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

(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
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2438 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 2:17 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report