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 26
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2435 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 2:17 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2014-05-13 02:33:42 PM  
3 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 02:29:06 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.


So now you're against the free market? I'm glad you're finally coming around, Froth.
2014-05-13 02:23:43 PM  
2 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 01:14:53 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 03:15:11 PM  
1 vote:
I told you all right before George Bush signed this thing, that is was a bad idea.
2014-05-13 03:13:38 PM  
1 vote:
dims! dimmmmmms!!!!
2014-05-13 03:03:20 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:02:15 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

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 03:00:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:56:17 PM  
1 vote:
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 vote:

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 vote:

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 02:42:19 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:42:07 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:38:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:36:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:35:07 PM  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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 02:29:02 PM  
1 vote:
obamacare made it illegal for me to buy a car from anyone but government owned gm
2014-05-13 02:28:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:28:01 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:27:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:48:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:13:24 PM  
1 vote:
Eh?  Choose a health plan?  What is this evil?
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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