knuckle-heads invent in their own fantasies.
 
2014-05-13 04:14:49 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Tricky Chicken: Crotchrocket Slim: Being borne poor and lacking opportunity to better oneself economically is now a "bad life choice", gotcha shill.

I will admit that I was born poor. I didn't have any opportunities that weren't common to the vast majority of people. But, I have done extremely well for myself over the years. I don't consider myself 'lucky'. Nor do I think anybody else could do it. I do not fault the poor for not being successful. It is just that I am far far better than they are. The poor may have had the same oportunities that I did, but they are inherently too incompetent to take advantage of basic resources around them. I have only done well because I am a much better person.  It is not so much the bad choices people make, it is just that they are basically failures from the start.

And how many of those opportunities to better yourself came in the form of subsidized student loans, grants, and the like? In case you're not Poe's Lawlzing your ass off here and people narcissistic enough to actually believe this sort of tripe?

Oh, I do love me some Poe. But no student loans or grants. just a GI Bill that I paid dearly for.

But I did always see this as the other side of the 'we all have the same opportunities' argument.  Either they made bad choices with the same opportunities, or I am just naturally a far superior person given the same opportunities.

A hypocrite is you, the military being the very definition of one of the most socialist organizations around.

Yeah, the whole military structure seems at odds with democracy in general.  But when you voluntarily join the military (not the guys screwed over by the draft), you agree to surrender the vast majority of your rights and priveledges in order to protect those of others.  For which you are given much less than a living wage, but are simultaneously given all the support you would get as if you lived in a parents house.  But ...


... not that military service is a bad opportunity here, just saying it should not be the only one.
 
2014-05-13 04:18:56 PM

wildcardjack: If you want affordable healthcare you'll need to get over the society of hypochondria and close about half the teaching hospitals, or at least make sure the foreigners who come here to learn medicine GO HOME AND PRACTICE THERE. We have to reduce demand, and we have to curtail supply. There's just too damned much "healthcare" going on in this country and it's not healthy.


You realize that teaching hospitals are where most doctors gain experience to better treat patients? And if nothing else there would be many areas underserved by not having a medical facility close enough to them to save their lives before they die (in the case of medical emergency).

How is preventative care a bad thing anyway? Why don't you get a bit more specific about what isn't "necessary" healthcare? I need a good laugh.
 
2014-05-13 04:21:07 PM

mrshowrules: karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!

You can tell someone has no argument when he is forced to offer a false argument.


Buying insurance under the ACA is not how insurance typically works.....You can always cancel your coverage, but you can't always buy it.  Try buying it after the deadline and:
cgoldmarketing.com
 
2014-05-13 04:26:06 PM

gimmegimme: I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.


You name is indicative of the entitlement mentality of today's democratic party.
 
2014-05-13 04:26:30 PM

karnal: mrshowrules: karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!

You can tell someone has no argument when he is forced to offer a false argument.

Buying insurance under the ACA is not how insurance typically works.....You can always cancel your coverage, but you can't always buy it.  Try buying it after the deadline and:
[cgoldmarketing.com image 225x151]


You think enrollment periods are new? How droll.
 
2014-05-13 04:29:07 PM

karnal: gimmegimme: I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.

You name is indicative of the entitlement mentality of today's democratic party.


That's a great argument.  No wonder conservatives have such a great reputation for employing logic and reason.
 
2014-05-13 04:33:58 PM

gimmegimme: karnal: gimmegimme: I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.

You name is indicative of the entitlement mentality of today's democratic party.

That's a great argument.  No wonder conservatives have such a great reputation for employing logic and reason.


Health care's for closers.

/Seriously, that's basically conservative health policy.
 
2014-05-13 04:35:57 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.


You capitalized Democrats. It's a dead giveaway that you're not a true conservative.
 
2014-05-13 04:36:37 PM

Bloody William: gimmegimme: karnal: gimmegimme: I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.

You name is indicative of the entitlement mentality of today's democratic party.

That's a great argument.  No wonder conservatives have such a great reputation for employing logic and reason.

Health care's for closers.

/Seriously, that's basically conservative health policy.


They should be more upfront about that... at least it's a badass movie reference.
 
2014-05-13 04:36:49 PM

Bloody William: gimmegimme: karnal: gimmegimme: I like the way things were before Obamacare.  You had CHOICE.

If you had decent health care, you could CHOOSE whether or not you wanted to go to the doctor.

If you didn't have health insurance, you could CHOOSE whether to bankrupt your family and die or to just die.

You name is indicative of the entitlement mentality of today's democratic party.

That's a great argument.  No wonder conservatives have such a great reputation for employing logic and reason.

Health care's for closers.

/Seriously, that's basically conservative health policy.


llwproductions.files.wordpress.com

www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-05-13 04:42:08 PM

karnal: Buying insurance under the ACA is not how insurance typically works.....You can always cancel your coverage, but you can't always buy it.  Try buying it after the deadline and:


if you meet certain criteria, you'll get it.

Examples of being able to buy insurance outside of the enrollment period include:

* Marriage, having a baby, adopting a child or placing a child for adoption or foster care, moving your residence, gaining citizenship, leaving incarceration.

* Losing other health coverage-due to losing job-based coverage, divorce, the end of an individual policy plan year in 2014, COBRA expiration, aging off a parent's plan, losing eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP, and similar circumstances. Important: Voluntarily ending coverage doesn't qualify you for a special enrollment period. Neither does losing coverage that doesn't qualify as minimum essential coverage.

* For people already enrolled in Marketplace coverage: Having a change in income or household status that affects eligibility for premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions

* Gaining status as member of an Indian tribe. Members of federally recognized Indian tribes can sign up for or change plans once per month throughout the year.
 
2014-05-13 04:58:38 PM

Lando Lincoln: Gaining status as member of an Indian tribe. Members of federally recognized Indian tribes can sign up for or change plans once per month throughout the year.


Damn Indians get everything. What if I lost a shiatload at the Hard Rock casino, will they accept me into their tribe? I lost enough to buy them a shiatload of firewater.
 
2014-05-13 05:02:49 PM

Mugato: Lando Lincoln: Gaining status as member of an Indian tribe. Members of federally recognized Indian tribes can sign up for or change plans once per month throughout the year.

Damn Indians get everything. What if I lost a shiatload at the Hard Rock casino, will they accept me into their tribe? I lost enough to buy them a shiatload of firewater.


Those lucky Indian tribes. Their whole history on this continent is one of privilege and exploitation of the white man!
 
2014-05-13 05:03:40 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Mugato: Lando Lincoln: Gaining status as member of an Indian tribe. Members of federally recognized Indian tribes can sign up for or change plans once per month throughout the year.

Damn Indians get everything. What if I lost a shiatload at the Hard Rock casino, will they accept me into their tribe? I lost enough to buy them a shiatload of firewater.

Those lucky Indian tribes. Their whole history on this continent is one of privilege and exploitation of the white man!


Preach it, brother.
 
2014-05-13 05:08:48 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Mugato: Lando Lincoln: Gaining status as member of an Indian tribe. Members of federally recognized Indian tribes can sign up for or change plans once per month throughout the year.

Damn Indians get everything. What if I lost a shiatload at the Hard Rock casino, will they accept me into their tribe? I lost enough to buy them a shiatload of firewater.

Those lucky Indian tribes. Their whole history on this continent is one of privilege and exploitation of the white man!


The height of luck? Having a football team named after their kind.
 
2014-05-13 05:10:10 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: karnal: mrshowrules: karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!

You can tell someone has no argument when he is forced to offer a false argument.

Buying insurance under the ACA is not how insurance typically works.....You can always cancel your coverage, but you can't always buy it.  Try buying it after the deadline and:
[cgoldmarketing.com image 225x151]

You think enrollment periods are new? How droll.


maybe the ACA has allowed him to remain on his mom's plan so he isn't aware of the intricacies involved in purchasing insurance.
 
2014-05-13 05:26:34 PM
All this serious debate about the merits of the ACA is clouding the more significant point of the article...

FTFA: Dr. Monica Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon, is using the potential reaction to narrower networks as momentum for her campaign for Senate in Oregon. A Republican promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act, her slogan is "Keep your doctor. Change your senator."

So, I guess her platform is "Keep your doctor, until I repeal the ACA".
 
2014-05-13 05:33:26 PM

geek_mars: So, I guess her platform is "Keep your doctor, until I repeal the ACA".


Well you know what they say, 41st time's a charm.
 
2014-05-13 05:36:00 PM
LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.
 
2014-05-13 05:37:33 PM

USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.


As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.
 
2014-05-13 05:38:05 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.


Every time I try to get my head around the American health system, the one thing that screws me up is the networks. I mean, I understand what they are, but that setup is just so alien to me. If I need to go to the hospital, I go. Whichever one I want. Letting your healthcare system be run on a for profit basis is just foolish.
 
2014-05-13 05:41:15 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.


What do you have against profit?
 
2014-05-13 05:46:46 PM

Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.


Hey weren't you supposed to be responding to my post and adding something to the thread other than snark and regurgitated talking points, troll?
 
2014-05-13 05:49:12 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.

Hey weren't you supposed to be responding to my post and adding something to the thread other than snark and regurgitated talking points, troll?


What?  Why would I engage you?  You've pretty much demonstrated that you are only interested in being an internet tough guy with nothing of value to add to the conversation.
 
2014-05-13 05:53:25 PM

Lucky LaRue: Crotchrocket Slim: Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.

Hey weren't you supposed to be responding to my post and adding something to the thread other than snark and regurgitated talking points, troll?

What?  Why would I engage you?  You've pretty much demonstrated that you are only interested in being an internet tough guy with nothing of value to add to the conversation.


Except I have and you're too clownshoes to actually respond to a serious point after you whined I wasn't bringing anything to the convo.

Now, why should Fark respond to you when you post tripe like this?

Lucky LaRue: 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.

What do you have against profit?


Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.


Lucky LaRue: Mugato: 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.

This isn't the plan Obama wanted. He had to compromise with the obsructionist congress.

Oh, I see.  Despite the fact that it was passed when the Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House, the Republican's are responsible for ACA.

I don't think there has ever been a time when one party controlled so much of the process of governing yet blamed the other party for it's failure to govern.


Uh huh you are serious poster, yup.

At least I didn't post the dismissive.JenniferLawrence.gif
 
2014-05-13 05:55:35 PM

Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.


I'm oh so very very pregnant. Extremely bad trolling form to just respond to every single post that mentions your name - it makes it way too obvious that you're only posting to get people to reply to you.
 
2014-05-13 06:22:54 PM

karnal: mrshowrules: karnal: "Obamacare cancels the policy you wanted to keep and tells you what policy to buy."

How American!
How Democratic!

You can tell someone has no argument when he is forced to offer a false argument.

Buying insurance under the ACA is not how insurance typically works.....You can always cancel your coverage, but you can't always buy it.  Try buying it after the deadline and:
[cgoldmarketing.com image 225x151]


You should try and have Obamacare repealed because of reasons.
 
2014-05-13 06:29:27 PM

Mithiwithi: Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.

I'm oh so very very pregnant. Extremely bad trolling form to just respond to every single post that mentions your name - it makes it way too obvious that you're only posting to get people to reply to you.


I noticed that, too.  That's pretty farking pathetic when someone's sole source of attention for the day is being an assclown on FARK.

/Congratulations on your pending child
//I know it's a fark filter
 
2014-05-13 06:42:44 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: wildcardjack: If you want affordable healthcare you'll need to get over the society of hypochondria and close about half the teaching hospitals, or at least make sure the foreigners who come here to learn medicine GO HOME AND PRACTICE THERE. We have to reduce demand, and we have to curtail supply. There's just too damned much "healthcare" going on in this country and it's not healthy.

You realize that teaching hospitals are where most doctors gain experience to better treat patients? And if nothing else there would be many areas underserved by not having a medical facility close enough to them to save their lives before they die (in the case of medical emergency).

How is preventative care a bad thing anyway? Why don't you get a bit more specific about what isn't "necessary" healthcare? I need a good laugh.


As I said, we need fewer health care professionals. They have to muster up enough business to support themselves and the parasite class of admins and QA people. So it's okay to shut down a few hospitals after we get over the hypochondria endemic in our society.

14 years ago my then-wife went in for orthopedic surgery on her knee to remove damaged cartilage. The procedure cost $15k in bills, most of which got taken care of by my insurance. Today that surgery wouldn't be done, instead she'd go straight to physical therapy and skip about $13k of that expense.

Recently another hypochondriac I know slipped on ice and racked up $20k in medical bills for a bruised ass. The totality of the medical treatment that day should have been "go home and sleep until the ice melts" which isn't ridiculous in Texas. She got an MRI after she fell on her ass! To be fair, she's also a Tea Partier on gov't disability with a chronic disease that would prevent her from getting insurance without the ACA.

From other traces, we have seen the normal range of blood pressure lowered to sell more drugs. Statin drugs might be wonderful for high risk individuals, but for the lowest prescribed range it would take 50 men for 5 years to avoid one heart attack. And the scripts for vicodin and oxycontin that doctors reach for every day instead of actually fixing problems.

And MRSA. Better off having surgery in a remote field than an OR today.
 
2014-05-13 06:50:00 PM
If you're in the exchange it's a pretty safe bet that you wil end up with second rate care. But, if it's better than what you had who cares.
 
2014-05-13 07:05:25 PM

born_yesterday: Mithiwithi: Lucky LaRue: USA Prime Credit Peggy: LOL people respond to Lucky LaRue. Hilarious.

As always, your observations are priceless contributions to the conversation.  Well done.

I'm oh so very very pregnant. Extremely bad trolling form to just respond to every single post that mentions your name - it makes it way too obvious that you're only posting to get people to reply to you.

I noticed that, too.  That's pretty farking pathetic when someone's sole source of attention for the day is being an assclown on FARK.

/Congratulations on your pending child
//I know it's a fark filter



cs418427.vk.me
 
2014-05-13 07:07:08 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.


There's nothing I love more than people Farking at 2:30 on a Tuesday claiming they work hard.
 
2014-05-13 07:09:01 PM
Ah, it keeps expanding its awesomeness.
 
2014-05-13 07:09:47 PM

wildcardjack: Crotchrocket Slim: wildcardjack: If you want affordable healthcare you'll need to get over the society of hypochondria and close about half the teaching hospitals, or at least make sure the foreigners who come here to learn medicine GO HOME AND PRACTICE THERE. We have to reduce demand, and we have to curtail supply. There's just too damned much "healthcare" going on in this country and it's not healthy.

You realize that teaching hospitals are where most doctors gain experience to better treat patients? And if nothing else there would be many areas underserved by not having a medical facility close enough to them to save their lives before they die (in the case of medical emergency).

How is preventative care a bad thing anyway? Why don't you get a bit more specific about what isn't "necessary" healthcare? I need a good laugh.

As I said, we need fewer health care professionals. They have to muster up enough business to support themselves and the parasite class of admins and QA people. So it's okay to shut down a few hospitals after we get over the hypochondria endemic in our society.

14 years ago my then-wife went in for orthopedic surgery on her knee to remove damaged cartilage. The procedure cost $15k in bills, most of which got taken care of by my insurance. Today that surgery wouldn't be done, instead she'd go straight to physical therapy and skip about $13k of that expense.

Recently another hypochondriac I know slipped on ice and racked up $20k in medical bills for a bruised ass. The totality of the medical treatment that day should have been "go home and sleep until the ice melts" which isn't ridiculous in Texas. She got an MRI after she fell on her ass! To be fair, she's also a Tea Partier on gov't disability with a chronic disease that would prevent her from getting insurance without the ACA.

From other traces, we have seen the normal range of blood pressure lowered to sell more drugs. Statin drugs might be wonderful for high risk individuals, but for th ...


Citation needed for all of these baseless assertions. "As you said before" isn't proof or an argument. What evidence do you have that people are hypochondriacs besides evidenceless "gut feeling"? I don't care that you or your wife suck at taking care of yourselves or had an incompetent physician...
 
2014-05-13 07:11:34 PM

cchris_39: If you're in the exchange it's a pretty safe bet that you wil end up with second rate care.


Oh, bullshiat!  There are a large range of plans that you are presented with when you shop the exchange.  It comes down to what coverage you can afford just as it always has.  Fortunately, the shiat plans that cover next to nothing are illegal and taken out of the mix so people aren't getting ripped off as they were before.
 
2014-05-13 07:14:54 PM

vrax: Fortunately, the shiat plans that cover next to nothing are illegal and taken out of the mix so people aren't getting ripped off as they were before.


Yeah but when your network isn't taking new patients for several months and you can't drop it and pick it up any time you want because of deadlines and you can't simply drop it without getting fined then you're still getting ripped off.
 
2014-05-13 07:17:47 PM

Mugato: vrax: Fortunately, the shiat plans that cover next to nothing are illegal and taken out of the mix so people aren't getting ripped off as they were before.

Yeah but when your network isn't taking new patients for several months and you can't drop it and pick it up any time you want because of deadlines and you can't simply drop it without getting fined then you're still getting ripped off.


Yeah, the "not accepting new patients" problem has existed for a LONG time before ACA though.  It's a shiat problem.
 
2014-05-13 07:22:15 PM

vrax: Mugato: vrax: Fortunately, the shiat plans that cover next to nothing are illegal and taken out of the mix so people aren't getting ripped off as they were before.

Yeah but when your network isn't taking new patients for several months and you can't drop it and pick it up any time you want because of deadlines and you can't simply drop it without getting fined then you're still getting ripped off.

Yeah, the "not accepting new patients" problem has existed for a LONG time before ACA though.  It's a shiat problem.



Then they need to get rid of the referral system where you have to get a referral from your PHCP before you can go anywhere else. If the system can't handle the volume then they need to make changes.
 
2014-05-13 07:32:56 PM
In some parts of the world people become doctors because they're good at it and they want to help people get healthy.  Not because of the enriching profit margin.

Imagine that
 
2014-05-13 07:33:35 PM

Mike_1962: 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.

Every time I try to get my head around the American health system, the one thing that screws me up is the networks. I mean, I understand what they are, but that setup is just so alien to me. If I need to go to the hospital, I go. Whichever one I want. Letting your healthcare system be run on a for profit basis is just foolish.


For-profit healthcare is so foolish, and it's the elephant in the room as far as healthcare costs, considering the for-profit insurance companies are tacking on whatever percent to everyone's healthcare costs, just to keep as profit for themselves as some sort of reward for acting as the unnecessary middleman.

It's not only foolish, though. If one were to invoke morality, I'd argue that for-profit healthcare is downright immoral. I mean, think about it: charging people money when they're sick or dying, for one's own personal gain? To my mind, making money off people who have no choice but to use your service in order to avoid sickness or even death, is just wrong in every sense of that word. Don't want to die? Better have that charge card ready, then! But as always, profit rules everything in this parody of capitalism called the USA. It's sickening.
 
2014-05-13 07:45:48 PM

menschenfresser: Mike_1962: 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.

Every time I try to get my head around the American health system, the one thing that screws me up is the networks. I mean, I understand what they are, but that setup is just so alien to me. If I need to go to the hospital, I go. Whichever one I want. Letting your healthcare system be run on a for profit basis is just foolish.

For-profit healthcare is so foolish, and it's the elephant in the room as far as healthcare costs, considering the for-profit insurance companies are tacking on whatever percent to everyone's healthcare costs, just to keep as profit for themselves as some sort of reward for acting as the unnecessary middleman.

It's not only foolish, though. If one were to invoke morality, I'd argue that for-profit healthcare is downright immoral. I mean, think about it: charging people money when they're sick or dying, for one's own personal gain? To my mind, making money off people who have no choice but to use your service in order to avoid sickness or even death, is just wrong in every sense of that word. Don't want to ...


For-profit health care insurance is stupid to be sure.  There is place for free market health care so long as you eliminate private insurance.
 
2014-05-13 07:47:49 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: In some parts of the world people become doctors because they're good at it and they want to help people get healthy.  Not because of the enriching profit margin.

Imagine that


US doctors make about 30% more than Canadian doctors.   I think many US doctors would gladly take a 30% pay cut if they could avoid paying 10 times higher malpractice insurance while also being able to decide a patients treatment without negotiating with an insurance company
 
2014-05-13 07:52:59 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.


Mmm, that's some high-grade cynical bullshiat, there. Tasty. Gonna put it on my flower bed and grow me some willful ignorance!

/hoe down
 
2014-05-13 07:54:22 PM

MattStafford: 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.


I think the preferred nomenclature these days is "the Negro."
 
2014-05-13 08:09:57 PM

mrshowrules: menschenfresser: Mike_1962: 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.

Every time I try to get my head around the American health system, the one thing that screws me up is the networks. I mean, I understand what they are, but that setup is just so alien to me. If I need to go to the hospital, I go. Whichever one I want. Letting your healthcare system be run on a for profit basis is just foolish.

For-profit healthcare is so foolish, and it's the elephant in the room as far as healthcare costs, considering the for-profit insurance companies are tacking on whatever percent to everyone's healthcare costs, just to keep as profit for themselves as some sort of reward for acting as the unnecessary middleman.

It's not only foolish, though. If one were to invoke morality, I'd argue that for-profit healthcare is downright immoral. I mean, think about it: charging people money when they're sick or dying, for one's own personal gain? To my mind, making money off people who have no choice but to use your service in order to avoid sickness or even death, is just wrong in every sense of that wo ...


mrshowrules: Reverend Monkeypants: In some parts of the world people become doctors because they're good at it and they want to help people get healthy.  Not because of the enriching profit margin.

Imagine that

US doctors make about 30% more than Canadian doctors.   I think many US doctors would gladly take a 30% pay cut if they could avoid paying 10 times higher malpractice insurance while also being able to decide a patients treatment without negotiating with an insurance company


You don't see the obvious contradiction between your two posts?
 
2014-05-13 08:10:28 PM

menschenfresser: For-profit healthcare is so foolish, and it's the elephant in the room as far as healthcare costs, considering the for-profit insurance companies are tacking on whatever percent to everyone's healthcare costs, just to keep as profit for themselves as some sort of reward for acting as the unnecessary middleman.



The ACA already imposes margin controls on insurance companies.  They are required to spend 85% of premiums on care or refund the difference to their beneficiaries.
 
2014-05-13 08:13:59 PM

cchris_39: menschenfresser: For-profit healthcare is so foolish, and it's the elephant in the room as far as healthcare costs, considering the for-profit insurance companies are tacking on whatever percent to everyone's healthcare costs, just to keep as profit for themselves as some sort of reward for acting as the unnecessary middleman.


The ACA already imposes margin controls on insurance companies.  They are required to spend 85% of premiums on care or refund the difference to their beneficiaries.


Then our healthcare premiums are 15% too high since by this definition that percentage is being skimmed off for acting as the middleman. That's huge.
 
2014-05-13 08:17:31 PM
menschenfresser

I'm going to guess you are a troll because no one is that stupid.
 
2014-05-13 08:18:15 PM

Lucky LaRue: Killer Cars: 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.

Call them people who've made bad life choices and are looking to other people to fund a do-over if that makes you feel better.


Are we talking about Wall Street? Banks? GM? Cause corporations are people my friend.
 
2014-05-13 08:19:25 PM

Lucky LaRue: What do you have against profit?


Well, in this case, it created an inherent perverse incentive for insurance companies to deny and delay treatments to keep a policy profitable.  And yes, people were killed because of this.
 
2014-05-13 08:30:45 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: You don't see the obvious contradiction between your two posts?


I don't see my two posts in your post but I said two things (I paraphrase).

1) Private insurance is foolish but there is a place for free market health care under a single-payer funding model

2) Many doctors would take a pay cut for the benefits of being under a single-payer model instead of a private insurance model.

I don't see the contradiction.
 
2014-05-13 08:45:33 PM

Pimparoo: 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.

There's nothing I love more than people Farking at 2:30 on a Tuesday claiming they work hard.


Astroturf isn't free,you know.
 
2014-05-13 08:59:55 PM

mrshowrules: Crotchrocket Slim: You don't see the obvious contradiction between your two posts?

I don't see my two posts in your post but I said two things (I paraphrase).

1) Private insurance is foolish but there is a place for free market health care under a single-payer funding model

2) Many doctors would take a pay cut for the benefits of being under a single-payer model instead of a private insurance model.

I don't see the contradiction.


I need to understand what you mean by "free market health care" - that's where I'm seeing a contradiction.
 
2014-05-13 09:08:00 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.


First they said 30 million were without healthcare. In reality it's more like 10 million if that, according to their own numbers.
 It would have been cheaper to pay for their care with cash, but no, lets take a system that 80% of the people with insurance understand and use and blow it up to help the 10 million who don't have any coverage. Makes perfect sense right?
You're not stupid, you're just missing the point. It's about control, taking yours away and giving it to them.
 
2014-05-13 09:09:12 PM

kyrg: 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.

First they said 30 million were without healthcare. In reality it's more like 10 million if that, according to their own numbers.
 It would have been cheaper to pay for their care with cash,
but no, lets take a system that 80% of the people with insurance understand and use and blow it up to help the 10 million who don't have any coverage. Makes perfect sense right?
You're not stupid, you're just missing the point. It's about control, taking yours away and giving it to them.


Citations needed
 
2014-05-13 09:11:03 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: mrshowrules: Crotchrocket Slim: You don't see the obvious contradiction between your two posts?

I don't see my two posts in your post but I said two things (I paraphrase).

1) Private insurance is foolish but there is a place for free market health care under a single-payer funding model

2) Many doctors would take a pay cut for the benefits of being under a single-payer model instead of a private insurance model.

I don't see the contradiction.

I need to understand what you mean by "free market health care" - that's where I'm seeing a contradiction.


Many doctor practices, most clinics and even some hospitals are private in Canada (free market).  Doctors don't work for the Government.  They are either self-employed or work for a non-profit or municipal hospital.  In many case the work for a free market clinic or practice.  Actually it is similar to Medicare in the US but because the system has a monopoly in Canada, we can influence pricing/costs.

UK doctor's are actually Government doctors.

A Canadian doctor/clinic/practice submits their claims to the Province (State) and is reimbursed for their work.  The Province acts as the single insurance company.  It actually ends up costing each person about 50% of the cost as US per capita (taxes & premiums combined).
 
2014-05-13 09:20:06 PM

mrshowrules: Crotchrocket Slim: mrshowrules: Crotchrocket Slim: You don't see the obvious contradiction between your two posts?

I don't see my two posts in your post but I said two things (I paraphrase).

1) Private insurance is foolish but there is a place for free market health care under a single-payer funding model

2) Many doctors would take a pay cut for the benefits of being under a single-payer model instead of a private insurance model.

I don't see the contradiction.

I need to understand what you mean by "free market health care" - that's where I'm seeing a contradiction.

Many doctor practices, most clinics and even some hospitals are private in Canada (free market).  Doctors don't work for the Government.  They are either self-employed or work for a non-profit or municipal hospital.  In many case the work for a free market clinic or practice.  Actually it is similar to Medicare in the US but because the system has a monopoly in Canada, we can influence pricing/costs.

UK doctor's are actually Government doctors.

A Canadian doctor/clinic/practice submits their claims to the Province (State) and is reimbursed for their work.  The Province acts as the single insurance company.  It actually ends up costing each person about 50% of the cost as US per capita (taxes & premiums combined).


By American standards so long as government is paying things out to doctors it's not really free market; that said if we go single payer I'd love to have something resembling the Canadian system though.
 
2014-05-13 09:44:36 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: kyrg: 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.

First they said 30 million were without healthcare. In reality it's more like 10 million if that, according to their own numbers.
 It would have been cheaper to pay for their care with cash, but no, lets take a system that 80% of the people with insurance understand and use and blow it up to help the 10 million who don't have any coverage. Makes perfect sense right?
You're not stupid, you're just missing the point. It's about control, taking yours away and giving it to them.

Citations needed


http://acasignups.net/
http://americanactionforum.org/research/affordable-care-act-at-four- re gulatory-costs-exceed-benefits-by-twofold Stop being lazy and google it yourself next time
 
2014-05-13 10:07:05 PM

kyrg: Crotchrocket Slim: kyrg: 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.

First they said 30 million were without healthcare. In reality it's more like 10 million if that, according to their own numbers.
 It would have been cheaper to pay for their care with cash, but no, lets take a system that 80% of the people with insurance understand and use and blow it up to help the 10 million who don't have any coverage. Makes perfect sense right?
You're not stupid, you're just missing the point. It's about control, taking yours away and giving it to them.

Citations needed

http://acasignups.net/


From your link:
Estimated Total, all sources: (17.3 M - 27.7 M)
 - note that includes people who have signed up for insurance outside of government exchanges, who didn't have insurance before. 

http://americanactionforum.org/research/affordable-care-act-at-four- re gulatory-costs-exceed-benefits-by-twofold Stop being lazy and google it yourself next time

The American Action Forum is a 21st century center-right policy institute providing actionable research and analysis to solve America's most pressing policy challenges.


Yeah you're a moron for paying any creedance to any think tank that displays its bias so blatantly.

Try again True Believer!
 
2014-05-13 10:28:50 PM

Chummer45: Yes, rather than a simple, single payer health care, I'd much rather have to spend the time wading through tons of different insurance plans and the various benefits they provide.


Man... Instead of all these different foods in the grocery store, wouldn't it be great if the government just gave me oatmeal?  Man... That would be great!  I'd never have to think at all!

shiat... Let's get rid of elections, car companies, cell phone providers... We could have the government just give us one choice.  Yay!!!
 
2014-05-13 10:32:07 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.


Look everyone! An asshole!
 
2014-05-13 10:33:48 PM

MattStafford: 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.


a) I like this post

2) Still pissed as f--k we didn't have a public option.

ii) I have two completely manageable pre-existing conditions and was denied individual insurance on a BS basis from the non-profit ostensibly insurer of last resort in my state.  On the plus side my new job insurance kicked in the last month I was on the individual plan.  I also ended up in the ER that month, so, tiny yay for decent timing I guess.  It costs society as a whole more when people without health insurance end up in the ER for issues they could've gotten treated or mitigated with preventative care.  But of course, the easiest thing to see is "hey, my premiums went up!".  Although, that said, I haven't seen a change in the middle of the road insurance my non-profit employer offers me, other than Cigna pulling crap trying to deny more and more everyday claims (like a physical for the first time in two years, or claiming a normal visit copay submitted for FSA wasn't covered.  F--kers.)

b) Everytime I read "black people" I get "I Believe" from The Book of Mormon stuck in my head.

/black people!
 
2014-05-13 10:47:05 PM

Ontos: Chummer45: Yes, rather than a simple, single payer health care, I'd much rather have to spend the time wading through tons of different insurance plans and the various benefits they provide.

Man... Instead of all these different foods in the grocery store, wouldn't it be great if the government just gave me oatmeal?  Man... That would be great!  I'd never have to think at all!

shiat... Let's get rid of elections, car companies, cell phone providers... We could have the government just give us one choice.  Yay!!!


Awesome strawman, would never take you seriously again!!! F
 
2014-05-14 01:24:20 AM

Mugato: vrax: Mugato: vrax: Fortunately, the shiat plans that cover next to nothing are illegal and taken out of the mix so people aren't getting ripped off as they were before.

Yeah but when your network isn't taking new patients for several months and you can't drop it and pick it up any time you want because of deadlines and you can't simply drop it without getting fined then you're still getting ripped off.

Yeah, the "not accepting new patients" problem has existed for a LONG time before ACA though.  It's a shiat problem.


Then they need to get rid of the referral system where you have to get a referral from your PHCP before you can go anywhere else. If the system can't handle the volume then they need to make changes.


Yeah, I hate the referral system.  Why, in 2014, there isn't great flexibility in where you can receive treatment is beyond me.  This is where single payer, with a national patient database would be amazing.
 
2014-05-14 05:18:12 AM
Lucky LaRue: Call them people who've made bad life choices

Ass cancer is a premeditated, deliberate, and willful choice on your part. Enjoy it.
 
2014-05-14 09:10:10 AM

Lucky LaRue: Well, yeah, it is illegal.  I can't buy a policy that doesn't meet the mandated requirements set forward by ACA and insurance companies can't offer it.  The free market has been circumvented by government interference.


You can't buy a car that doesn't meet basic safety standards either.  (Well, you can buy the car - you just can't drive in the road.)  You can still buy a crap-all health insurance policy too - you just have to pay the non-ACA compliance tax.
 
2014-05-14 09:21:08 AM
The idea is to eventually eliminate all choices until the only choice left is single payer. Single payer through the government will set you free, you won't need or want choices.
 
2014-05-14 09:54:42 AM
 
2014-05-14 10:24:12 AM

Lucky LaRue: Well, one of us isn't paying attention to the words... If I can pick any plan car offered by the free market, then I can pick a plan that doesn't meet the ACA safety requirements. I can't pick a plan car

  that doesn't meet ACA safety  requirements, so I can't pick any plan car  offered by the free market.

Now do you see how retarded this argument is?  Of course you don't, sweet cheeks.  Why start now.
 
2014-05-14 11:09:18 AM

mrshowrules: Reverend Monkeypants: In some parts of the world people become doctors because they're good at it and they want to help people get healthy.  Not because of the enriching profit margin.

Imagine that

US doctors make about 30% more than Canadian doctors.   I think many US doctors would gladly take a 30% pay cut if they could avoid paying 10 times higher malpractice insurance while also being able to decide a patients treatment without negotiating with an insurance company


Yep
 
2014-05-14 11:33:36 AM

Animatronik: The idea is to eventually eliminate all choices until the only choice left is single payer. Single payer through the government will set you free, you won't need or want choices.


You might want to sit down for this, but...in countries that have single-payer, they still have private doctors.
 
Displayed 210 of 210 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report