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 59
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2431 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 2:17 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-05-13 01:59:53 PM  
8 votes:
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  
6 votes:

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 02:30:03 PM  
4 votes:
It's amazing how many people want the right to buy cheap-o insurance that won't actually cover anything.
2014-05-13 02:28:44 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:15:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:49:53 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:42:55 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:42:19 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:36:31 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:27:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:27:53 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:23:49 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:20:30 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:09:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:35:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:30:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:29:58 PM  
2 votes:
Newsflash: cheap insurance is cheap.
2014-05-13 02:22:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:14:53 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:40:29 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-05-14 11:33:36 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-13 09:11:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:38:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:42:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:38:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:35:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:28 PM  
1 votes:
"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 03:16:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:13:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:13:38 PM  
1 votes:
dims! dimmmmmms!!!!
2014-05-13 03:09:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:07:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:06:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:02:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


the fief market
2014-05-13 03:01:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:17 PM  
1 votes:
Lucky LaRue:

Do you ever back up anything you say with facts or examples or other sources?
2014-05-13 02:52:42 PM  
1 votes:

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

2014-05-13 02:52:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:47:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:42:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:42:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:42:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:36:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:36:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:33:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:32:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:29:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:25:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:25:46 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:24:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:23:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:48:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:42:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 .
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report