Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Obamacare

Oct 1, 2013#1

strawman

Now that The Affordable Healthcare Act (TAHA!) has opened exchanges today and implementation deadlines are approaching and passing quickly, we will probably need one thread to catch all the stuff that's not important enough for its own thread, but still bears discussion.

I'll start off with two negative articles from Forbes discussing the current issues the act is facing:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...obamacares-price-tag-will-surprise-americans/

Three big problems are likely to occur as more people are drawn into the Obamacare universe.

First, cost is likely to be a huge issue. As documented by Chris Conover here on Forbes.com, Obamacare will actually lead to many families paying more for their healthcare than they were before the law went into effect. This cost increase is not some trivial amount, but is estimated to run an average family of four between $650 and $1,000 per year over the next decade.
...
The second problem that will become obvious as the program is fully implemented is the unfairness of the subsidies provided by Obamacare. If an employer offers its workers health insurance, but an employee turns it down because the cost is too high, that worker is not eligible for a government subsidy in the health care exchanges. Thus, two families with the same income could pay very different rates for their health insurance because one was offered insurance at their job and the other was not....
The third big problem with Obamacare that is beginning to come to people’s attention is the quality of the plans that will be offered on the exchanges. According to Robert Pear in the New York Times, people who purchase health insurance on the exchanges in many states may be offered only plans that allow access to fewer doctors and hospitals than many privately-purchased plans and employer-sponsored plans include.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...rry-obamacare-rollout-will-hurt-them-in-2014/

If Democrats aren’t worried about President Obama’s “Problems? What problems?” response to the multiple glitches and snafus of his ObamaCare rollout, they should be. The public is deeply suspicious of the law and it wouldn’t take much to create an electoral backlash...While it is possible that some of the kinks could be worked out shortly after rollout, it is just as possible that some, perhaps even most, of them will plague us for a year or more. And the public will know who to blame if those problems persist.
...
Impeded access to doctors = rationing health care.
The U.S. already has a shortage of doctors. Recent studies indicate that within seven years that shortage could rise to 45,000 primary care physicians. Fewer doctors means it will be harder to see one in a timely manner. The Affordable Care Act will make that problem much worse by greatly increasing the demand for doctors.
...
You can just imagine all those middle-class Americans complaining about how they used to be able to get in to see their doctor—until ObamaCare kicked in.
...
Timely access to a doctor is a key component of what people see as a quality health care system. Americans will likely see it as the government rationing care, even if it is just a result of supply and demand.
...
Higher costs means fewer votes.
Two-thirds of workers with single coverage and 57 percent of workers with family coverage will see their costs go up in the exchange. In addition, recent stories claim that some of the premiums are lower than expected because the copays and deductibles are so high.
Those forced to pay higher out-of-pocket costs, as well as higher premiums, will perceive that ObamaCare is hurting them financially and voters may well decide to return that pain on those who forced them to pay more.
Complexity = failure. ObamaCare is complex. There are numerous rules about who qualifies for what subsidies and additional help. The technology was supposed to handle much of the complexity, but we hear that many of the exchanges aren’t yet ready for prime time. That complexity could frustrate a lot of people who may see it as a failure because they can’t figure it out.
The drawbacks to clawbacks. If you qualify for a subsidy based on your estimated 2014 income and then make more than you estimated, you will be required to pay back part of that subsidy at the end of the year. And those who received too much subsidy may discover that problem during “open season” in 2014 when they begin considering their coverage for 2015. That open season will start about three weeks before the November elections. Those having to write the government a clawback check, which could easily be more than a thousand dollars, may want to engage in a little November clawback themselves.
Personal info becomes public info. A lot of people, government officials as well as non-government employees, will have access to your health information, income and other valuable data. They could snoop or they could share it with others, even if by mistake—just look at recent incidents by the IRS and National Security Agency.
We are likely to see a lot of security breaches—indeed, we already are. Some will be intentional, some won’t. But there will be a lot of them.
It could undermine Democrats’ faith in efficient big government. Everything Obama does is based on his faith in big government’s ability to do things right...
While Obama has made it clear he would prefer a single-payer health care system...ObamaCare is close enough. But if it crashes, it will undermine his and Democrats’ claims.

Hang on tight, it's going to be a rough ride.

Oct 1, 2013#2

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
Hang on tight, it's going to be a rough ride.

It's actually going to be much better for several poor people.

Oct 1, 2013#3

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's actually going to be much better for several poor people.

And worse for just about everybody else including poor people, abarring your "several."

Oct 1, 2013#4

Dave

In actuality, a lot of the issues being attributed to Obamacare are the result of the sequestration. Lowering the budgets of a bunch of different governmental entities had the unintended (or was it?) effect of lessening payouts for Medicare and Medicaid. This has caused several hospitals and clinics to cut back. Like the one my wife was working at. That wasn't Obamacare but the sequestration cuts. Which happens to sit squarely on the shoulders of the...wait for it...Republicans. Again.

Oct 1, 2013#5

Charlie Don't Surf

Corporations aren't people no matter what the Supreme Court says

Oct 1, 2013#6

GasBandit

Dave said:
In actuality, a lot of the issues being attributed to Obamacare are the result of the sequestration. Lowering the budgets of a bunch of different governmental entities had the unintended (or was it?) effect of lessening payouts for Medicare and Medicaid. This has caused several hospitals and clinics to cut back. Like the one my wife was working at. That wasn't Obamacare but the sequestration cuts. Which happens to sit squarely on the shoulders of the...wait for it...Republicans. Again.

Sequestration is a joke. A drop in the bucket. However, everyone involved is making sure that the pain is felt as acutely as possible by cutting the meat instead of the fat, so that we'll damn sure never dare mess with their funding ever again. Who do we think we are, anyway?

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Obamacare isn't constitutional no matter what the Supreme Court says

FTFY

Oct 1, 2013#7

Covar

Dave said:
In actuality, a lot of the issues being attributed to Obamacare are the result of the sequestration. Lowering the budgets of a bunch of different governmental entities had the unintended (or was it?) effect of lessening payouts for Medicare and Medicaid. This has caused several hospitals and clinics to cut back. Like the one my wife was working at. That wasn't Obamacare but the sequestration cuts. Which happens to sit squarely on the shoulders of the...wait for it...Republicans. Again.

So what you're saying is the government can't manage money? I'm shocked! Clearly the only solution is to put them in charge of more things and throw money at problems until they're solved.

Oct 1, 2013#8

PatrThom

Covar said:
Clearly the only solution is to put them in charge of more things and throw money at problems until they're solved.

Why not? It worked so well with the drug epidemic and airline security, right?

I do not know enough about the ins and outs of Obama'sNameIsOnItSoItMustBeAllHisFaultCare to be able to criticize it adequately, but I will say that I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the fact that, every time I streamline our family budget, decide to amputate some bourgeoise "luxury" (like cable television, or even cell phones, fer gods' sake), or find some way to live a hair more efficiently, all because the numbers say we have to eliminate $25/month to survive, any benefit I carve out gets immediately swallowed up by some dumb cost increase which is supposed to make my life "better." Well...it isn't.

--Patrick

Oct 1, 2013#9

Shakey

Oct 1, 2013#10

Covar

PatrThom said:
Why not? It worked so well with the drug epidemic and airline security, right?

I do not know enough about the ins and outs of Obama'sNameIsOnItSoItMustBeAllHisFaultCare to be able to criticize it adequately, but I will say that I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the fact that, every time I streamline our family budget, decide to amputate some bourgeoise "luxury" (like cable television, or even cell phones, fer gods' sake), or find some way to live a hair more efficiently, all because the numbers say we have to eliminate $25/month to survive, any benefit I carve out gets immediately swallowed up by some dumb cost increase which is supposed to make my life "better." Well...it isn't.

--Patrick

It's not for you, it's for the poor. Of which you eventually become because of all the cost increases meant to provide for and benefit said poor. What's sad is the insistence that there's no problem here.

Oct 1, 2013#11

Tiger Tsang

Shakey said:

beat me to it.

Oct 1, 2013#12

Krisken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=PTJubcZFA78&v=wBr3fniyb4w

I dunno why it won't let me imbed, but just follow the link and watch it. Don't be an asshole, check it out.

Oct 1, 2013#13

GasBandit

I like all the strawmen at the beginning. "I HERD OBAMACARE IS AILENS."

And they also bandy about the 47 million uninsured number that was pretty much debunked years ago.

Of that 47 million number:
6 million are illegal aliens
4 million are documented foreign nationals who don't qualify here
9 million have an individual income of over $75,000 and could afford it if they really wanted it, but just don't or opt to pay out of pocket
10 million are already eligible for existing government programs (before TAHA) but haven't
6 million are already eligible for employer provided health insurance but opt not to
Leaving somewhere between 12 and 15 million who genuinely have no affordable health insurance options, which is not ideal, but WAY less an alarming (or alarmist in this case) number.

He also parrots the "if you have insurance from your job, nothing will change for you!" except of course for all the places that have had to change or drop their coverage due to the financial burdens of the act.

But he does tell all this to the camera in the pandering, pedantic method that's so popular with the ill informed.

Oct 2, 2013#14

DarkAudit

Tried to sign up. Site is stuck at the security questions page. There are none. And it won't let you just enter any old answer.

Oct 3, 2013#15

DarkAudit

Finally got in. To the login page. No further.

PREVIOUS VERSION REDACTED.

There is only one participant in the Marketplace for WV. Highmark. The cheapest unsubsidized coverage is $251/month. I couldn't log into the marketplace from work, but according to a calculator from the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, I would qualify for the middle level of coverage at $529 per year. $44/month is well within my reach.

Oct 3, 2013#16

Tinwhistler

DarkAudit said:
Tried to sign up. Site is stuck at the security questions page. There are none. And it won't let you just enter any old answer.

Virginia's ACA site is also stuck on the security questions page, both today and yesterday. I got choices, but it kept telling me that I couldn't use the same answers for more than one question, even though I wasn't.

I'll give it a try again later to see if I get any further. I'm currently paying about $5,900/year for medical at 80% coverage. $7,000 if you add in dental/vision. Though I know I don't qualify for any kind of subsidy (I make too much money and my job's insurance meets minimum requirements), it'd be interesting to see how marketplace prices compare.

Oct 3, 2013#17

Krisken

Yup, crashing for me too. Must be more popular than people think.

Oct 3, 2013#18

Covar

Or they're running on government servers with poor load balancing and lack of scaling. Crashing servers doesn't mean everyone loved the new Sim City.

I would bet good money the government is running all their software on prem, with little to no visualization.

Oct 3, 2013#19

Krisken

Guess they should have been given enough to make it work, eh?

Oct 3, 2013#20

Tinwhistler

Covar said:
Or they're running on government servers with poor load balancing and lack of scaling.

This. Back when I was working for OPM, they were running millions of document requests per year through a single crappy server, and were wondering why it was slow during peak time. After scrambling for months for a code fix, another contractor and I finally convinced one of the feds that it was a load balancing issue. Upgrade to multiple servers with load balancing, and voila, problem solved.

Oct 3, 2013#21

Krisken

Tin, they need your help, obviously. I'd tell ya to offer it to them, but you probably wouldn't get paid right away. Y'know, shut down and all.

Oct 3, 2013#22

strawman

More money isn't going to help. More servers will only mask the problem.

Even google does a gradual rollout of most of their services. Remember how you had to get invites for gmail?

Even if the servers are sufficient, the law is so complex that the business logic is even more so. It doubtless had some testing and debugging, but there's no way they could have done enough testing to 1) verify it will work completely in most cases (nevermind all cases) and 2) handle the load in the majority of cases.

They needed to have granted early access to a few million random people, done performance, logic, and load testing, fixed the problems found, then invite another million and so on.

There's simple no way this could have worked on the first day for everyone who wanted to try it out.

Oct 3, 2013#23

Covar

Krisken said:
Guess they should have been given enough to make it work, eh?

Throwing hardware at a congestion problem is a very expensive solution (so perfect for government!). Sharing datacenters across organizations with everything running on virtual machines would allow for a much more efficient use of resources (especially at a time when many government sites are now only serving up an index page, which is idiocy in itself, but that's for the shutdown thread) as the vms will be able to scale up and down as resources are needed and available. It's possible this is already done, but if there's one thing I've learned from nearly every interaction with a government policy or agency (a lot of large organizations really), it's take the logical solution and assume they're doing something else.

The other affordable solution (which is in addition to above) is to rent out resources on a company's datacenter (like Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud, Rackspace, or SoftLayer) where you can quickly deploy more servers to meet demand. The issue here is government security standards, which make this kind of hosting close to impossible for a lot of government contractors let alone government organizations.

Oct 3, 2013#24

strawman

It's running on Java. On IBM's websphere application server.

There's simply no way it would work on rollout. It is not possible to write a java application for websphere and have it work out of the gate.

Well, unless it's a static website with no logic or database - then it might - might, mind you - work on day one. With a light load.

But, as is usual for these sorts of snafus, it'll be good enough for 90% of those that need it within 90 days, and that's good enough for the purposes of the healthcare act.

Oct 3, 2013#25

Covar

stienman said:
It's running on Java. On IBM's websphere application server.

There's simply no way it would work on rollout. It is not possible to write a java application for websphere and have it work out of the gate.

Well, unless it's a static website with no logic or database - then it might - might, mind you - work on day one. With a light load.

But, as is usual for these sorts of snafus, it'll be good enough for 90% of those that need it within 90 days, and that's good enough for the purposes of the healthcare act.

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm really not. It's probably not just WAS either, it's most likely Portal. Where's the link, I want to see more.

<-- Job is developing Cloud Images of WebSphere Portal.

Oct 3, 2013#26

Eriol

Just thinking out loud here, from an outsider's (Canadian) perspective, why is the "Obamacare" solution what was given, instead of "insurance of last resort" for people? If the stated goal is "health care for everybody" then why wouldn't the "simplest" solution work, i.e. if you can't get coverage with somebody else for a reasonable price, the government insurance (medicaid?) will cover you for a maximum price of $2k/year (or whatever, I pulled that number from nowhere), and we'll subsidize you on a sliding scale for low-income. Private health insurance can offer beyond that level of care (they'll pay for your botox, or whatever), and if they can offer insurance cheaper, then go ahead. But the "minimum standard of coverage" will always be the "safety net" below all others.

Why wouldn't that work, and wouldn't that be far simpler (and potentially cheaper) than what you're doing now?

Oct 3, 2013#27

blotsfan

Obamacare was a trainwreck of a compromise. No one really likes it, but the democrats like it better than nothing.

Oct 3, 2013#28

Covar

Stop putting so much logic into things! After all if it's not terribly convoluted, difficult to understand, and full of strange and arbitrary exceptions, it's poor legislation that's potentially full of loopholes. No one should be able to understand a law that's how you know it's good. Don't worry someone will explain the law to you and how it's perfectly great and wonderful for you just like that interest only mortgage you signed on your house.

Oct 3, 2013#29

PatrThom

When you go with in-house solutions, there's a big division between those who want lots of little tiny servers v. those who want dozens of VMs running on huge, monolithic machines. There are advantages to both, but I think pitching it to government would be a matter of portraying it like "It's like hiring a bunch of little people to do your jobs for you" v. "It's like creating a whole new department to handle it."

All this discussion made me want to take a peek at the text itself to see if I can make some sense of it "as written," but it's gonna take more than the few hours I have left before work to get through it all. I do find it amusing that the Wikipedia article has been locked.

--Patrick

Oct 3, 2013#30

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Just thinking out loud here, from an outsider's (Canadian) perspective, why is the "Obamacare" solution what was given, instead of "insurance of last resort" for people? If the stated goal is "health care for everybody" then why wouldn't the "simplest" solution work, i.e. if you can't get coverage with somebody else for a reasonable price, the government insurance (medicaid?) will cover you for a maximum price of $2k/year (or whatever, I pulled that number from nowhere), and we'll subsidize you on a sliding scale for low-income. Private health insurance can offer beyond that level of care (they'll pay for your botox, or whatever), and if they can offer insurance cheaper, then go ahead. But the "minimum standard of coverage" will always be the "safety net" below all others.

Why wouldn't that work, and wouldn't that be far simpler (and potentially cheaper) than what you're doing now?

Basically, you're saying extend MediCare (Medicaid is for the elderly) to all citizens. That's very much not cheaper, and it's an expansion of federal entitlements that is anathema to many.

Oct 3, 2013#31

Covar

PatrThom said:
When you go with in-house solutions, there's a big division between those who want lots of little tiny servers v. those who want dozens of VMs running on huge, monolithic machines. There are advantages to both, but I think pitching it to government would be a matter of portraying it like "It's like hiring a bunch of little people to do your jobs for you" v. "It's like creating a whole new department to handle it."

Depending on how you set it up there's no reason you can't have both. Dozens of VMs running on monolithic machines provides the advantage that a lot of business already have monolithic machines that can be re-purposed for heavy visualization, but it's a much more even debate when you're starting up a datacenter. It's a really interesting time to be in the server world.

Oct 3, 2013#32

strawman

Covar said:
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm really not. It's probably not just WAS either, it's most likely Portal. Where's the link, I want to see more.

<-- Job is developing Cloud Images of WebSphere Portal.

I just browsed the various error message screenshots people are tossing up online. I don't have a link handy, sorry.

Eriol said:
why is the "Obamacare" solution what was given, instead of "insurance of last resort" for people?

Cost. They couldn't simply say, "Let's spend trillions of dollars with no way to pay for it, and force insurance companies to accept anyone, anytime."

It became a very slippery slope, so to speak. From those two desired features you find that we have to force people onto insurance, or tax them, otherwise people will only get insurance when they are sick. You have to pay for it (even the individual mandate won't cover that) so from there they tax pharma, medical, insurance. This will drive up costs significantly across the board (we are, after all, collectively paying for 10 million more insured who aren't going to pay for it), so we have to offer subsidies. Of course the subsidies will cost more, but if we force more employers to pay for insurance then it won't be as bad. This'll raise the cost of goods, particularly in the segments of the market the poor need (walmart, etc) to survive, so again we're taxing the poor more heavily for their own good.

Once we've decided we have to have additional taxes, forced insurance purchases (or a penalty fee) just to meet the needs of the two desired outcomes, you realize that you have to have a way to get insurance to those that aren't employed. The current system doesn't work that well, and results in expensive self employed insurance, so let's set up a marketplace. Given that this is a state's rights issue we can't simply force one federal marketplace, so we give the states a choice, and if they choose federal then we'll take care of it, and if not then it'll be their responsibility. Further, the healthcare act only targets those that aren't currently aided by medicare, but medicare is again a state issue, and isn't even across the nation. We can't cover everyone with gapless coverage unless we normalize medicare federally, so we must add skirts to cover the gaps.

And so on, and so forth.

It's really just terrible, and it can only get worse.

Eventually you'll find an 8 year old that isn't provided treatment because of a clause meant to save money for those at the end of their life where medical care is pointless, and so we'll add extra clauses to the loopholes, and then we'll need to add loopholes to the clauses to the loopholes. And it still won't be ideal.

The rich, of course, have little to worry about other than significantly higher costs. They will always be able to get a hip replacement at 76. But the poor won't be able to, and even if they could they'll be on waitlists months long since we're slamming another 10-20 million people into a healthcare system that is already unable to meet demand, particularly in elder care.

But it was the only thing they could pass, and they honestly believe it's better to do it wrong and then try to fix it than to do it right.

Oct 3, 2013#33

Krisken

If I remember correctly, my state opted out of the exchange program (FUCK YOU, WALKER), so the bronze program would cost me over $5000 a year. Considering that's a significant portion of my income, that just isn't going to happen.

Oct 3, 2013#34

GasBandit

Krisken said:
If I remember correctly, my state opted out of the exchange program (FUCK YOU, WALKER), so the bronze program would cost me over $5000 a year. Considering that's a significant portion of my income, that just isn't going to happen.

Is that for individual or does it also cover your spouse?

Oct 3, 2013#35

PatrThom

stienman said:
we're slamming another 10-20 million people into a healthcare system that is already unable to meet demand, particularly in elder care.

Oh, don't worry. Over the next 20 years, demand should go waaaaaaay down. And this will happen regardless of whether you think of this as a horrible tragedy or as Justice finally being served. It simply will be, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. However, supply will also fall during this period, and for the exact same reasons (after all, doctors themselves will be aging out of their practices at the same rate). Has anyone planned for these occurrences? As a former investment advisor, these are the kinds of things I look for, long-term.

--Patrick

Oct 3, 2013#36

strawman

I see the baby boomers hanging on for as long as they can, draining as much as they can from this now, essentially, free healthcare system.

Make sure you are always in the hospital and you'll get free room and board, too!

Oct 3, 2013#37

Eriol

steinman, I'm not going to quote your post, but thanks for trying to explain it to me. I still think there's holes there, but I have some questions that relate to that first.

First of all, why is the existing plan going to cost the government anything at all, let alone trillions? Isn't it mainly regulating what the insurance companies can and cannot do, like them not rejecting pre-existing conditions? Where's the huge outlay of expense for this? That hasn't been clearly mentioned that I can find.

Second, what is the average cost of insurance for an individual (or family) in the USA? Numbers for both "I go out and purchase it" as well as "a company buys 10,000 policies for all of its employees" would both be useful. This relates to how expensive it would really be to be the "insurance of last resort" since that cost was put up by Gas as Trillions. The math MAY go that way, but I'm not sure.

Thanks.

Oct 3, 2013#38

GasBandit

Eriol said:
steinman, I'm not going to quote your post, but thanks for trying to explain it to me. I still think there's holes there, but I have some questions that relate to that first.

First of all, why is the existing plan going to cost the government anything at all, let alone trillions? Isn't it mainly regulating what the insurance companies can and cannot do, like them not rejecting pre-existing conditions? Where's the huge outlay of expense for this? That hasn't been clearly mentioned that I can find.

Subsidies, oversight of the exchange, and (I shit you not) expansion of the IRS to oversee enforcement of the mandate and the fees therein. They had to swipe some of Medicare's budget to be able to get the talking point that it would come in under $1 trillion in the first decade. Now the estimates are upwards of $2.4 trillion.

Second, what is the average cost of insurance for an individual (or family) in the USA? Numbers for both "I go out and purchase it" as well as "a company buys 10,000 policies for all of its employees" would both be useful. This relates to how expensive it would really be to be the "insurance of last resort" since that cost was put up by Gas as Trillions. The math MAY go that way, but I'm not sure.

I assume you're meaning the monthly premiums (the part that comes out of your paycheck). That varies wildly depending on a number of factors. You often get a choice of plans that have different deductibles (how much you're expected to pay per year yourself before they start paying) copays (how much of each visit you're expected to pay yourself even then, up front, before anything else) and coinsurance split (after the deductible is met, what percentage of the bill do you pay vs insurance? 0/100? 20/80? 40/60?)

Also, insurance rates vary greatly depending on what you're covering. If you're getting individual coverage only, it's much, much cheaper than covering a spouse or dependents. Here where I work, our options range from just over $100/mo for high deductible HSA on individual only to $800/mo for comprehensive low deductible coverage for a family of 4.

Oct 3, 2013#39

strawman

Eriol said:
why is the existing plan going to cost the government anything at all, let alone trillions? Isn't it mainly regulating what the insurance companies can and cannot do, like them not rejecting pre-existing conditions? Where's the huge outlay of expense for this? That hasn't been clearly mentioned that I can find.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you review the congressional budget office's report of the cost of the healthcare act:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconprop.pdf

You'll note that they're throwing around numbers in the hundreds of billions per year cost. They theoretically cover this with taxes, but you can see that the cost of covering the uninsured and other programs this act requires is approaching trillions of dollars per decade.

My experience is that CBO reports are usually optimistic. Sometimes horrifically so. For such a complex bill, though, I expect this one to be much, much worse than normal as the lawmakers find out in how many ways it can be abused by interested parties.

Eriol said:
what is the average cost of insurance for an individual (or family) in the USA? Numbers for both "I go out and purchase it" as well as "a company buys 10,000 policies for all of its employees" would both be useful. This relates to how expensive it would really be to be the "insurance of last resort" since that cost was put up by Gas as Trillions. The math MAY go that way, but I'm not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States is pretty decent.

Oct 3, 2013#40

strawman

So I sat on the website until it let me in, which it did.

I finally got to the signup page and found the ludicrous requirements for a username.

It has to contain at least one capital letter, one lowercase, and one number.

So I can't have stienman. Or Stienman. Or stienman1. I can, however, use Stienman1.

Wat? I've heard of ridiculous requirements for passwords, but this takes the cake, forcing it on usernames.

Who's the idiot that decided every username must include a number? Someone who was bitter that they got AwesomeSauce023 because they were beat by 22 other AwesomeSauce users on AOL and decided that if he had to have a number behind his name, everyone has to have a number behind their name!

Ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1380818910,1380818817][/DOUBLEPOST]I should mention that once I submitted my name, location, username and password, and then security questions it failed at the final step, saying the system was not available to process my application.

As I'm in Michigan this is through the federal system, there's no local exchange. Others in other states may have different experiences.

Oct 3, 2013#41

Eriol

First of all, numbers over a decade are weasel-words. Do it per year at the most, since that's how budgets (family, corporate, or government) are determined. Costs over longer durations are OK as long as the per-year cost is stated. Because that means that the current program is NOT a trillion-dollar program. Not that $100B/year is anything to sneeze at, it's just a vastly different animal.

OK, from steinman's wiki link, about $10k per family, per year, averaging out, something like $2500/year per person? I'm trying to tease out the "if government paid 100%, what would the number be." At 10 million uninsured, and let's just say they're ALL too low-income to pay ANY of it, that's $25B/year. I wish I could compare it to that CBO document, but it seems to be saying a "reduction of deficit" which means you're bringing in more taxes than the program would cost. That's kind of opposite from most of the media surrounding it, but either way makes little sense IMO. If I take Gas's numbers, of around $1 Trillion for a decade, or $100B/year, it's STILL vastly cheaper to provide insurance to everybody off-program for ZERO cost to them, and even if you dump on another 10M partial-payers on a scale, it's STILL cheaper. Then add on those you force to pay a penalty for not having insurance (I agree this is necessary, otherwise people don't pay until you need it, which doesn't work), and... doesn't my proposal cost less than what you're outlaying right now?

Oct 3, 2013#42

Krisken

stienman said:
So I sat on the website until it let me in, which it did.

I finally got to the signup page and found the ludicrous requirements for a username.

It has to contain at least one capital letter, one lowercase, and one number.

So I can't have stienman. Or Stienman. Or stienman1. I can, however, use Stienman1.

Wat? I've heard of ridiculous requirements for passwords, but this takes the cake, forcing it on usernames.

Who's the idiot that decided every username must include a number? Someone who was bitter that they got AwesomeSauce023 because they were beat by 22 other AwesomeSauce users on AOL and decided that if he had to have a number behind his name, everyone has to have a number behind their name!

Ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1380818910,1380818817][/DOUBLEPOST]I should mention that once I submitted my name, location, username and password, and then security questions it failed at the final step, saying the system was not available to process my application.

As I'm in Michigan this is through the federal system, there's no local exchange. Others in other states may have different experiences.

Nope, that's exactly what happened to me as well.

Oct 3, 2013#43

strawman

To be honest @Eriol I'm not sure what you mean. You say 'my plan' but I don't understand your plan well enough to figure out where you're getting that money from, or where it's going. We're throwing around estimated numbers like "10 million" but the reality is that far more will be taking from the pot, for instance those that are insured, but make a low enough income that it'll be cheaper for them to sit on the government's largesse than to cover it themselves as they are doing now. I expect most americans and businesses will weigh their options again and force as much of their costs onto the government as they can. That's how capitalism works, and why social programs suffer so badly in a capitalist environment.

Even the CBO's conservative estimates were over 150billion per year in the early stages after implementation, and the costs were increasing by tens of billions per year after that - much, much greater than inflation.

But those estimates are 3 years old, and latest figures actually place it higher than 300 billion per year within a year or two from now, and rising sharply over the implementation period.

Why are we spending 300 billion for "only 10 million" people? The reality is that the program covers much more than those 10 million, and not only that it provides additional coverage by law that is optional now. The costs are over the entire 300 million americans, each of who will incur a greater cost due to parts of the law that force them to get additional coverage they may not already be paying for, or want, or need.

Oct 3, 2013#44

GasBandit

Yes, "over the first decade" is a weasel word, but that's how they chose to frame it. It is couched in that term because the costs aren't evenly divided - some of the costs are deferred to only start to hit the books once the American people are good and fused inextricably to the program.

Oct 3, 2013#45

Eriol

steinman, the number that would be needed to be "newly insured" is what I mean. X number of people don't have insurance, and can't afford it (to whatever degree), and aren't covered now in your country. So instead of them paying for it, the government is going to pay insurance premiums for them at something resembling a current rate. I used the numbers from the wiki article you posted. That's all. I hope that makes sense what I'm proposing.

And I was remembering badly from Gas's post on the first page:

GasBandit said:
And they also bandy about the 47 million uninsured number that was pretty much debunked years ago.

Of that 47 million number:
6 million are illegal aliens
4 million are documented foreign nationals who don't qualify here
9 million have an individual income of over $75,000 and could afford it if they really wanted it, but just don't or opt to pay out of pocket
10 million are already eligible for existing government programs (before TAHA) but haven't
6 million are already eligible for employer provided health insurance but opt not to
Leaving somewhere between 12 and 15 million who genuinely have no affordable health insurance options, which is not ideal, but WAY less an alarming (or alarmist in this case) number.

So I lowballed at 10 Million in "new spending". Should have been 15. Add in the 10 million for the line "are already eligible for existing government programs (before TAHA) but haven't" since you still need to cover that cost. The cost goes DOWN some from the income in tax penalties from the 9 million who have a fair amount of money but aren't buying insurance. Some will pay the penalty, some will buy insurance, so either way it's a gain in money for the feds.

So to re-calculate. about 25 Million people want health insurance, but don't have it right now, and would require new spending to get it. The government will pay an insurance company $2500 per person per year for it, according to the numbers from your wiki link steinman. Thus total out-of-pocket per year is: $62.5 Billion per year. STILL less than $100B per year. And that number doesn't inflate per year either with weird costs down the road. And can you imagine if the feds gave the insurance contract to open bid? It'll be less than the national average if ONE company gets it. Or even 1 contract per state, the insurance companies will be fighting tooth and nail to get that contract, because it'll be massive. The ultimate cost will be less than $2500 per person. Then ADD IN the extra revenue from those who have lots of income, but are choosing not to get insurance. Most will buy insurance rather than pay the penalty, but some will. So the cost will be less than $62.5B per year.

Summary:

# of people without insurance and would need new spending from feds to get coverage: 25 Million
Average cost of insurance, per person according to wiki (family of 4 cost, div by 4): $2500/year
Cost of "buying" insurance for 25 Million, per year: $62.5 Billion/year
Add in any revenue from the 9 Million that have over $75,000/year, but choose not to
Projected cost of AHA over 10 Years: ~$1,000 Billion
Project cost of my plan over 10 Years: $62.5 Billion * 10 = $625 Billion + fudge factor = $700 Billion or LESS with a better rate gotten by competition for the quote

How is my plan not better? And simpler? You barely need any administration at all for it. And some of those costs are less, as not 100% of those without will need a 100% subsidy. Many (most?) will need less than that, driving costs even further down.

Oct 3, 2013#46

strawman

So. Once your plan is put into effect, I want in. What's to prevent me from coming in and getting free health insurance, or the other 300 million Americans that would love to get it for free?

Oct 3, 2013#47

Eriol

stienman said:
So. Once your plan is put into effect, I want in. What's to prevent me from coming in and getting free health insurance, or the other 300 million Americans that would love to get it for free?

The penalty for NOT having insurance. I didn't make it explicit enough that there would be such a penalty. Or to put it another way, make the government insurance "cost" $3000 per year for everybody, then provide a subsidy for those on low income, up to the point where buying private will be cheaper than buying the government's insurance. I'm not suggesting government "become" an insurance company, only that they then buy (in bulk) policies from others, that are then provided for $3000 or less, depending on income.

Oct 3, 2013#48

strawman

And once you add in a way to pay for it, you've pretty much chosen Obama's plan, aside from a few small things.

Oct 3, 2013#49

strawman

Ah, I find myself seriously contemplating reading the stupid thing. I found a good spot to get it though, so here're the links of note:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html <-- Healthcare act (~3.4 million characters)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/content-detail.html <-- Amendments to the act (~200 thousand characters)

I really don't have time for it, but I also am finding myself unable to articulate well on the problems inherent in the act itself since I'm merely parroting what others are saying.

The vast power over American Citizen's healthcare and health information privacy given to the executive branch is more troubling than the cost. But I really need to be able to quote from it and point out sections when I'm making my arguments.

So irritating...

Oct 3, 2013#50

PatrThom

stienman said:
Wat? I've heard of ridiculous requirements for passwords, but this takes the cake, forcing it on usernames.

The provider for insurance at my job had the same requirement, and this was years ago. I had the same argument. I have to fail at least once every time I log in before I remember exactly how I went about corrupting my U53rn4me before it will let me in.

stienman said:
The vast power over American Citizen's healthcare and health information privacy given to the executive branch is more troubling than the cost.

Simple solution, then. Have the people who have no health insurance earn their subsidy for the government-provided plan byyyy.....spying on other Americans! That way, the Government is not directly doing the spying (getting around that pesky "can't spy on citizens" problem), they get a dedicated support staff, and they can make up whatever deficit might rear its ugly head by cutting back on whatever portion of $600 billion was going to be earmarked for the domestic defensive efforts. It's win-win!

--Patrick

Oct 4, 2013#51

Necronic

Our company retirement website has a password requirement of only being numbers and only being 6 letters long, no shorter, no longer.

The level of stupidity involved in that straight up boggles the mind.

Oct 4, 2013#52

GasBandit

My company's traffic system requires a password 8+ characters long with capitals, lower cases, numbers, and requires a password change every 90 days and you can't use the same password more than once in the same year (because people just rotate through PASSword1, PASSword2 PASSword3 etc)

But our usernames are uniform and assigned by the service as (ourcompany'scustomernumber)(firstinitial)(lastname)

Oct 4, 2013#53

PatrThom

Many thanks to @Dave for explaining Obamacare for me in a way that is easy to understand.

--Patrick

Oct 4, 2013#54

DarkAudit

1.) It's the Affordable Care Act. Call it Obamacare and I stop listening to you.

2.) If I can get through the glitches and whatnot, I'll have insurance from the same provider as thousands of others in the state, just at a rate I can actually afford.

3.) There are people benefiting from this act that you have actually met. People you know. Are you really saying you'd willingly take health insurance away from a friend or neighbor to satisfy your political fetishes?

3a.) (It's pretty much a given @GasBandit would.)

Oct 4, 2013#55

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
1.) It's the Affordable Care Act. Call it Obamacare and I stop listening to you.

2.) If I can get through the glitches and whatnot, I'll have insurance from the same provider as thousands of others in the state, just at a rate I can actually afford.

3.) There are people benefiting from this act that you have actually met. People you know. Are you really saying you'd willingly take health insurance away from a friend or neighbor to satisfy your political fetishes?

3a.) (It's pretty much a given @GasBandit would.)

Yes, I'd definitely leave any given person I know in the gutter to die of hypothermia with no access to health care, because that's the only possible result of what happens in a world without Obamacare and that makes me SO ROCK HARD. Like a MIGHTY REDWOOD.

Schmuck.

Oct 4, 2013#56

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
1.) It's the Affordable Care Act. Call it Obamacare and I stop listening to you.

2.) If I can get through the glitches and whatnot, I'll have insurance from the same provider as thousands of others in the state, just at a rate I can actually afford.

3.) There are people benefiting from this act that you have actually met. People you know. Are you really saying you'd willingly take health insurance away from a friend or neighbor to satisfy your political fetishes?

3a.) (It's pretty much a given @GasBandit would.)

It's not a bad video, DA. Just listen to it already and stop worrying about what they call it. They can call it the happy fun nuclear Nazi bill and it's not going to change that almost no one knows what's in it, still, 4 years later.[DOUBLEPOST=1380941276,1380941181][/DOUBLEPOST]

PatrThom said:
Many thanks to @Dave for explaining Obamacare for me in a way that is easy to understand.

--Patrick

Yeah, I posted on page one but for some reason couldn't get the video to embed (thus a link).

Oct 4, 2013#57

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Yes, I'd definitely leave any given person I know in the gutter to die of hypothermia with no access to health care, because that's the only possible result of what happens in a world without Obamacare and that makes me SO ROCK HARD. Like a MIGHTY REDWOOD.

Schmuck.

So you're a hard ass only to those anonymous stick figures out there? "You have a right to health care... you can afford" only applies to people you can't put a face to?

We had a guy pass out at work here today. There aren't enough employees to compel coverage. So he's already out $800 just for the ambulance run. I can't afford that. I doubt he can, either.

Schmuck.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Oct 5, 2013#58

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
So you're a hard ass only to those anonymous stick figures out there? "You have a right to health care... you can afford" only applies to people you can't put a face to?

Oh hey, it's that Monkeysphere problem again.

If I had to guess, it's probably also what's at the root of the current tomfoolery in Congress. "The stuff I'm doing only handicaps people I don't care about so therefore I'm OK with it."

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#59

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
So you're a hard ass only to those anonymous stick figures out there? "You have a right to health care... you can afford" only applies to people you can't put a face to?

We had a guy pass out at work here today. There aren't enough employees to compel coverage. So he's already out $800 just for the ambulance run. I can't afford that. I doubt he can, either.

Schmuck.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Don't you have a gutter you need to be bleeding out in, peasant?

Oct 5, 2013#60

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
A**hole

GasBandit said:
B*tch

Feels like I'm at a Rocky Horror showing.

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#61

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
Feels like I'm at a Rocky Horror showing.

--Patrick

It's just a jump to the left...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Oct 5, 2013#62

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
It's just a jump to the left...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

PatrThom said:
Feels like I'm at a Rocky Horror showing.

--Patrick

Eddie. Well. There's a tender subject.

Oct 5, 2013#63

strawman

DarkAudit said:
So he's already out $800 just for the ambulance run. I can't afford that. I doubt he can, either.

But he currently gets care. Right? He has bills, but he's not going to die due to lack of health insurance, unless he himself chooses not to receive care.

The current system is broken. You may feel the new system is better. It may be better, for you. Is it better for everyone? No. It's certainly not. I have friends losing good healthcare and having to trade down to a worse plan on obamacare, and paying more for it.

So. It's good for you. Not good for others.

Your attempt to characterize it as though opponents are killing people is disappointing. You are much smarter than that.

Your healthcare is going to cost money. Just because it isn't costing you your money doesn't mean someone else isn't losing out so you don't have to cover an $800 ambulance bill. Someone else is going to cover it for you.

Don't attempt to portray opponents as morally wrong or corrupt. They have priorities that differ from yours. The only difference is that you want them to cover your healthcare.

I suppose stealing from others is ok, as long as it's for healthcare and mandated by the government.

Oooh, wait, I'm not supposed to portray my opponents as morally wrong or corrupt, am I?

So. Let's keep it civil, shall we?

Oct 5, 2013#64

PatrThom

stienman said:
stealing from others is ok, as long as it's for healthcare and mandated by the government.

Yes, exactly. But we should only be stealing from the folks who can afford it/won't miss it. It's RobinHoodCare (which is totally not socialism).

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#65

Krisken

Wow, stealing from others? I think I threw up in my mouth a little. That there is pretty cold.

Oct 5, 2013#66

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Wow, stealing from others? I think I threw up in my mouth a little. That there is pretty cold.

Do you believe you are entitled to the time and treasure of another person just because they're wealthier than you? And that such transference of wealth should have the threat of government-sanctioned force behind it?

Oct 5, 2013#67

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Do you believe you are entitled to the time and treasure of another person just because they're wealthier than you? And that such transference of wealth should have the threat of government-sanctioned force behind it?

That depends. Did they oppress me to acquire it?

--Patrick

Oct 5, 2013#68

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
That depends. Did they oppress me to acquire it?

--Patrick

Not much, so long as you hand it over without a fuss.

But go ahead and stop paying your taxes and see what happens.

Oct 5, 2013#69

strawman

Krisken said:
Wow, stealing from others? I think I threw up in my mouth a little. That there is pretty cold.

It's no worse than claiming that opponents are killing people.

I disagree with both statements anyway. It's no more stealing than the fact that your taxes pay for my children's education. An educated society benefits everyone. A healthy society benefits everyone.

So using such inflammatory language isn't useful, IMO, on either side.

Oct 5, 2013#70

Krisken

stienman said:
It's no worse than claiming that opponents are killing people.

I disagree with both statements anyway. It's no more stealing than the fact that your taxes pay for my children's education. An educated society benefits everyone. A healthy society benefits everyone.

So using such inflammatory language isn't useful, IMO, on either side.

I agree. I guess I expected better out of you and hadn't realized you were being sarcastic with DA. God love the big lug, but DA is basically GB on the other side of the coin.

Oct 5, 2013#71

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I agree. I guess I expected better out of you and hadn't realized you were being sarcastic with DA. God love the big lug, but DA is basically GB on the other side of the coin.

Politically, perhaps. But I don't think we're of similar temperment. I'm much more sarcastic and objective, whereas DA is very earnest and forthright but subjective and emotional about everything and takes almost everything personally.

Oct 5, 2013#72

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Politically, perhaps. But I don't think we're of similar temperment. I'm much more sarcastic and objective, whereas DA is very earnest and forthright but subjective and emotional about everything and takes almost everything personally.

My financial situation is the result of messes of my own making. I have to live with that. And yes, I do take it personally when you keep dropping that afford line. Because it says to me that no matter how much I bust my ass at my job or taking care of my family, I'm not worthy of decent health care because I'm one of "teh poor".

I was supposed to have a cardiologist visit in June. The visit went like this:

Me: "How much is this going to cost?"
Them: "Do you have insurance?"
Me: "No."
Them: "$160."
Me: "Goodbye."

By the GasBandit standard, that's just too bad for me. Or, if thanks to a new government program I can now afford that visit without as much pain to the wallet, I'm now considered a thief? Damn right I take it personally.

Oct 5, 2013#73

strawman

My wife has become expert in working with medical billing. They are pretty good about letting us set up a payment plan with no interest that fits our ability to pay.

Of course that's only helpful because while we can't pay immediately, we will be able to pay later. Doesn't help where one cannot pay now or later.

Oct 5, 2013#74

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
go ahead and stop paying your taxes and see what happens.

I have no problem paying taxes so long as I receive value for doing so. Money is essentially work in tangible form, so ideologically I have no problem allocating some of my work for the greater good of society. I enjoy helping others, I find it personally very rewarding and see it as my duty to contribute to the health/success of my functioning society. Taxes are merely a formalized way of ensuring that all members of a society contribute to that society. What I do not enjoy is when people pervert/game this arrangement to their own ends, such as embezzlement ("There's so much. A little off the top for me won't hurt"), pork ("We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you"), leeches ("I'll have some of yours, but you can't have any of mine"), etc. They're all forms of theft, really. If nobody is seeding, then nobody can download, right? And if there are too few seeders, then they become overtaxed and no doubt bitter about having to hold up the entire cloud. That's hardly a community attitude, and it's why (ideally) everyone has to seed/tithe/pay taxes...otherwise it doesn't work. It also follows that the people with the fattest pipes will end up contributing the most packets to the flood, and have no legitimate standing to be outraged by this due to the Stan Lee/Voltaire principle. You gotta keep your ratio nice and high, otherwise you are cheating, plain and simple.

And if you don't believe me, go ahead and throttle your uploads and see what happens.

stienman said:
Doesn't help where one cannot pay now or later.

There's that break-even point beyond which you have to decide whether working hard enough to earn enough money to repay the debt will kill you anyway, and whether you would just be happier/better off by forgoing care. I don't know if it's a supply/demand thing, but that whole idea of "the sweet release of Death" is abhorrent to me. I never want to find myself in any sort of situation where the idea of just going ahead and dying fills me with more hope and joy than it would if I were to continue to live.

--Patrick

Oct 6, 2013#75

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
The current system is broken. You may feel the new system is better. It may be better, for you. Is it better for everyone? No. It's certainly not. I have friends losing good healthcare and having to trade down to a worse plan on obamacare, and paying more for it.

How is this the case when if you have insurance, you're complying with the law? The only way someone would have to trade down is if their employer took away their insurance as a result of the new law, as far as I know.

Oct 6, 2013#76

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
How is this the case when if you have insurance, you're complying with the law? The only way someone would have to trade down is if their employer took away their insurance as a result of the new law, as far as I know.

Which is happening to an alarming degree. The cost of obamacare compliance has raised premiums in many places, and a lot of businesses have dropped either coverage entirely, or shrunk to only providing individual coverage but not spouse/dependent coverage.

Oct 6, 2013#77

PatrThom

Quotemander Prime said:
The only way someone would have to trade down is if their employer took away their insurance as a result of the new law, as far as I know.

GasBandit said:
a lot of businesses have dropped either coverage entirely, or shrunk to only providing individual coverage but not spouse/dependent coverage.

There are also companies like Trader Joe's, which eliminated health care for some employees simply because it would be cheaper for Trader Joe's to just cut some of them off entirely (thus making them exchange-eligible) and then give them a check to go buy insurance for themselves on the exchanges.

This makes sense when you realize TJ's is owned by the same people who run Aldi. They're all about "business done as cheaply as possible."

--Patrick

Oct 8, 2013#78

tegid

A question regarding something that was mentioned in the shutdown thread: Isn't the government cost of healthcare largely due to the cost of Medicare and Medicaid? And, if the TAHA can partially or completely replace it, shouldn't it actually lower the costs of healthcare or at least come even (i.e. 'pay for itself' indirectly)? If it doesn't replace Medicare and Medicaid, what the fuck does it solve?

In any case, it seems clear should be done about this system. FFS, you are number 1 in healthcare spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita ), and as much as 45% is apparently from the public sector! ( http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL?order=wbapi_data_value_2011 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc ). In one of these threads @GasBandit compared the TAHA to 'burning the house down', something so objectively bad that you don't need to present an alternative. But that ignores the fact that there is an underlying problem: the house is rotten, what is your solution to that?

EDITED: I wrote ACA and I meant TAHA, I guess

Oct 8, 2013#79

strawman

TAHA doesn't replace Medicare or Medicaid, in fact it was designed specifically not to address those people already covered but those two programs.

It is an additional cost on top of all of that. A huge additional cost.

Oct 8, 2013#80

GasBandit

tegid said:
A question regarding something that was mentioned in the shutdown thread: Isn't the government cost of healthcare largely due to the cost of Medicare and Medicaid? And, if the ACA can partially or completely replace it, shouldn't it actually lower the costs of healthcare or at least come even (i.e. 'pay for itself' indirectly)? If it doesn't replace Medicare and Medicaid, what the fuck does it solve?

In any case, it seems clear should be done about this system. FFS, you are number 1 in healthcare spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita ), and as much as 45% is apparently from the public sector! ( http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL?order=wbapi_data_value_2011 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc ). In one of these threads @GasBandit compared the ACA to 'burning the house down', something so objectively bad that you don't need to present an alternative. But that ignores the fact that there is an underlying problem: the house is rotten, what is your solution to that?

The rot in the house has been vastly overstated, but it is there. The problem is the high cost of healthcare. This stems from the fact that because the consumer has become divorced from the actual costs ("Here's my insurance, bring on the MRIs and designer drugs because I paid my premiums and it's time to cash in"). I posted a story in an earlier ObamaCare thread a few weeks ago about -

GasBandit said:
Man needs hernia surgery, schedules it and tries to use his medical insurance. Hospital wants $20,000 up front for his portion of the cost.

Man cancels surgery, goes to different hospital, claims "self paying/no insurance," Hospital charges him $3000.

Methinks I see a glimmer of a solution.

There's plenty of things we haven't tried that might bring the cost of medical care down. Reintroducing competition to the market will help. Some think allowing insurance to be sold across state lines would also help. Perhaps instead of high premium, low deductible health plans we should try out high deductible, low premium HSA plans with employer contributions - for example, the insurance company that provides insurance for where I work offers an HSA plan that has a 10k deductible, but the premiums are less than $100 a month and every month the employer deposits $50 into your HSA account. That means that you're covered in case of catastrophic injury or illness, such as getting hit by a bus or cancer, and you have $600 a year on a debit card to pay in cash for lesser medical services (which as illustrated above can be much cheaper if you tell them you're paying in cash up front). And unlike traditional insurance, that HSA money rolls over from year to year. You can even choose to contribute more to your HSA if you want, and your contributions are tax deductible. So if you start one when you're young and healthy, by the time you're in your 30s you could have a very comfortable medical padding indeed, while actually spending much less over that time period. We could also revisit drug patents (20 years currently) to see about making it faster to get cheaper generics on the market.

But we're not interested in really having that debate. Everything's a crisis, everything demands immediate action. Immediate action that puts more control and spending power in the hands of the federal government. As I've often said, TACA has little to do with health care and a whole lot to do with control.

Oct 8, 2013#81

tegid

stienman said:
TAHA doesn't replace Medicare or Medicaid, in fact it was designed specifically not to address those people already covered but those two programs.

It is an additional cost on top of all of that. A huge additional cost.

Um, follow up question then. Why doesn't it? Is it this way by design or is it by compromise? I mean, Obama wanted other models that he was obviously not able to pass, such as single payer or an option of a government run insurance. Would these have covered part of the cost problem? Wouldn't it have been just an extension of Medicare/Medicaid?

GB yes, I see. Now that I remember all this more clearly (a few years ago I followed with some attention the problems and nuances of you healthcare system, but since they don't affect me I just forgot), I wouldn't say that it's a matter of wanting more control (I tend to think the best of people) but perhaps an attempt to solve these problems under the restrictions of: 1 - Medical insurance and industry lobbiesm 2- A society and political system that won't accept solutions that Obama would have preferred.

Anyway, thanks for answering.

Oct 8, 2013#82

Krisken

Well, was able to get a user name and password on Healthcare.gov, but clicking anywhere on the page ends up causing an error, logging me out and sending me back to the log in page.

Frustrating, but I guess it's progress. Maybe by November I'll be able to check out all the healthcare plans available to me.

Oct 8, 2013#83

Dave

My biggest pet peeve is that to find out what the exchanges would do for me I have to jump through flaming hoops. I am already on my work insurance and want to see if it would be cheaper and better to be on an exchange, but to do so I have to first fill out all the information about myself, my family and my income (which I have), then I need to take something to my work and have them fill it out (which I have not). Only then can I compare and contrast plans. Which is just stupid.

Oct 8, 2013#84

Krisken

Oct 8, 2013#85

GasBandit

Krisken said:

I dunno what the heck he was applying for, but my private insurance has never taken me that long to fill out, nor has it asked me for all that stuff he got asked. Not even Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Oct 8, 2013#86

Tinwhistler

Krisken said:
Well, was able to get a user name and password on Healthcare.gov, but clicking anywhere on the page ends up causing an error, logging me out and sending me back to the log in page.

Frustrating, but I guess it's progress. Maybe by November I'll be able to check out all the healthcare plans available to me.

That's where I'm at, too.

Oct 8, 2013#87

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
I dunno what the heck he was applying for, but my private insurance has never taken me that long to fill out, nor has it asked me for all that stuff he got asked. Not even Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

It probably depends on the state. Private insurance in NJ had really painful application procedures when I was using it a few years ago.

Oct 8, 2013#88

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
It probably depends on the state. Private insurance in NJ had really painful application procedures when I was using it a few years ago.

That could be it. Hell, in Texas, the form is only slightly more complicated than

"Dj'ya want some insurance? (Yep/Nah) ____"

Oct 8, 2013#89

Krisken

Hm, going through the process now. Seems to be working so far...

Edit: Application finished. Still have to wait to be 'verified' as who i say I am. Hopefully that doesn't take too long.

Oct 8, 2013#90

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
Hm, going through the process now. Seems to be working so far...

Edit: Application finished. Still have to wait to be 'verified' as who i say I am. Hopefully that doesn't take too long.

Some of the online questions were just vague enough that I used up all my chances to verify myself that way. Then like an idiot I continued the application process without writing down the Experian reference number when I called outside of their office hours. When I finally did get through, they didn't have any record of me.

Long story short, I waited through the weekend and tried again this evening to upload a scan of my drivers license. Success. Application is done, ID verification pending. All I can do now is wait. I already know who the provider will be (Highmark only WV participant), so the only unknowns are the level of coverage and cost.

Oct 8, 2013#91

Krisken

I dunno why, but for some reason I'm dreading the results. It's not like I have an income which is above the poverty level, though (yet, damn waiting to finish school to have a nice, happy, full time job). I'm really hoping I can find something reasonable for my wife and I.

Oct 10, 2013#92

Tinwhistler

Well, I got through the application process. Everything seems to be working smoothly now.

Got to the plan section. I chose to look at gold plans, since they most closely match my current coverage (80% coverage w/dental). I don't qualify for any subsidies (though no surprise there--I'm at 7X the poverty level for my county).

The plan that most closely matches my current insurance is about $800/month. I'm currently paying $584/month. That seems about right, since my employer subsidizes a portion of my health insurance. I know that under COBRA, my current insurance would be much higher than $800/month. Copays and generic drugs are slightly less through the marketplace, but we're talking about the difference of about $10. That would make a huge difference to someone near the poverty level, but really doesn't matter much in my own calculations.

Of course, I won't be signing up, and that's no surprise either. The marketplace isn't really designed for someone in my position. However, it's nice to know that if I ever make enough money through writing to be able to ditch the day job, I could get insurance at a much more reasonable rate than I would if I kept my current plan via COBRA, especially since my wife has had cancer in the past.

All told, I'm fairly satisfied with the end-user experience that I've seen.

Edit: Ok, things aren't all running smoothly. You're supposed to be able to make "household groups" so that you can put different people on different plans. I was going to carve my son out of our plan to see how that affected premiums (as he's covered by my ex-wife's insurance anyway), but it won't let me create more groups to split up our coverage options. I'll have to take a look at how that works later when they have it fixed.

Oct 10, 2013#93

strawman

Still get "system unavailable" whenever I try at healthcare.gov.

I wonder if the people actually getting through are doing so through state exchanges?

Oct 10, 2013#94

Tinwhistler

stienman said:
Still get "system unavailable" whenever I try at healthcare.gov.

I wonder if the people actually getting through are doing so through state exchanges?

I'm going through healthcare.gov. Once everything was working, it took me about 15 minutes (not counting the previous days login attempts) to input the family information and browse all the 31 insurance plans I qualify for.

Interestingly, there were no Platinum level coverages for me to look at.

Oct 10, 2013#95

strawman

Tinwhistler said:
I'm going through healthcare.gov. Once everything was working, it took me about 15 minutes (not counting the previous days login attempts) to input the family information and browse all the 31 insurance plans I qualify for.

Interestingly, there were no Platinum level coverages for me to look at.

Which state? I wonder if it's just healthcare.gov's michigan support that's having an issue.

Oct 10, 2013#96

Tinwhistler

stienman said:
Which state? I wonder if it's just healthcare.gov's michigan support that's having an issue.

Virginia.

Oct 10, 2013#97

PatrThom

stienman said:
Which state? I wonder if it's just healthcare.gov's michigan support that's having an issue.

They probably have us confused with Mississippi again.

--Patrick

Oct 10, 2013#98

Shakey

stienman said:
Which state? I wonder if it's just healthcare.gov's michigan support that's having an issue.

I got in to where you make an account, seems fine to me. I'm in Mn, but chose Michigan as the state. Too lazy to go any farther though.

Oct 10, 2013#99

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
They probably have us confused with Mississippi again.
View attachment 12351

--Patrick

Geographical fail aside, I wonder what those particular secessionists have against Alabama.

Oct 10, 2013#100

Covar

They know...

Oct 11, 2013#101

Dave

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

Just got in to where I could browse plans without actually signing up. It would be too expensive for me to use the exchange for anything other than the lowest-cost plans, especially for family. Problem is I can't get reimbursed or a tax break because I have insurance available through my work.

Now, looking at my current insurance - which is myself only because I can't afford family through my work - I pay $108.69 per month with a $350 deductible. Were I to use the Marketplace, I would be paying $333 a month. The difference is that my employer pays $434.74 per month for my coverage. So while the Marketplace is actually cheaper, it would cost me more because the employer wouldn't put in their part. Now, I can get catastrophic insurance through the Marketplace for $113, but that would be dumb.

Looking at family coverage, my work would charge $538 a month for a $1500 deductible to $799.64 for the $350 deductible. Marketplace is anywhere from $383 (catastrophic) to $1124 a month for platinum.

For myself and spouse only, work is $389 - 578 while the Marketplace runs $276 - 812.

So how do I feel about Obamacare? I'm still for it. Yes, the $333 a month would be difficult for an individual and most families won't be able to afford the platinum plan. But what this does is is does give options for those who have not been able to get anything before and in most cases if they are not working they will get breaks on those prices that will make them a lot more affordable. (I can't see how good because I don't have access due to my circumstances.) It also pushes as many people to get jobs where they can get coverage.

Here's what I don't get. Why are so many people saying this is bad for the insurance companies? It seems to me that they are losing nothing and instead getting a massive influx of people who will be signing up. The Marketplace makes it so that there are more options instead of just having to take the two or three plans you could get now.

Verdict to me is that this will be a good thing. I could be wrong, but initial impressions makes me think that it's going to have a positive effect. Now we need a single payer system and we'll be cooking with gas...

Oct 11, 2013#102

GasBandit

Dave said:
Here's what I don't get. Why are so many people saying this is bad for the insurance companies? It seems to me that they are losing nothing and instead getting a massive influx of people who will be signing up. The Marketplace makes it so that there are more options instead of just having to take the two or three plans you could get now.

The system eliminates discrimination based on pre-existing condition, which sounds nice and smiley and flowers, but it's death for a company that has to maintain a profit/satisfy shareholders. The only way this can be balanced is if the young, robust, healthy people who rarely need any sort of doctor at all sign up in droves. Fun fact - I didn't bother with insurance until I was 24, I kept the extra money instead, because I was young and healthy and wanted the extra money. There are a lot of people like I was. If you give these people the choice of spending $1200+ per year to get insurance (and closer to $3600 if you want something besides catastrophic), or pay a $100 annual ~~tax fee~~ tax, well, I know which one 19 year old me would have chosen without a moment's hesitation. Thus, we're back to the problem of people metaphorically waiting to buy fire insurance until after the house is on fire, which is the very antithesis of what makes insurance work. Furthermore it does nothing to address the disconnect between patient and medical costs - everybody still continues on saying "I pay my premiums, I need an MRI for my stubbed toe, bring it on and send the bill to Humana." So medical care costs stay high, as they are now. It's pretty much a custom tailored silver bullet to drive a private insurance company to bankruptcy. But that's pretty much the plan - this is just a stepping stone to make the transition to single payer less of a shock.

But don't worry, I'm sure the thousands of IRS agents they hired to enforce TACA compliancy will have this running like warm, fuzzy clockwork in no time.

Oct 11, 2013#103

SpecialKO

Out of curiosity, I used the premiums link that Dave just listed and the Kaiser subsidy calculator to see how much I would pay for the private individual insurance that I had 3 years ago when I was job-hunting in NJ.

At the time, I was paying $296 in a monthly premium for what was essentially catastrophic/bronze coverage. Under the healthcare exchange, I can get a silver individual plan for $260/month and according to the Kaiser subsidy calculator, 90% of that would be subsidized, to the point where I would only be paying $240 for the whole year.

I am no longer in those circumstances at all and get decent insurance through work, but were I still in the same position as I was 3 years ago, the healthcare exchange would have substantially better options than what was available previously.

Oct 11, 2013#104

Dave

I worked in insurance for a very long time and know pretty much everything there is to know about it. (I used to pay claims for a TPA - Third Party Administrator. I'll explain that only if asked.)

I see what you are saying about both the pre-existing, youth, and insurance abuse, but I think you are overly pessimistic whereas others are overly optimistic. The ACA won't cause private insurance companies to go bankrupt. Yeah, the shareholders and stockholders will take a hit, but the profit margins are just so damned high that it can be absorbed. Maybe not as easily as some think, but it can be absorbed. It'll be very interesting to see how companies like BCBS do in fiscal year 2014. And by the way, HIPAA hurt BCBS a LOT because they had to completely revamp their IT infrastructure. I was working at BCBS when we had to put that in. And even though they took a hit, we still got about 10% profit sharing the following year.

So I understand your points and think that they will, indeed, have an effect on insurance companies. But I don't think it'll be as bad as you think.

Oct 11, 2013#105

Covar

I'm pretty sure I'll see a unicorn before I hear a healthcare professional talk positively about HIPAA. I really hope it's benefit is worth the gigantic PITA it seems to be.

Oct 11, 2013#106

Bubble181

"Forcing" everyone - including the young and healthy - to get health insurance is what pays for the elderly with pre-existing conditions and the like. Just like car insurances - it's by spreading the cost and risk over everyone that costs stay manageable for all/most.

And yes, most young 24 year old men won't be happy...But it's a reverse lottery. Get into a decent car crash, or get cancer, or turn out to have picked up HIV, or get a child with a serious congenital disease, and you're suddenly damn glad you got that crappy legally obligated insurance thingie instead of selling your house.

Of course there have to be checks and balances. Of course it's, up to a point, redistribution of wealth. Yes, extremists will claim that's "socialist".
However, it is perfectly reasonable to have government mandated/enforced/minimum/whatever health care from a liberal perspective. Assuming everyone-starts-off-equal-and-has-to-rely-on-themselves-to-succeed (opposed to everyone-starts-out-uneven-but-gets-the-same), it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed. Only the most thick-headed of egoists can claim anything and everything coming your way is your own fault/responsibility. Yes, you can start with things liek lung cancer and smoking, or obesity and heart attacks, or even elective medicine (etc etc) as things that might've been avoided, or unnecessary risks taken....Which is exactly what the right is doing over here all the time.
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy; giving everyone not necessarily an equal start but at least protection from certain aspects (turning off "disasters" in SimCity so to speak

) allows more people to achieve their full potential. Which is what it's supposed to be all about.

Oct 11, 2013#107

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
"Forcing" everyone - including the young and healthy - to get health insurance is what pays for the elderly with pre-existing conditions and the like. Just like car insurances - it's by spreading the cost and risk over everyone that costs stay manageable for all/most.

Except in the case of car insurance, you have the option not to drive a car. The comparison doesn't work.

And yes, most young 24 year old men won't be happy...But it's a reverse lottery. Get into a decent car crash, or get cancer, or turn out to have picked up HIV, or get a child with a serious congenital disease, and you're suddenly damn glad you got that crappy legally obligated insurance thingie instead of selling your house.

Currently, the penalty for ignoring this "legal obligation" is still much lower than the cost of complying by at least a 20-to-1 ratio - if it wasn't, it's doubtful the legislation would have survived. But the pre-existing condition exclusion is also toast now. So what you describe doesn't happen. I can wait till my HIV diagnosis to decide to get insurance, and the private insurance company has to take me same as anyone else. That's why this will break them.

Of course there have to be checks and balances. Of course it's, up to a point, redistribution of wealth. Yes, extremists will claim that's "socialist".
However, it is perfectly reasonable to have government mandated/enforced/minimum/whatever health care from a liberal perspective. Assuming everyone-starts-off-equal-and-has-to-rely-on-themselves-to-succeed (opposed to everyone-starts-out-uneven-but-gets-the-same), it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed. Only the most thick-headed of egoists can claim anything and everything coming your way is your own fault/responsibility. Yes, you can start with things liek lung cancer and smoking, or obesity and heart attacks, or even elective medicine (etc etc) as things that might've been avoided, or unnecessary risks taken....Which is exactly what the right is doing over here all the time.
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy; giving everyone not necessarily an equal start but at least protection from certain aspects (turning off "disasters" in SimCity so to speak ) allows more people to achieve their full potential. Which is what it's supposed to be all about.

More Americans are coming around to your point of view, that the individual is subsumed by the good of the collective and that government must provide everything for citizens. But there was a time when it was considered better here to die on one's feet than live (off scraps) on one's knees in subservience. Because a government that can give you everything you want or need can certainly take everything that you have - and it's just a matter of time until the changing of who's calling the shots.

Oct 11, 2013#108

strawman

Bubble181 said:
it's a way of evening the playing field to make sure everyone can succeed.

It's a way of evening out the play field so no one has to succeed. When your food, housing, and medical care are taken care of by a benign entity, why work?

Ever noticed how Europe has such staggeringly large unemployment numbers? How it's often not seen as a place for leading edge innovation compared to the US where those things are not provided?

There is a dark side to socialism, and it isn't just the cost.

Oct 11, 2013#109

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
Having talent go to waste because of circumstances is bad for the economy

This is probably a fair description of my situation. My ability to contribute is being severely inhibited because I have to spend sooo much time patching all my financial leaks. I will never succeed if I continue to be nibbled to death by ducks.

GasBandit said:
you have the option not to drive a car.

Do I, now?
I certainly have the option of getting a job within walking distance of my home, if I want to take a 60% pay cut. I need to lose weight, but not that badly.
I could switch over to public transportation, but that would more than double my already 1hr commute time with no savings in cost. It would actually be more expensive to do so.
I have practically already done the unthinkable and survived without a cell phone until today, which is when I am starting my first ever cell phone contract, a thing I still would not have been able to do if it weren't for a discounted contract through my job. It will be less expensive to give up my landline + Internet (at a house I no longer occupy) and switch to the cellular plan, and that is the only reason I am able to do so.

Yes, I could save a sizeable amount of money if I were to give up all these "luxuries," but unfortunately the rest of society has become so dependent on them that we would once again be talking about my inability to contribute meaningfully to society, just from a different angle.

--Patrick

Oct 11, 2013#110

Covar

but that would more than double my already 1hr commute time with no savings in cost.

Only figuring gas sure, but I would assume that if you have a car payment and insurance payments you would see big savings.

Oct 11, 2013#111

Dave

The stark reality is that most places in the US are not set up as a viable living/working life unless you own a motorized vehicle of some sort. Our cities are so spread out and our mass transit (in most cases) are so abysmal that it's barely an option, if it is one in the first place. We really did some poor urban planning in the case of most cities.

Oct 11, 2013#112

GasBandit

Dave said:
The stark reality is that most places in the US are not set up as a viable living/working life unless you own a motorized vehicle of some sort. Our cities are so spread out and our mass transit (in most cases) are so abysmal that it's barely an option, if it is one in the first place. We really did some poor urban planning in the case of most cities.

So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?

Oct 11, 2013#113

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?

If those licenses (or non-driving state alternatives) could be provided for free and not require physically going to the DMV after the very first one (and sensible alternatives to lost/stolen IDs are available), I would agree with this.

Oct 11, 2013#114

PatrThom

Covar said:
Only figuring gas sure, but I would assume that if you have a car payment and insurance payments you would see big savings.

Let's see (all figures are round trip)...

Private:
Gas cost/day of work=$10.33 (at current prices)
Car pmt(100)+Ins(30)/days of work in an average month(23)=$5.65
Total ≈ $16.00/day (not counting days off)
Travel time is ≈ 45min
--------
Public:
Leg1=$4 (but operational hours are 5a-5p only)
Leg2=~~$2.5~~ $5* (operational hours are 6a-6p only)
Decent cost savings (~~60%~~ 45%*), but job requires availability from 8a-11p, so that's out.
Travel time is ≈ 85min assuming absolute best-case xfer (Leg2 is waiting when Leg1 drops off), or up to 130min if I miss my connection, so it's really out. 2 incidents of > 30min late within a 90-day period and I will be fired, and this is not negotiable.
--------
Semi-Public (ride sharing):
Absolute best case is 50% savings (split costs 50/50) but only if I can find someone else who has the exact same scheduling needs as myself.
...and this doesn't obviate the need for a car, it only obviates the need for me to have a car.
Travel time at least stays the same.

Sooo...for the time being, the infrastructure is not there to support this sort of lifestyle in my location, and family obligations prevent me from relocating, so here we are.

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?

No, because you do not need to be a licensed driver to vote. You merely need to be a citizen.
Citizenship is not derived from your abililty to operate a motor vehicle.

--Patrick
*Forgot to include the transfer price.

Oct 11, 2013#115

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
If those licenses (or non-driving state alternatives) could be provided for free and not require physically going to the DMV after the very first one (and sensible alternatives to lost/stolen IDs are available), I would agree with this.

PatrThom said:
No, because you do not need to be a licensed driver to vote. You merely need to be a citizen.
Citizenship is not derived from your abililty to operate a motor vehicle.

--Patrick

But if having to drive is already a "stark reality," as Dave puts it, in this country, anyone who is showing up to vote should by that very necessity already have a driver's license on them, suitable for proving their identity. So the cost of a driver's license isn't an issue because we apparently don't have the option of not driving a car - and to do so unlicensed is a crime.

Oct 11, 2013#116

strawman

No, no, no. You're going about this all wrong gas.

What they're saying is that driving is necessary, and a natural human right.

The government should be forcing cars and drivers licenses on anyone unable to pay for one themselves, otherwise they are undoubtedly going to live a life of poverty, and die in the gutters with their children.

It is unthinkable that a human being, in their time of greatest need, might be turned away from the car dealership.

But comprehensive transportation reform isn't going to happen for decades, so we should probably just force car dealerships to give cars to anyone who asks for one in the absences of a method of payment.

Eventually, though we should have bread in every breadbox, band aids in every cabinet, and a car in every garage.

Oct 11, 2013#117

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?

Showing some form of official ID is already a requirement in Virginia. This doesn't really affect me one way or the other, as I've had some form of government ID since I was 16. But much like ACA, I'm not the demographic that will be most affected by this legislation. I can understand problems with disenfranchisement by requiring an ID. Virginia's list of requirements seems fairly expansive--they'll even take a utility bill. But one wonders, then, how do the homeless vote if they've lost everything (including their id)?

Granted, it's a small number of folks that may not be able to meet the ID requirements, and yet they have the right to vote nonetheless. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the number of illegal aliens voting (ie voter fraud) is also a small number of folks. I haven't seen any reputable information otherwise (though I certainly would be happy to see some hard numbers).

So, that leaves me with the question: do we disenfranchise the small handful of voters that have a legitimate right to vote in order to keep out the small handful of voters that don't? I don't think either group really wields enough power to swing an election, but I find the thought of disenfranchising the powerless fairly repugnant. A right is a right. As a nation, we often go to great lengths to avoid trampling on other sacrosanct ideas, such as the right to free speech. It makes me sad that we're so quick to chuck other hard-won rights in he gutter for the sake of political expediency.

Oct 11, 2013#118

Charlie Don't Surf

oh my fucking god steinman and gasbandit you are so staggeringly wrong on this issue

Oct 11, 2013#119

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
Showing some form of official ID is already a requirement in Virginia. This doesn't really affect me one way or the other, as I've had some form of government ID since I was 16. But much like ACA, I'm not the demographic that will be most affected by this legislation. I can understand problems with disenfranchisement by requiring an ID. Virginia's list of requirements seems fairly expansive--they'll even take a utility bill. But one wonders, then, how do the homeless vote if they've lost everything (including their id)?

Granted, it's a small number of folks that may not be able to meet the ID requirements, and yet they have the right to vote nonetheless. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the number of illegal aliens voting (ie voter fraud) is also a small number of folks. I haven't seen any reputable information otherwise (though I certainly would be happy to see some hard numbers).

So, that leaves me with the question: do we disenfranchise the small handful of voters that have a legitimate right to vote in order to keep out the small handful of voters that don't? I don't think either group really wields enough power to swing an election, but I find the thought of disenfranchising the powerless fairly repugnant. A right is a right. As a nation, we often go to great lengths to avoid trampling on other sacrosanct ideas, such as the right to free speech. It makes me sad that we're so quick to chuck other hard-won rights in he gutter for the sake of political expediency.

My argument is less about the actual merits of requiring ID to vote than to point out the inconsistency of asserting universal driver's license ownership is already a fact when it comes to comparing car insurance to health insurance, when the same people have been disclaiming it for the purposes of of debating Voter ID laws in previous debates.[DOUBLEPOST=1381518476,1381518438][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
oh my fucking god steinman and gasbandit you are so staggeringly wrong on this issue

Thanks for the affirmation, CDS. My wavering resolve is strengthened knowing you disagree.

Oct 11, 2013#120

SpecialKO

I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.

I'm also a little boggled that you guys think that employment is the same thing as citizenship.

Then again, I guess that explains why you're in favor of poll taxes.

Oct 11, 2013#121

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.

I'm also a little boggled that you guys think that employment is the same thing as citizenship.

Then again, I guess that explains why you're in favor of poll taxes.

It's my old buddies mischaracterization, ad hominem, and hyperbole. Thanks for coming to the party, guys!

My actual point was, if you consider requiring ID (driver's license) to be a poll tax, then you can't put health insurance in the same category as auto insurance for rhetorical purposes.

Oct 11, 2013#122

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
My actual point was, if you consider requiring ID (driver's license) to be a poll tax, then you can't put health insurance in the same category as auto insurance for rhetorical purposes.

Except you don't need either car or health insurance to vote.... :confused:

Oct 11, 2013#123

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Except you don't need either car or health insurance to vote....

But apparently you need a car to get health insurance?

Oct 11, 2013#124

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
But apparently you need a car to get health insurance?

No, just access to one in order to work in the vast majority of jobs in the United States.

Oct 11, 2013#125

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
No, just access to one in order to work in the vast majority of jobs in the United States.

... which won't provide health care or citizenship.

I'm having fun with the new "nonsense contest" theme for this thread, btw.

Oct 11, 2013#126

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
... which won't provide health care or citizenship.

I don't know what you're talking about. My car gave me citizenship.

I'm having fun with the new "nonsense contest" theme for this thread, btw.

It is by far the most productive use of this thread, honestly.

Oct 11, 2013#127

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
I don't know what you're talking about. My car gave me citizenship.

Lucky. Only thing my car ever got me was laid. I had to arrange tax preparation for a homeless Pole to be able to register to vote.

Oct 11, 2013#128

Krisken

I have no idea what happened here.

Oct 11, 2013#129

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I have no idea what happened here.

DON'T YOU WISH YOUR BOYFRIEND WAS SWASS LIKE ME?

Oct 11, 2013#130

Reverent-one

SpecialKO said:
I never would have guessed that GB and Stienman would be in favor of poll taxes, honestly.

I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What? :confused:

Oct 11, 2013#131

GasBandit

Reverent-one said:
I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What?

It's simple, if you mock the self-contradictory nature of Progressivism, you're a horrible person who obviously french kisses Hitler's brain behind closed doors and pines for the good old days when brown people were property.

Oct 11, 2013#132

SpecialKO

Reverent-one said:
I can see why you'd think Gas was arguing for that rather than using it in comparison to the car insurance/health insurance argument, but Stienman? He makes a satirical post about handling car insurance like he feels the ACA handles health insurance, without even mentioning anything about voting or voter ID laws, and you claim he's for poll taxes? What?

GB and Stienman are the only ones allowed to be snarky and assholish in this thread? My deepest apologies!

Oct 11, 2013#133

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
GB and Stienman are the only ones allowed to be snarky and assholish in this thread? My deepest apologies!

You have to get one of these, for government sanctioned snark. I know, such privilege for the elites.

Oct 11, 2013#134

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
You have to get one of these, for government sanctioned snark. I know, such privilege for the elites.

View attachment 12364

Touché, my friend.

Oct 11, 2013#135

Reverent-one

SpecialKO said:
GB and Stienman are the only ones allowed to be snarky and assholish in this thread? My deepest apologies!

Eh, a random non-sequitur about someone doesn't make good snark IMO.

Oct 11, 2013#136

SpecialKO

Goddammit, @Dave, without Halbucks I can't pay for my sarcasm license! What will I do?![DOUBLEPOST=1381535521,1381535397][/DOUBLEPOST]

Reverent-one said:
Eh, a random non-sequitur about someone doesn't make good snark IMO.

Noted. I feel bad now.

Oct 11, 2013#137

strawman

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I never argued for poll taxes, but the way this thread keeps spinning around the same arguments over and over again I no longer expect anyone to read carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1381535612,1381535580][/DOUBLEPOST]Snark is its own reward.

Oct 11, 2013#138

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Snark is its own reward.

I no longer feel bad.

Oct 11, 2013#139

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
So you guys also agree that it's completely reasonable for anyone who wants to vote to be required to show a valid driver's license?

The DMV does not consider a current drivers license to be a sufficiently valid form of ID. Why should I?

Oct 11, 2013#140

Krisken

stienman said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I never argued for poll taxes, but the way this thread keeps spinning around the same arguments over and over again I no longer expect anyone to read carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1381535612,1381535580][/DOUBLEPOST]Snark is its own reward.

That's certainly why I bowed out long ago.

Oct 11, 2013#141

PatrThom

stienman said:
No, no, no. You're going about this all wrong gas.
What they're saying is that driving is necessary

True. They are saying this.

stienman said:
and a natural human right.

False. They are not saying this.

At least in my case (and I presume @Dave's as well), what I am saying is that owning a vehicle has become like having a phone number, an address, a degree/certification, a computer with Internet access, or even a specific type of wardrobe. They have become private sector unfunded mandates which are required to participate in current society. Specifically, they are required to seek and keep gainful* employment. Some may argue that this is a transportation issue, but an equal argument could be made that this is really a jobs issue. After all, if I had the opportunity to earn a decent wage from my home, I wouldn't need to drive so much, right? Does a person get fat due to lack of exercise or is it due to overeating? They both contribute, but which is the root cause? With a large enough sample size, some general assumptions can be made that guide the treatment of society as a whole, but things are much different at the individual level. Poverty may be the cancer which is eating away at society, but we don't need the wholesale necrosis of chemotherapy, we need to revert them back into healthy cells, and the ones that refuse to repair can go ahead and succumb to apoptosis.

--Patrick
*Defined as any earnings sufficient to pay for the house/clothes/car/utilities but still have enough left over to buy food.

Oct 11, 2013#142

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Poverty may be the cancer which is eating away at society, but we don't need the wholesale necrosis of chemotherapy, we need to revert them back into healthy cells, and the ones that refuse to repair can go ahead and succumb to apoptosis.

You're saying people who can't get not poor should kill themselves (for those without a biology background, or willing to read wiki, that's what it means).

WTF???

Oct 11, 2013#143

PatrThom

Eriol said:
You're saying people who can't get not poor should kill themselves (for those without a biology background, or willing to read wiki, that's what it means).

Quite the opposite, actually. I said that they should get (actual, not token) support to become unpoor, but that those who refuse said support should be allowed to fail.

In reality, they probably won't die, they'll just lose their home/car/clothes/telephone/autonomy and have to move back in with family. "Reabsorbed by other cells," as it were.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2013#144

GasBandit

Now, someone just like this is in charge of your health care.

Oct 12, 2013#145

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Now, someone just like this is in charge of your health care.

actually i bet that guy is trying to get obamacare unfunded

Oct 12, 2013#146

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
actually i bet that guy is trying to get obamacare unfunded

I didn't say him, I said someone like him. That guy was put in charge of energy. The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.

Oct 12, 2013#147

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
I didn't say him, I said someone like him. That guy was put in charge of energy. The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.

I do think all Congressional representatives should be at minimum required to re-pass the SAT IIs for math, history, and all the sciences every new term.

Oct 12, 2013#148

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
I do think all Congressional representatives should be at minimum required to re-pass the SAT IIs for math, history, and all the sciences every new term.

you think the anti-intellectual vein of this country would ever let ANYTHING close to that happen? you're keeping out joe america!!!!

Oct 12, 2013#149

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
The guy they put in charge of health care will probably recommend manditory probiotics added to all prescriptions and champions homeopathy.

Don't give them any ideas.

SpecialKO said:
I do think all Congressional representatives should be at minimum required to re-pass the SAT IIs for math, history, and all the sciences every new term.

Testing to renew their drive-the-country license? I'm actually OK with that. Teachers have to stay current in their fields, why shouldn't representatives?

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2013#150

Charlie Don't Surf

Thinking a little about it - I don't really think I'm on board with the congressman tests. Those could be abused, and honestly book smarts aren't super necessary to be a regular congressman.

Being on any sort of specialized committee, however.....I'm reminded of that guy on the science committee that thinks climate change isn't real.

Oct 12, 2013#151

PatrThom

Right. There's still the question about who gets to make the tests, but anything that reveals the onset of dementia sounds like it could be useful.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2013#152

DarkAudit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Thinking a little about it - I don't really think I'm on board with the congressman tests. Those could be abused, and honestly book smarts aren't super necessary to be a regular congressman.

Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.

Oct 12, 2013#153

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

I once posted something similar regarding what change I'd like to see in election rules.
I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something like, "The pool of eligible candidates shall be composed only of those people not seeking office."

My rationale being that if you're great, everyone else will already know you're great, and we won't need you to tell us how great you are.

--Patrick

Oct 12, 2013#154

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Being on any sort of specialized committee, however.....I'm reminded of that guy on the science committee that thinks climate change isn't real.

The minister of science in Canada isn't convinced that evolution is a thing let alone climate change.

Oct 12, 2013#155

Hailey Knight

Frank said:
The minister of science in Canada isn't convinced that evolution is a thing let alone climate change.

America--it's not just the United States.

Oct 12, 2013#156

Bowielee

DarkAudit said:
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.

I would totally be on board with this.

Oct 13, 2013#157

Hailey Knight

DarkAudit said:
Test 1: You want to be in Congress? Answering yes is FAIL. Membership in Congress should become like jury duty.

One term only, no pay, no campaigning. Your personal holdings are the first to go towards any project. If, after the end of your term, a profit is made, you get your share. If the economy tanks, what you owe is surgically removed before you are permitted to leave the District.

I think we'd end up with even more of a do-nothing Congress than we already have. Or worse, if there's never an income, that's an easier in for corporate bribery.

But I do agree that it should be a service to the country, not a way to ascend the ranks. Just not sure how to effect that. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.

Oct 13, 2013#158

Bowielee

Quotemander Prime said:
I think we'd end up with even more of a do-nothing Congress than we already have. Or worse, if there's never an income, that's an easier in for corporate bribery.

But I do agree that it should be a service to the country, not a way to ascend the ranks. Just not sure how to effect that. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.

Make corporate bribery illegal.... y'know, like it already should be but isn't really.

Oct 13, 2013#159

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Make corporate bribery illegal.... y'know, like it already should be but isn't really.

But then it comes down to what's a gift, what's putting money towards something, etc. It would cost more tax dollars going through the court proceedings than just paying the elected official.

Then again, I have to keep in mind the distinction in the analogy. Anyone can be on jury duty; odds are only rich people will ever be in Congress, so it's not like they need those perks if they really want to influence things. The real problem is a lack of integrity. I don't know if there ever was such a thing in Congress though; certainly not during my lifetime.

Oct 13, 2013#160

jwhouk

"Integrity" and "Congress" are not usually used in a sentence together, except to comment that they aren't used in a sentence together.

Oct 13, 2013#161

Cajungal

jwhouk said:
"Integrity" and "Congress" are not usually used in a sentence together, except to comment that they aren't used in a sentence together.

Like "Donald Trump" and "subtlety."

Oct 14, 2013#162

strawman

I still can't sign in. There's an interesting article on Forbes today about it the crashing, suggesting that they designed the site to force people to enter personal information before giving them quotes in order to downplay how their insurance is likely to go up if they aren't subsidized.

"On average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under obamacare, will be 99% more expensive for men and 62% more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system."

The obvious counter argument is that the poor shouldn't be able to see the high costs and become discouraged and not even apply, so not providing cost information until the user has entered enough information benefits the poor.

Still, they should be able to provide quotes, even subsidized quotes, without forcing everyone through a door that can't support the huge load being placed on the servers.

Oct 14, 2013#163

papachronos

I was able to get quotes, including an assumed subsidy, from ehealthinsurance.com. I did have to put in financial information, but I did not have to enter any personally identifiable information or create an account. I found it to be more expensive than what my employer offers for less coverage, so I stopped at the price list and didn't go any further. It probably would have been more expensive, had I gone through the whole process, due to my wife's epilepsy.

I live in Ohio, so if you live somewhere else, YMMV.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Oct 14, 2013#164

GasBandit

papachronos said:
I was able to get quotes, including an assumed subsidy, from ehealthinsurance.com. I did have to put in financial information, but I did not have to enter any personally identifiable information or create an account. I found it to be more expensive than what my employer offers for less coverage, so I stopped at the price list and didn't go any further. It probably would have been more expensive, had I gone through the whole process, due to my wife's epilepsy.

I live in Ohio, so if you live somewhere else, YMMV.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I don't think that's the right website. I think you're supposed to use healthcare.gov ... I think ehealthinsurance.com is a private enterprise.

Oct 14, 2013#165

papachronos

GasBandit said:
I don't think that's the right website. I think you're supposed to use healthcare.gov ... I think ehealthinsurance.com is a private enterprise.

It is a private enterprise, but it can access the exchanges for pricing purposes, and can act as the purchasing agent if you want (at least, as I understand it). They are upfront about the fact that the numbers you get are just estimates, and may vary. I thought it was helpful, if only from an illustrative point of view.

Oct 29, 2013#166

Covar

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-healthcare-gov/

Not far off from what I thought.

Oct 29, 2013#167

GasBandit

Whuh oh, NBC's off the reservation, and broke out the ScandalFace (tm).

Oct 29, 2013#168

Covar

The rumor going around work is that our High-deductible plan with an HSA is going away because it doesn't meet the requirements (heaven forbid someone save and pay for their coverage themselves). I'll see in a couple of weeks when enrollment comes around.

Oct 29, 2013#169

Krisken

I love rumor news.

Oct 29, 2013#170

GasBandit

Covar said:
The rumor going around work is that our High-deductible plan with an HSA is going away because it doesn't meet the requirements (heaven forbid someone save and pay for their coverage themselves). I'll see in a couple of weeks when enrollment comes around.

We just had ours. Our health insurance options got reduced to 2 choices - $4000 deductible HSA plan, or $3000 deductible regular plan with $30 copay and 20% coinsurance. Both of these options are about $10/mo more expensive in premiums than previously for individuals (and even more for families), and the deductible for the non-HSA option doubled from last year.

Oct 29, 2013#171

strawman

But gas! You're getting more for your money!

You may not have wanted the few things extra you get, and some don't even apply to you, but this is for you own good, you know.

Oct 29, 2013#172

GasBandit

stienman said:
But gas! You're getting more for your money!

You may not have wanted the few things extra you get, and some don't even apply to you, but this is for you own good, you know.

Last I heard my premiums were supposed to go down by as much as $2500 a year. But I guess not! Has that happened for anyone?

Oct 29, 2013#173

Covar

I will never see my premiums go down. On the bright side, my premium is $0. Hurrah for being single :foreveralone:

Oct 29, 2013#174

strawman

GasBandit said:
Last I heard my premiums were supposed to go down by as much as $2500 a year. But I guess not! Has that happened for anyone?

Sorry, that's only for the bottom 5%. The top 95% will see their costs go up.

Oct 29, 2013#175

Krisken

Those jerk poor people. They should just stop being poor already.

Oct 29, 2013#176

Covar

I am the 95%! #occupysoupkitchen

Oct 29, 2013#177

Krisken

Van Jones said:
"Insurance is what you buy when you don't know if something bad is going to happen. Maybe I'll crash my car. Maybe I won't. I don't know. So I'm going to get car insurance just in case. Everybody's going to get sick and die, so you know every single person's going to need health insurance. That's not something you can provide insurance for, that's called a service."

Edit: Stienman, what exactly do you disagree with? Everyone doesn't get sick?

Oct 29, 2013#178

GasBandit

I wish somebody told me about this insurance/service I can get that means I won't ever die. And don't tell me it involves a goat, I tried that one already.

Oct 29, 2013#179

strawman

Insurance is something you buy if you don't know if - or when - something might happen, and the cost is expected to be larger than your budget would allow for a single event.

Your house burning down. Your car crashing. Your arm being broken. They will probably happen to you, statistically speaking. And they cost enough that you won't simply be able to pay for them at one go. In fact some of them could bankrupt you.

Regular check ups are service, not insurance. Birth control products are service, not insurance. The medical community and insurance companies have latched onto these services primarily to generate revenue, because insurance doesn't pay as well as services.

But don't start to pretend that services insurance companies provide are actually insurance things, and that someone else should be paying for services I use.

Oct 29, 2013#180

mikerc

GasBandit said:
I wish somebody told me about this insurance/service I can get that means I won't ever die. And don't tell me it involves a goat, I tried that one already.

What type of goat did you use? It only works if you use a Pashmina goat between 7-10 years of age.

Oct 29, 2013#181

Krisken

Ok, it's my turn to disagree. As anyone can see, one of those things is not like the others, and WILL HAPPEN. The others, a house fire, a car crash, are not guaranteed events. Getting sick and dying? That's pretty much a given.

If anything, it shows why we're all having so much trouble discussing this topic if we can't even agree on whether there is a fundamental difference on these types of 'insurance'.

As for this bit here-

But don't start to pretend that services insurance companies provide are actually insurance things, and that someone else should be paying for services I use.

I have no idea what this means.

Oct 29, 2013#182

strawman

If I choose to use birth control, then someone has to pay a fixed cost for the entire priced of time I choose to use it.

If I get into an accident and break my arm, then someone has to pay for the cost.

One is by choice, isn't expensive, and is a service.

One is not by choice, is expensive, and is an emergency I can't necessarily include in my daily, monthly, or yearly budget.

Insurance for unexpected items makes sense. Insurance for services does not. Bundling insurance and services may make sense for some people and not for others.

Forcing everyone to buy the bundled services and insurance doesn't make sense, particularly for those that don't want the services, just the insurance for emergencies.

Oct 29, 2013#183

Krisken

Ok, so why not separate service from insurance? X is a service. Y is insurance. It appears you are doing a fine job of explaining my point, really. Insurance for healthcare is a bad system. I still don't see why you disagreed.

Oct 29, 2013#184

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Ok, so why not separate service from insurance? X is a service. Y is insurance. It appears you are doing a fine job of explaining my point, really. Insurance for healthcare is a bad system. I still don't see why you disagreed.

I'm still on his ignore list, but it's plainly obvious what the point is - you need insurance in case of cancer, car crashes and other hugely expensive life-threatening occurrences. These are not "guarantees" despite the universality of eventual mortality.

Oct 29, 2013#185

strawman

Krisken said:
Ok, so why not separate service from insurance? X is a service. Y is insurance. It appears you are doing a fine job of explaining my point, really. Insurance for healthcare is a bad system. I still don't see why you disagreed.

Insurance for urgent and emergency medical care is good.

Insurance for health maintenance and routine medical care is bad.

If you can't see the difference between a yearly physical and cancer, I cannot help you understand why I'm differentiating between the two.

Oct 29, 2013#186

Krisken

I like how you're being combative while we are agreeing. It's like participating in Crossfire.

Oct 29, 2013#187

GasBandit

Oct 29, 2013#188

strawman

I disagree with the premise that emergency care is a service, which, according to the person you quoted, it is:

"Everybody's going to get sick and die, so you know every single person's going to need health insurance. That's not something you can provide insurance for, that's called a service."

I differentiate between health services, and health insurance. He does not. He is stating that all healthcare, emergent or not, is a service.

I believe it's useful, for me anyway, to differentiate the two, and pay for them separately.

I want insurance against the chance that I might require emergency health care.

I want to pay for health maintenance costs as part of my normal budget on an as-required basis. I'm not interested in paying more for health services I do not and will not use.

But emergency care is insured because while everyone does indeed die, and most people get sick, not everyone gets cancer or Parkinson's disease. Most people have minor emergency care concerns during the majority of their life. They don't have multimillion dollar charges due to very bad diseases.

I carry insurance and use it as insurance on the off chance that I require more than a simple surgery or cast.

That is insurance.

Not everyone needs it throughout their whole life. In fact the chances of a college age adult getting cancer, Parkinson's, and a number of other million dollar diseases are very, very low. So low that for most it's worth saving their money and buying healthcare as needed. They don't need insurance against bankruptcy type healthcare costs.

So there are a few issues with the statement you quoted which I disagree with.

I can understand that you might not see the difference, and might still believe that we are arguing for the same thing. That probably has more to do with your liberal definition of insurance or service than it has to do with whether we actually agree or not on the issue itself.

Oct 29, 2013#189

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
I wish somebody told me about this insurance/service I can get that means I won't ever die. And don't tell me it involves a goat, I tried that one already.

You haven't died have you?

Oct 29, 2013#190

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
You haven't died have you?

Not yet, but as I understand it, life is a disqualifying pre-existing condition for it.

Oct 29, 2013#191

Krisken

I had a long post, but I guess I don't see the point. Health insurance doesn't work if everyone, healthy and sick, need to be participating to make it viable. That sounds like a service to me, and one everyone should have access to. I don't agree it should be tied to employment.

And if you try to tell me it was working fine the way it was set up, there's just not a whole lot left to say, really. We obviously live on different planets.[DOUBLEPOST=1383082549,1383082517][/DOUBLEPOST]

blotsfan said:
You haven't died have you?

Not yet but I don't doubt its inevitability.

Oct 29, 2013#192

GasBandit

Krisken said:
And if you try to tell me it was working fine the way it was set up, there's just not a whole lot left to say, really. We obviously live on different planets.

Nobody makes that argument. It's such a straw man and it's absolutely trite how often it gets rolled out. Such a false dichotomy. It wasn't either Obamacare or leave things as they were forever. Those were not the only two choices, and it's become even more obvious with every passing week how much worse Obamacare is than doing nothing was in any case, bad as that may have been.

Oct 29, 2013#193

Krisken

stienman said:
So there's our basic disagreement. Not everyone, healthy and sick, need to be participating to make it viable. Just enough people that the actuaries can work out the statistical probabilities and make it work for those that choose to invest in it.

Health insurance works fine.

It just doesn't work for those that don't participate.

Health insurance, thus, is not a comprehensive healthcare policy for a nation. It might be a component of one, but it doesn't have to be, and mixing the two up and saying that "health insurance is broken" when one really means that "our nations healthcare policy doesn't adequately cover everyone" is just confusing.

Healthcare in the US is broken. It was broken. It continues to be broken. Is obamacare the fix? Some say yes, some say no, others say it's a step in the right direction.

But the basic flaw in your train of thought is one that you've been trained to believe by the socialist elements in our government - that insurance should be a service, that everyone should be forced into it, that free will and choice should be removed from the American public on this matter, and that the federal government knows best how to take care of citizens.

I disagree, but seeing as how you've bought into it hook line and sinker, there's little more to argue about.

Yes, if you can't stop being intentionally insulting, I guess you're right and there isn't much else to say.

Oct 29, 2013#194

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yes, if you can't stop being intentionally insulting, I guess you're right and there isn't much else to say.

Oct 29, 2013#195

strawman

Well I'm pretty frustrated with something completely unrelated and I'm taking it out on you, sorry, my bad.

Oct 29, 2013#196

strawman

Apparently there are supporters of the law that are asking why they can't keep their old plan, and why the new plans more than double their costs.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...-intv-obamacare-insurance-costs-rise.cnn.html

Oct 29, 2013#197

Bubble181

stienman said:
Well I'm pretty frustrated with something completely unrelated and I'm taking it out on you, sorry, my bad.

While I'm sad that something's upset you (well, depending on what it is. I'm not really especially sorry for you if you're annoyed because of a broken nail but I assume that wouldn't get you rattled enough

), I'm glad to see someone who's capable of realising and admitting this. It's far too rare, and I'm completely unable to, myself. Hope it's nothing too serious.

Anyway...Let's assume health care for cancer is insurance and a yearly check-up is a service. So is car insurance and car maintenance. You know what one of the obligatory points in my car insurance is? Yearly ceck-ups by qualified and registered mechanics. In a way, our (I'm not talking specifically Obamacare because I'm too much of a foreigner to know the exact details. Sue me

) health care works that way. You get covered for all kinds of emergencies (from car crashes over cancer or AIDS to going blind or whatever), but in return they expect you to do regular check-ups (the belgian system actually has a stick-and-carrot approach: as long as I go to the dentist at least once every 18 months, it costs me about €8 and health care covers the rest. If I skip for a while, I pay all of it - about €48) - a yearly physical, perhaps a mammography for women over 40, a biannual colonoscopy for men over 50, optometrist every two years or so, dentist.
Doesn't it make sense to include (part of) the payment for those check-ups in your insurance?
I'm not going to suddenly "convince" you health care is the only way, I'm aware (let alone Obamacare!

), and I'm not trying to - jsut trying to find ways to reword it to make you see why it does make sense - for everyone. No point in having cancer insurance if you don't do a mammography before it's 10 pound tumor instead of your left boob.

Oct 29, 2013#198

GasBandit

stienman said:
Apparently there are supporters of the law that are asking why they can't keep their old plan, and why the new plans more than double their costs.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...-intv-obamacare-insurance-costs-rise.cnn.html

Oct 30, 2013#199

PatrThom

stienman said:
Sorry, that's only for the bottom 5%. The top 95% will see their costs go up.

Isn't the bottom 5% of families something like 40% of the population, though?

--Patrick

Oct 30, 2013#200

strawman

Depends on the scale you choose. 5% of the financial power probably constitutes a larger portion of the US than simply 5% of the population. I was talking about population, but I understand the confusion due to the term "top 1%" muddying the waters as it refers specifically to financial power.

Oct 30, 2013#201

Covar

Bubble181 said:
Anyway...Let's assume health care for cancer is insurance and a yearly check-up is a service. So is car insurance and car maintenance. You know what one of the obligatory points in my car insurance is? Yearly ceck-ups by qualified and registered mechanics.

We have that in the states too, (well at least NC does) a yearly inspection required for operating a vehicle on the road. This is along with the requirements for registration, taxes, and insurance. However inspections are paid for out of pocket and are not tied to the insurance so I'm not sure the comparison fits (at least in this country).

Oct 30, 2013#202

D

Dubyamn

I actually agree with Stienman that "insurance" shouldn't cover stuff like medication you take every day or annual check-ups. Stuff that is regular and constant.

But unfortunately the opportunity for those to be separated has long since passed. The entire structure of our medical system has grown up around the fact that you need insurance in order to get a reasonable price on anything. I mean you can't go online and see Dr. X charges $50 for his annual check up while Dr. Y charges $70 but will do a uralysis test at that price. Nor can you go online and see that Wallgreens will charge $30 less than wal-mart for your asthsma medication but will charge $20 more for your anti-depressants. That's because the doctors, drug companies and the insurance companies have worked out how much all those services cost for each of the insurance companies. So while insurance might be a horrible inefficient way to deliver health care it really is the only way to do it without a complete redo of the entire medical system.

Oct 30, 2013#203

Tress

I overheard a student talking about this today:

"Obamacare was terrible, and it was going to ruin the country. I'm glad they got rid of it and replaced it with The Affordable Care Act."

There's all your branding hard at work, Republicans. Good job.

Oct 31, 2013#204

Covar

HealthCare.gov deferred final security check, could leak personal data | Ars Technica

Yup.

Oct 31, 2013#205

Krisken

Now we're finally getting to the parts of the ACA which I have problems with.

Oct 31, 2013#206

PatrThom

--Patrick

Nov 1, 2013#207

Covar

http://arstechnica.com/information-...-insurance-through-healthcare-gov-on-day-one/

There were over 4.7 million unique visitors during the first 24 hours of operations. Things were slightly better on day two: 248 people managed to register.

That's some really embarrassing numbers.

Nov 1, 2013#208

GasBandit

We need to upgrade to the Centurion package.

Nov 2, 2013#209

Bowielee

stienman said:
If I choose to use birth control, then someone has to pay a fixed cost for the entire priced of time I choose to use it.

Well, we know there's no danger of that happenning

Nov 2, 2013#210

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Well, we know there's no danger of that happenning

Stienman brand birth control: "Already Pregnant"

Nov 3, 2013#211

Krisken

Drop some knowledge on this thread.

Nov 3, 2013#212

Bowielee

Krisken said:
Drop some knowledge on this thread.

I'm just gonna duck and cover from the oncoming shitstorm.

Nov 3, 2013#213

Krisken

Bowielee said:
I'm just gonna duck and cover from the oncoming shitstorm.

You mean the people who have had half a dozen kids and think everyone else is driving up their insurance costs?

Nov 3, 2013#214

Bowielee

OK, now I'm upgrading that to MEGA shitstorm.

Nov 3, 2013#215

Krisken

I've been without internet all weekend. I love when people get mad about facts. Of course, facts may vary depending on whether you buy the crap either party is spewing at us.

Nov 3, 2013#216

Bowielee

So, how about those proposed concealed carry laws for Wisconsin schools?

/distract

Nov 3, 2013#217

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
So, how about those proposed concealed carry laws for Wisconsin schools?

I prefer cupcakes, myself.

--Patrick

Nov 3, 2013#218

Krisken

Bowielee said:
So, how about those proposed concealed carry laws for Wisconsin schools?

/distract

Been pretty crazy here lately, I won't lie. The old art museum building across the street from our library is now the building for Delta Defense LLC. Look it up if you are curious what that's all about.

Nov 3, 2013#219

Bowielee

Krisken said:
Been pretty crazy here lately, I won't lie. The old art museum building across the street from our library is now the building for Delta Defense LLC. Look it up if you are curious what that's all about.

Actually, the proposal was already pulled anyway as of thursday.

Nov 3, 2013#220

Krisken

Good to know. Not having internet since Thursday was kinda rough.

Nov 3, 2013#221

GasBandit

That was a good primer for how to shop for insurance that people should be shown in home ec, though it talks about how expensive health care is while not mentioning at all how the whole insurance paradigm keeps the prices high. Remember that article I linked about the guy who got surgery with no insurance for $20,000 less than he would have had to pay WITH insurance?

Nov 5, 2013#222

GasBandit

So it turns out 3 guys fixed healthcare.gov in their garage.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/11/three-guys-built-better-healthcaregov/71195/

Wonder where all those millions of government dollars are REALLY going?

Nov 5, 2013#223

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
So it turns out 3 guys fixed healthcare.gov in their garage.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/11/three-guys-built-better-healthcaregov/71195/

Wonder where all those millions of government dollars are REALLY going?

Since https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/ already did almost all of that (including phone numbers is all that's missing), and it worked flawlessly when I tried it out two days after launch, I'm guessing the millions are going towards building the actual network infrastructure to share account information and calculate individual subsidies according to both federal and state laws. Still a giant mess, but this particular story is mostly a non-story.

Nov 13, 2013#224

Covar

Not to surprised this is being glossed over here.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...zes-for-americans-losing-health-coverage?lite

Love the apology and the moving of the goal posts at the same time.

Nov 13, 2013#225

Krisken

Disappointing. If only there was a system in place where people didn't have to rely on the industry to provide healthcare coverage.

Nov 13, 2013#226

Covar

We should put the people actively making it worse in complete control!

Nov 13, 2013#227

Krisken

Covar said:
We should put the people actively making it worse in complete control!

I don't buy the "Government bad" argument. You get what you elect, and I hate to say it, but we're all responsible for what has occurred.

Nov 13, 2013#228

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I don't buy the "Government bad" argument. You get what you elect, and I hate to say it, but we're all responsible for what has occurred.

Mostly the ones who championed/voted for this abomination, I'd say.

Nov 13, 2013#229

Covar

Krisken said:
I don't buy the "Government bad" argument. You get what you elect, and I hate to say it, but we're all responsible for what has occurred.

my issue with all the "this is proof healthcare was broken and why we should go with a single payer system" is that the very same people were the ones championing the ACA. The argument is pretty much the second half of a protection racket.

Nov 13, 2013#230

Dave

All of these same arguments were made against Social Security. Try and take that away now from the very people who had railed against it and see how much they fight back.

Nov 13, 2013#231

Krisken

Funny, I thought they were championing single payer, not the ACA. Look back and you'll find just about everyone who supported the ACA doing so reluctantly because the current system is failing millions of people, either through dropping people when they get sick or bankruptcy's number one cause being medical bills.

Nov 13, 2013#232

Covar

Dave said:
All of these same arguments were made against Social Security. Try and take that away now from the very people who had railed against it and see how much they fight back.

It's almost like they had to make a payment into the system with every single paycheck earned throughout their lives.

Nov 13, 2013#233

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
Funny, I thought they were championing single payer, not the ACA. Look back and you'll find just about everyone who supported the ACA doing so reluctantly because the current system is failing millions of people, either through dropping people when they get sick or bankruptcy's number one cause being medical bills.

This was my take on it too. It reformed some of the things that HAD to change (namely the preexisting condition shit), but virtually all of my liberal friends wanted and still want a single payer system. We all knew bending over backwards to accommodate big business was going to ruin it in the short term but now it's pretty much a sure thing that we will have single payer in our lifetimes. Just have to survive until then.

Nov 13, 2013#234

Covar

AshburnerX said:
This was my take on it too. It reformed some of the things that HAD to change (namely the preexisting condition shit), but virtually all of my liberal friends wanted and still want a single payer system. We all knew bending over backwards to accommodate big business was going to ruin it in the short term but now it's pretty much a sure thing that we will have single payer in our lifetimes. Just have to survive until then.

"They didn't want this to happen, but if congress had just passed a single payer system we could have avoided this and all future unpleasantness."

Nov 13, 2013#235

Eriol

Yes with single-payer you can join the illustrious club of those countries where it's ILLEGAL to pay for your own health care: Canada, Cuba, and North Korea. Sounds like an awesome result there.

Nov 13, 2013#236

AshburnerX

Eriol said:
Yes with single-payer you can join the illustrious club of those countries where it's ILLEGAL to pay for your own health care: Canada, Cuba, and North Korea. Sounds like an awesome result there.

Or we could, you know... maybe be like England or Japan where they have both? Shocking, I know.

Nov 13, 2013#237

SpecialKO

I'm not actually in favor of single-payer, and would prefer something more like Switzerland, universal and compulsory for basics, risk-based and optional for additional. Taxes are, of course, higher, but out-of-pocket averages much lower. Granted, the logistical differences by region in the US vary considerably more, which would make it harder to implement here.

Nov 13, 2013#238

Eriol

AshburnerX said:
Or we could, you know... maybe be like England or Japan where they have both? Shocking, I know.

That's not single-payer then. It's "the government will pay for you, unless you have the means to do so yourself" or something else. Short lines for those who pay, long for everybody else. Then that will be seen as unfair, and then there will be long lines for everybody (that's what happened in Canada). Single-payer is what Canada has. And you're right to be very very afraid of that.

Except if you're extremely powerful (we're talking national-party-leader-or-close-to-it powerful), then there's a couple of private clinics for you that don't get shut down. But very few others are ever allowed in those.

Insurance companies (all sorts, including health ones) are scheming lying bastards who want to take your money and give you nothing in return. But at least you know that going into it. Governments should be there to keep them in check, not to show how worse a job they can do when you take profit motive out.

Nov 13, 2013#239

Krisken

I'd rather wait for health care than be afraid to see a doctor for fear of being financially destroyed, making matters worse.

Profit motive should never be a factor in something like health care. It's twisted and insane to me to even consider it as a for profit entity.

Nov 13, 2013#240

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I'd rather wait for health care than be afraid to see a doctor for fear of being financially destroyed, making matters worse.

Profit motive should never be a factor in something like health care. It's twisted and insane to me to even consider it as a for profit entity.

Everything worthwhile is for profit. Without personal incentive, there's no reason to strive. Quality of care will suffer. Would you rather go into debt to get the life saving surgery, or be able to easily afford the painkiller they'll provide you to comfortably wait until your end?

Nov 13, 2013#241

Necronic

Charities and churches would suggest otherwise.[DOUBLEPOST=1384381586,1384381475][/DOUBLEPOST]

Eriol said:
Yes with single-payer you can join the illustrious club of those countries where it's ILLEGAL to pay for your own health care: Canada, Cuba, and North Korea.

I don't think this is true. Pretty sure you can have private supplemental insurance in Canada.

Nov 13, 2013#242

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Everything worthwhile is for profit. Without personal incentive, there's no reason to strive. Quality of care will suffer. Would you rather go into debt to get the life saving surgery, or be able to easily afford the painkiller they'll provide you to comfortably wait until your end?

This is completely false. There will always be an incentive in medical advances, if only because of the completely indiscriminate nature of illness and injury. A cure for HIV, Aids, and Cancer will be found not because whoever finds it first will become rich (though they will, no matter what they charge) but because virtually everyone knows and cares about someone that is suffering from these... even the rich. Life expectancy will continue to extend because people are afraid of dying. Replacement limbs will become better and better (and cheaper) because ANYONE can involved in an accident that causes them to lose a limb. Polio treatments were devised because even people like a Roosevelt could get it. There is simply too much self incentive in ensuring that medical technology is the latest and greatest for people to stop making just because they aren't making as much money off of it.

Nov 13, 2013#243

sixpackshaker

Medicine for profit is the reason you can't watch football with a kid in the room any longer.

Uncle [me]? what is a four hour erection?

Nov 13, 2013#244

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Charities and churches would suggest otherwise.

It doesn't take 8+ years of study, tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, and mandatory continuing education to run a charity. Or a church, for that matter. Though both do often seem to enrich their management quite a bit.

Nov 13, 2013#245

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
It doesn't take 8+ years of study, tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, and mandatory continuing education to run a charity. Or a church, for that matter. Though both do often seem to enrich their management quite a bit.

He's talking about Shriner's and Saint Jude's Hospitals etc.

Nov 13, 2013#246

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
This is completely false. There will always be an incentive in medical advances, if only because of the completely indiscriminate nature of illness and injury. A cure for HIV, Aids, and Cancer will be found not because whoever finds it first will become rich (though they will, no matter what they charge) but because virtually everyone knows and cares about someone that is suffering from these... even the rich. Life expectancy will continue to extend because people are afraid of dying. Replacement limbs will become better and better (and cheaper) because ANYONE can involved in an accident that causes them to lose a limb. Polio treatments were devised because even people like a Roosevelt could get it. There is simply too much self incentive in ensuring that medical technology is the latest and greatest for people to stop making just because they aren't making as much money off of it.

You need only look at the difference in quality of care between the US and the UK or Canada to see the difference. Cancer survival rates are much higher here. Canadians often lament how their best doctors go to the US where they can make better money. Yes, medicine will continue to advance, but not nearly so quickly, and existing care will not be provided with the same urgency or quality.[DOUBLEPOST=1384382923,1384382854][/DOUBLEPOST]

sixpackshaker said:
Medicine for profit is the reason you can't watch football with a kid in the room any longer.

Uncle [me]? what is a four hour erection?

Maybe the problem there is the taboo mystification we've artificially foisted upon sex, anatomy, and human biology?[DOUBLEPOST=1384383058][/DOUBLEPOST]

sixpackshaker said:
He's talking about Shriner's and Saint Jude's Hospitals etc.

The CEO of St. Jude's not hurtin'.

Nov 13, 2013#247

PatrThom

sixpackshaker said:
Uncle [me]? what is a four hour erection?

Billy, that is a condition called Priapism, which can be a serious problem if not treated.

--Patrick

Nov 13, 2013#248

Eriol

Necronic said:
I don't think this is true. Pretty sure you can have private supplemental insurance in Canada.

Only for things not covered, like getting a private room, assuming that's even available. So if you want to get something done faster you can't buy insurance for that either. Occasionally you can BUY your way to the front of a diagnostic imaging line (which means you might get to see that specialist 6 months earlier. No I'm not exaggerating about some wait times), but to get treated, not just diagnosed, no way. And btw, it's illegal to buy insurance for something like that, since it's "required" and thus even though you can buy your way to the front, you can't insurance your way to the front, ensuring only those really really well-off could afford even that.

There are other models with universal coverage which are good, even with less expense. As mentioned, UK, and many other places in Europe. But NONE of those are single-payer. Canada is. To our detriment.

Nov 13, 2013#249

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Without personal incentive, there's no reason to strive.

There are two points I wish to make on this statement:

1.) This is ONLY true if motivation is derived through some kind of reinforcement, where outcomes influence frequency of the behaviors that precede it. There are very good reasons to believe that people do not actually function in this way. Much like modern economists are coming to grips with the irrationality of consumers, behavioral psychologists are struggling to accept that people are not as robotic as B.F. Skinner preached.

2.) "Personal incentive" is not limited to financial incentive. As an example, if you pay someone to do their favorite hobby, they actually become LESS interested in doing it.

There is a lot more to both of those points that requires more than a cursory, pop psychology understanding of how people work. Needless to say, your thoughts on the subject are considerably out-dated and devoid of the necessary nuance.

Nov 13, 2013#250

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
There are two points I wish to make on this statement:

1.) This is ONLY true if motivation is derived through some kind of reinforcement, where outcomes influence frequency of the behaviors that precede it. There are very good reasons to believe that people do not actually function in this way. Much like modern economists are coming to grips with the irrationality of consumers, behavioral psychologists are struggling to accept that people are not as robotic as B.F. Skinner preached.

2.) "Personal incentive" is not limited to financial incentive. As an example, if you pay someone to do their favorite hobby, they actually become LESS interested in doing it.

There is a lot more to both of those points that requires more than a cursory, pop psychology understanding of how people work. Needless to say, your thoughts on the subject are considerably out-dated and devoid of the necessary nuance.

I'll bear my lack of nuanced understanding in mind as our health care quality continues to suffer and degrade under the tyranny of the well-meaning.

Nov 13, 2013#251

Dave

GasBandit said:
I'll bear my lack of nuanced understanding in mind as our health care quality continues to suffer and degrade under the tyranny of the well-meaning.

THERE'S the GasBandit we know and moderately tolerate!

Nov 13, 2013#252

Terrik

You know, there's a reason US doctors dont flood to the UK and Canada to practice. Listening to my brother (4th year med student) talk about the massive increases in paperwork (among other things) and how, as someone on the admissions board to medical school, numbers are dropping, I can't help but feel this is a rather inadequate solution.

Nov 13, 2013#253

Necronic

GasBandit said:
You need only look at the difference in quality of care between the US and the UK or Canada to see the difference. Cancer survival rates are much higher here.

That is the ONLY advantage here, and its not universal. Preventative care does more to expand lifespans than obscenely expensive end of life care.

Nov 13, 2013#254

GasBandit

Dave said:
THERE'S the GasBandit we know and moderately tolerate!

[DOUBLEPOST=1384389034,1384388971][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
That is the ONLY advantage here, and its not universal. Preventative care does more to expand lifespans than obscenely expensive end of life care.

Most private insurance already covers 100% of preventative care with no out-of-pocket. Why do we need to socialize again?

Nov 13, 2013#255

strawman

Dave said:
All of these same arguments were made against Social Security. Try and take that away now from the very people who had railed against it and see how much they fight back.

Which is another huge problem with ACA. We are adopting a terrible system no one like, but we won't be able to get rid of it once benefits start kicking in.

Considering the very low enrollment rate of the healthy young, it appears it's going to cost a lot more than anyone guessed. Further it's the middle class that appears to be bearing the brunt, but most won't see it since it's being tacked onto employer insurance plans. The funny thing is that even if you are eligible for a subsidy, if you get insurance through your employer they won't get the subsidy. You won't get the subsidy. So we are going to be creating an inequality in government supplied benefits based on who is paying for health insurance.

Of course the responsible thing for most service related businesses to do is cut all their worker hours to below the minimum required to supply healthcare, cut those benefits, and give them a small raise to cover the government health insurance after the subsidy.

It will be significantly cheaper to hire two employees and provide just enough of a pay bump to cover subsidized insurance than to hire one and pay for unsubsidized health insurance directly.

As a bonus, employment figures go up, which makes the administration look good, even though the reality is that these policies are simply creating a class of underemployed workers, reducing the total economic output of the US, and keeping far more people in poverty.

This forced stratification isn't going to end well.

Nov 13, 2013#256

PatrThom

stienman said:
the responsible thing for most service related businesses to do is cut all their worker hours to below the minimum required to supply healthcare, cut those benefits, and give them a small raise to cover the government health insurance after the subsidy.

Not that the trend in retail hasn't already been one of "make everyone part-time that way you don't have to spend on benefits," but codifying it just seems...well, cheap*.

--Patrick
*as in "cheap shot"

Nov 13, 2013#257

strawman

The market will often find the apparent cheapest way to pay for something.

Nov 13, 2013#258

PatrThom

"The market" also unfortunately tends to prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability (because that will be "someone else's problem").

--Patrick

Nov 13, 2013#259

strawman

Generally yes, though it's often the correct choice anyway. Long term strategy is risky as well, particularly in markets that are changing rapidly. Just about anything attached to the internet can't be expected to live for more than a few years, and due to the internet and continued, and accelerating, globalization, most industries are impacted.

Nov 13, 2013#260

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I'll bear my lack of nuanced understanding in mind as our health care quality continues to suffer and degrade under the tyranny of the well-meaning.

Even if the quality of health care does suffer, it won't be due to lack of profit incentive, per your erroneous beliefs of human psychology.

Nov 13, 2013#261

Reverent-one

MindDetective said:
Even if the quality of health care does suffer, it won't be due to lack of profit incentive, per your erroneous beliefs of human psychology.

So you feel confident in saying profit incentive has absolutely zero impact in the quality of health care?

EDIT: Or am I reading your statement too broadly, and you just mean that whatever impact the ACA has on profit incentive isn't enough to reduce the quality of health care by itself? The first option seems too extreme, and the second, while more plausible, I would think would be difficult to demonstrate.

Nov 13, 2013#262

MindDetective

Reverent-one said:
So you feel confident in saying profit incentive has absolutely zero impact in the quality of health care?

EDIT: Or am I reading your statement too broadly, and you just mean that whatever impact the ACA has on profit incentive isn't enough to reduce the quality of health care by itself? The first option seems too extreme, and the second, while more plausible, I would think would be difficult to demonstrate.

Actually, I contend that reducing financial incentives might have some negative effects but that there will likely be paradoxical positive effects. Human motivation isn't a one variable system, nor is it even dominated by external incentives. For example, offering students financial incentive to improve grades in high school appears to do very little at all to improve performance. (Sorry, no link. I'm on my phone)

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

Nov 13, 2013#263

PatrThom

stienman said:
Generally yes, though it's often the correct choice anyway. Long term strategy is risky as well, particularly in markets that are changing rapidly. Just about anything attached to the internet can't be expected to live for more than a few years, and due to the internet and continued, and accelerating, globalization, most industries are impacted.

While I can see diagnostics taking a hit (many office visits can be replaced by videochat), treatment probably won't take a big hit from the presence of the Internet except in certain fields (orthotics & 3D printing, for instance).

--Patrick

Nov 13, 2013#264

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Most private insurance already covers 100% of preventative care with no out-of-pocket. Why do we need to socialize again?

Uninsured + Cost shifting + EMTALA

I'll see if I can find the study I saw where it showed that we pay more per capita in taxes than a lot of socialized healthcare systems, cover less of our people, and even when you add in the private insurance we only lead in late stage cancer survivability.[DOUBLEPOST=1384408210,1384407833][/DOUBLEPOST]ok, this one has some good tables up front, but it wasn't the one I remember.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2011/Nov/1562_Squires_Intl_Profiles_2011_11_10.pdf[DOUBLEPOST=1384408564][/DOUBLEPOST]Another good one, look at the spending rates in table 1. You want to tell me that our system is better you have to justify both costs and results. Costs are not just mildly higher. We spend as much as most socialist healthcare systems just for the public side of our healthcare. Add in the private side and we spend almost double what most other countries spend.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf

Note table 2. We have had less impact in reducing mortality than almost every other socialized country on that list. These are countries that SPEND LESS MONEY.

So, lets break it down.

We spend more tax money on healthcare
We get worse results.

....so why is the pseudo-privatization we have now a good system?

Get past the empty rhetoric and anectdotes. Show me in numbers how our system works better. And try to show something other than cancer.

Nov 14, 2013#265

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Uninsured + Cost shifting + EMTALA

I'll see if I can find the study I saw where it showed that we pay more per capita in taxes than a lot of socialized healthcare systems, cover less of our people, and even when you add in the private insurance we only lead in late stage cancer survivability.[DOUBLEPOST=1384408210,1384407833][/DOUBLEPOST]ok, this one has some good tables up front, but it wasn't the one I remember.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2011/Nov/1562_Squires_Intl_Profiles_2011_11_10.pdf[DOUBLEPOST=1384408564][/DOUBLEPOST]Another good one, look at the spending rates in table 1. You want to tell me that our system is better you have to justify both costs and results. Costs are not just mildly higher. We spend as much as most socialist healthcare systems just for the public side of our healthcare. Add in the private side and we spend almost double what most other countries spend.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf

Note table 2. We have had less impact in reducing mortality than almost every other socialized country on that list. These are countries that SPEND LESS MONEY.

So, lets break it down.

We spend more tax money on healthcare
We get worse results.

....so why is the pseudo-privatization we have now a good system?

Get past the empty rhetoric and anectdotes. Show me in numbers how our system works better. And try to show something other than cancer.

You're presenting a premise I did not assert. The only options are not "socialize" and "leave it how it was." That's a false dichotomy. The problem you describe comes from trying to straddle the fence too much, so we rob ourselves of much of the benefits of either side. Our current system is (was, really, at this point) heavily (but inconsistently) regulated, and as you note, emphasized reactive rather than proactive measures. A campaign of education and public awareness would do well to help address that, without needing to put a choke chain on the electorate and bloat the federal government to even-now unseen levels of invasive control. Many other ideas have been spitballed - and shot down with prejudice because they didn't increase federal power over the lives of Americans. Which is what the ACA is really all about, not improving healthcare.

Our interests are best served by decentralizing as much as possible - pretty much the rest of the civilized western world boasting of their socialist wonders consists of nations that are a fraction of our size and population who have not been saddled with the responsibility of hegemonic domination for the last 3-4 generations. Furthermore, even aside from their shortcomings on cancer (which, despite your dismissive attitude is still globally kills more people than HIV, tuberculosis and malaria combined), there are other horror stories of patients dying/worsening during long waiting periods for access to medical resources - resources which will diminish in supply and increase in demand. Even our beloved president has already tried to ease the way for the inevitable transition. Leftists scoff when the term "death panels" comes up, but what else would you call it when the president says in so many words your grandma is too old for the expenditure involved in surgery to save her life, and instead calls for her to be prescribed a painkiller and put in a hospice to wait for death?

We have been lied to, misled, extorted, terrified, slandered and bamboozled into a system that the majority of Americans did not want in the first place, and now clearly doesn't even work as intended - unless of course we can drop the pretense and show that the intention all along was to destroy every last vestige of the private health care industry and present single payer as the only alternative left - that the centralized federal power knows what's best for us children, and only their strict guidance and command can save us from the flying shrapnel of the health care system they themselves destroyed.[DOUBLEPOST=1384412611][/DOUBLEPOST]

MindDetective said:
Even if the quality of health care does suffer, it won't be due to lack of profit incentive, per your erroneous beliefs of human psychology.

Humanity in general suffers from the insidious stagnation of socialization. Here, the fond wish for a gentle parent figure to tell us it's all going to be alright merely enables a tyrannical power grab by miscreants and incompetents in the guise of caretaking.[DOUBLEPOST=1384412742][/DOUBLEPOST]

MindDetective said:
Actually, I contend that reducing financial incentives might have some negative effects but that there will likely be paradoxical positive effects. Human motivation isn't a one variable system, nor is it even dominated by external incentives. For example, offering students financial incentive to improve grades in high school appears to do very little at all to improve performance.

Of course not - these are children in the richest nation in the world. Their needs are seen to whether or not they have extra spending cash. Such an experiment is flawed from the very premise it starts with. However, make it so no student whose curved average slips below a C gets fed, clothed, or sheltered, and perhaps you start to see a different dynamic.

Nov 14, 2013#266

Eriol

GasBandit said:
However, make it so no student whose curved average slips below a C gets fed, clothed, or sheltered, and perhaps you start to see a different dynamic.

It'd actually be interesting to see if there are numbers on a "less extreme" version of this. Like grounding children if their average gets below 70%. Or less extreme, but still taking away privileges. Like Smartphones (all phone privileges). TV. Internet (80%+ of your homework at the LEAST doesn't need access to it to be done). Etc. Does that give enough "motivation" to get grades up? I don't propose starving kids, but make it so that "you don't concentrate on school, you don't get to do what you want either." Given that the general technique has been in use by parents all over the place to a greater or lesser degree, is there already data on that?

Nov 14, 2013#267

Covar

So my company's health benefits enrollment period started today. Whoever wrote up the guide must have heard the rumors, because they make a point of mentioning right away that the High-Deductible PPO Plawn with HSA is still available. That's a relief.

Nov 14, 2013#268

Chad Sexington

Eriol said:
It'd actually be interesting to see if there are numbers on a "less extreme" version of this. Like grounding children if their average gets below 70%. Or less extreme, but still taking away privileges. Like Smartphones (all phone privileges). TV. Internet (80%+ of your homework at the LEAST doesn't need access to it to be done). Etc. Does that give enough "motivation" to get grades up? I don't propose starving kids, but make it so that "you don't concentrate on school, you don't get to do what you want either." Given that the general technique has been in use by parents all over the place to a greater or lesser degree, is there already data on that?

Probably not a lot of data, and it would be riddled with anecdotal evidence. It is extremely hard to be allowed to study minors. Besides, I was great at mathematics in high school, but I failed math 20 three different times. Not because I didn't know, but because I didn't care, and no incentive or disincentive changed my mind about showing up for the tests or turning in the homework (which I had often done) because I was ... I can't even explain it now. Stubborn, thought I was proving a point. "I hate school, I like math, I'll do math but not because the school says so," was my mentality. How do you incentivise a group of people who are insane ambulatory unregulated hormones who would set themselves on fire if someone said, "You will fail if you set yourself on fire."

TL;DR: Kids are nuts

Nov 14, 2013#269

GasBandit

So today, apparently Obama just declared by fiat that insurance isn't cancelled. Well, that's nice, I guess. I'm sure glad we don't have to change any pesky law or anything. Who needs a legislative process anyway.

Nov 14, 2013#270

Tress

As much as I loathe the idea of wading into the morass that is this thread, I wanted to point out something. Some of you are simultaneously claiming that the government is too incompetent to do anything (we need to be as decentralized as possible!), and that it has managed to manipulate public sentiment in a convoluted plot to destroy private health insurance industry as part of a larger scheme to insert itself further in the lives of Americans via control over medical records and decision-making.

You can have one or the other. It's either too stupid to provide basic services, or an evil plot to subvert and destroy America. Pick one.

Nov 14, 2013#271

GasBandit

Tress said:
As much as I loathe the idea of wading into the morass that is this thread, I wanted to point out something. Some of you are simultaneously claiming that the government is too incompetent to do anything (we need to be as decentralized as possible!), and that it has managed to manipulate public sentiment in a convoluted plot to destroy private health insurance industry as part of a larger scheme to insert itself further in the lives of Americans via control over medical records and decision-making.

You can have one or the other. It's either too stupid to provide basic services, or an evil plot to subvert and destroy America. Pick one.

Oh no, it's VERY competent at manipulating the insecurities of the american public. It's just incompetent (perhaps willfully so) at providing actual services of value.

Nov 14, 2013#272

Covar

Tress said:
As much as I loathe the idea of wading into the morass that is this thread, I wanted to point out something. Some of you are simultaneously claiming that the government is too incompetent to do anything (we need to be as decentralized as possible!), and that it has managed to manipulate public sentiment in a convoluted plot to destroy private health insurance industry as part of a larger scheme to insert itself further in the lives of Americans via control over medical records and decision-making.

You can have one or the other. It's either too stupid to provide basic services, or an evil plot to subvert and destroy America. Pick one.

You seem to be misunderstanding. Politicians are manipualtive, the government bureaucracy is incompetent.

Nov 14, 2013#273

Tress

Covar said:
You seem to be misunderstanding. Politicians are manipualtive, the government bureaucracy is incompetent.

Ah.

Nov 14, 2013#274

PatrThom

Covar said:
You seem to be misunderstanding. Politicians are manipualtive, the government bureaucracy is incompetent.

--Patrick

Nov 14, 2013#275

GasBandit

Nov 14, 2013#276

GasBandit

From the Reuters twitter feed:

"US Insurance Commissioner's Group says not clear how Obamacare fix for canceled policies can be put into effect"

But hey, thanks for the speech.

Nov 14, 2013#277

Necronic

GasBandit said:
You're presenting a premise I did not assert. The only options are not "socialize" and "leave it how it was." That's a false dichotomy. The problem you describe comes from trying to straddle the fence too much, so we rob ourselves of much of the benefits of either side.

Good point. This is the whole "house of cards" problem. I don't know if it makes sense to start from scratch or to try and slowly repair the current system. I don't think there is the political will to attempt the former, and I doubt there is the political coherency to ever achieve the latter.

Nov 15, 2013#278

GasBandit

House passes "Keep your plan" act, with support of 39 Democrats - President Obama has said he'll veto it.

https://twitter.com/mpoindc/status/401418257594204162

Jan 28, 2014#279

strawman

Obama is begging people to sign up in the state of the union, "parents, get your children to sign up!"

Hilarious.

Jan 28, 2014#280

PatrThom

It worked for Facebook.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2014#281

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
It worked for Facebook.

--Patrick

Facebook's backend actually works.

Jan 29, 2014#282

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Facebook's backend actually works.

Ooo, burrrrn.

--Patrick

Jan 29, 2014#283

DarkAudit

After dozens of failed attempts during the initial rush in October, I got my drivers license scan uploaded around the beginning of November. It's been in "identity verification pending" ever since. To get a fresh scan uploaded, I essentially had to start over.

So it goes.

But at least this time there weren't any glitches in getting it done this time.

Jan 29, 2014#284

Krisken

Yeah, I've been 'pending' for a long time now as well.

Feb 4, 2014#285

DarkAudit

For some reason I couldn't get pact the electronic signature filling out the application on the web site, even after trashing the application and starting from scratch. So I call the phone line instead. The nice lady helps me get the application submitted, and now I'm able to pick plans for my state. ~$28/mo for health, and ~$18/mo for dental.

I just have to get the first premium paid on Friday, and coverage starts the first of March. FINALLY.

Feb 4, 2014#286

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
For some reason I couldn't get pact the electronic signature filling out the application on the web site, even after trashing the application and starting from scratch. So I call the phone line instead. The nice lady helps me get the application submitted, and now I'm able to pick plans for my state. ~$28/mo for health, and ~$18/mo for dental.

I just have to get the first premium paid on Friday, and coverage starts the first of March. FINALLY.

What's your deductible and coins%, if you don't mind sharing that info?

Feb 4, 2014#287

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
What's your deductible and coins%, if you don't mind sharing that info?

$100 deductible and $10 primary doctor $20 specialist. 10% for x-rays and lab.

Feb 4, 2014#288

Tress

What's your out of pocket?

Feb 4, 2014#289

DarkAudit

Tress said:
What's your out of pocket?

$500 max.

Feb 4, 2014#290

Bowielee

That beats the hell out of my insurance.

Feb 4, 2014#291

Tress

Holy shit, that's a hell of a plan. Beats mine too, and I thought I had a good deal.

Feb 4, 2014#292

GasBandit

Those are really really generous terms. I've never had a health plan like that, ever. For premiums that low I expected a $10,000 deductible.

Feb 4, 2014#293

Tress

GasBandit said:
Those are really really generous terms. I've never had a health plan like that, ever. For premiums that low I expected a $10,000 deductible.

Well, that premium is just what he's paying. I'm sure that DA's portion plus the subsidized portion is much, much higher.

For example, I pay $70 per month, but the that's because the program is subsidizing around $250/month. If I made more I would be paying the whole $320/month.

Feb 4, 2014#294

strawman

The overall problem being that lots of subsidized people joined, but not nearly as many young, healthy people (thus Obama's state of the union plea). The ACA is unaffordable right out of the gate, but we won't see how bad it is for months or years.

Feb 4, 2014#295

AshburnerX

The fundamental issue for young and healthy people is that most of us don't get sick very often and we can't afford insurance for major events because we're ether swamped with student loan debt or are working jobs that are ether beneath our education level or are paying less than they did 10 years ago. You want us to contribute? Subsidize our insurance programs or force insurance companies to give us better rates... because right now it's just not worth the expense, especially when the no insurance fee is less than $100. Why WOULDN'T we skip out?

It's bad enough we're paying into a social security system that won't be around for us when we need it. Now we have to pay more?

Feb 4, 2014#296

Bowielee

I've been saying all along that while I'm actually a proponent of universal health care, the best way to fix our broken health care/insurance system is to regulate both hospitals and insurances. I've worked in medical billing and the whole process is broken on a fundamental level.

Feb 4, 2014#297

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
I've been saying all along that while I'm actually a proponent of universal health care, the best way to fix our broken health care/insurance system is to regulate both hospitals and insurances. I've worked in medical billing and the whole process is broken on a fundamental level.

This is one of the main reasons FOR going single payer: it would allow the government to negotiate the prices of damn near everything, from hip replacements all the way down to god damn cotton balls. This needs to happen to drive down prices, because right now hospitals overcharge for everything because the insurances companies demand huge discounts to become clients.

Feb 4, 2014#298

strawman

AshburnerX said:
it would allow the government to negotiate the prices

And as we all know, the government is well known for cost efficiency.

Feb 4, 2014#299

PatrThom

stienman said:
And as we all know, the government is well known for cost efficiency.

Maybe someday.

But not today.

--Patrick

Feb 4, 2014#300

Krisken

The problem isn't THE government, it's OUR government. Lets point the finger where it really belongs.

Feb 4, 2014#301

GasBandit

So the logical first step is to get rid of our government. Preferably immediately followed by creating a new one.

Feb 4, 2014#302

AshburnerX

stienman said:
And as we all know, the government is well known for cost efficiency.

It certainly couldn't do any worse than the current escalating price war between hospitals and insurance providers. One of the reasons most of the hospitals in Ohio are networked under OhioHealth is explicitly to collectively bargain as a single organization to keep insurance companies from leaning too hard on a single hospital.

Feb 4, 2014#303

Charlie Don't Surf

I'd rather a corporation go into crushing debt or bankrupt than a human being, but I'm just old fashioned

Feb 4, 2014#304

strawman

AshburnerX said:
It certainly couldn't do any worse than the current escalating price war between hospitals and insurance providers.

The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X

Feb 4, 2014#305

GasBandit

stienman said:
The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X

As I've posted before, the best prices actually come when you negotiate for yourself out of pocket with no insurance. Then, all of a sudden, the hospital starts charging much more reasonable rates for everything, once they know they don't have to deal with insurance.

Feb 4, 2014#306

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
As I've posted before, the best prices actually come when you negotiate for yourself out of pocket with no insurance. Then, all of a sudden, the hospital starts charging much more reasonable rates for everything, once they know they don't have to deal with insurance.

Exactly. One of the main reason those health care prices are so inflated is that they are obligated to give such huge discounts to insurances that they have to increase costs to make up the difference.

The vicious cycle is that insurance companies see that, then start paying less and lobby for greater discounts. The entire system is messed up and insurance companies are a large part of what has made it so.

Feb 4, 2014#307

AshburnerX

stienman said:
The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X

This is blatantly incorrect. As someone who actually works in a hospital, I can tell you that the prices are inflated in reaction to the discounts that insurance companies demand to accept services from your hospital. If you are not "in-network", you cannot make a claim on a patient's insurance. It can easily be a 20-30% discount at times. There are also inflated costs in order to make up for patients that don't have insurance or simply cannot pay. That last bit is why many hospitals don't have emergency rooms anymore: they are cost sinks and not all hospitals can afford to keep them going. The hospital isn't at fault here because some mark-up is necessary when you are forced to do some services for free... it's entirely the insurance company, which is extorting the hospital for profits.

Here's where government negotiation and single payer comes into play: If everyone is covered, everyone pays. You no longer need to inflate costs to make up for that lost income from that. You also have to deal with standardized prices from the government, who isn't going to demand a discount to keep you in network. This also lowers the price. It works out for everyone because while you are pulling in less money per a patient, you make it up per volume.

Feb 5, 2014#308

tegid

I only came here to say that your prices must be inflated. I don't really understand how your healthcare insurances work, but I was just looking for healthcare insurances for my girlfriend (to avoid waiting lists in the free public system) and I could find insurances as low as 45 €/month (0 € deductible if I understand what that is, depending on age etc. you may have a maximum of 10k € of hospital bills. If I accept a deductible >0€ I can find insurances as low as 30 €/month), and I don't think the cost of life and quality of service isn't SO different. Of course the story gets complicated when you take into account that we can always go a public hospital which for expensive, live-saving treatments doesn't make you wait so much and has a higher quality than most private ones.
But anyway, food for thought. Maybe.

Feb 6, 2014#309

GasBandit

The CBO is reporting that over the next 10 years, Obamacare is going to "encourage" 2.5 million full time workers to stop working, so they can get better ACA subsidies. So not only does it kill jobs, it encourages jobs to commit suicide. And progressive mouthpieces from the NYT to Nanci Pelosi are painting 2.5 million less people working as a good thing, as "freeing them" from the tyranny of working. What's the matter, don't you conservatives like freedom? Escape your job! Funemployment for all! Well, except for those who we still need to work to.. you know... subsidize everybody else.

/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk

Feb 6, 2014#310

AshburnerX

Did you read that article at all? They are simply going to stop working full-time. Those jobs aren't going anywhere... people just now have the option of actually enjoying their free time without affecting their standard of living by working less hours. If they want more income, they can get that by working more hours and eating the lower subsidy... but if it makes more economic sense to the workers to work less hours, then the issue seems to be that they should be getting paid more to offset loss of subsidy and not that they shouldn't have the option of having free time.

Economics sucks when it actually favors the worker, doesn't it? :problemo:

Feb 6, 2014#311

Krisken

People don't read articles. They read headlines and assume it supports their preconceived notions. They also assume (almost always correctly) others won't read it either.

Feb 6, 2014#312

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Did you read that article at all? They are simply going to stop working full-time. Those jobs aren't going anywhere... people just now have the option of actually enjoying their free time without affecting their standard of living by working less hours. If they want more income, they can get that by working more hours and eating the lower subsidy... but if it makes more economic sense to the workers to work less hours, then the issue seems to be that they should be getting paid more to offset loss of subsidy and not that they shouldn't have the option of having free time.

Economics sucks when it actually favors the worker, doesn't it?

Yes, I read the article. I know exactly what it said. It's horrible.

Look, I know you favor paying everyone's bills whether they work or not, but let me lay this out for you -

When people can be professionally unemployed, that economy is doomed. Especially when the workforce participation rate is already at historic lows, and unemployment is high.

The CBO report even spells out that the structuring of the subsidy encourages unemployment.

Shit, I guess I should stop being such a fussbudget and just get on the gravy train while there's still room, so I can coast on 99 weeks of unemployment insurance and a fat obamacare subsidy before the well runs dry. I could sure get through a lot of my steam backlog in a couple years of funemployment. Free me from the tyranny of having to pay my bills, Obama!

Feb 6, 2014#313

Bowielee

Did you seriously, without any irony, use "Thanks, Obama"?

Feb 6, 2014#314

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Did you seriously, without any irony, use "Thanks, Obama"?

No, I used "save me, Obama!"

There's a not so subtle difference.

Feb 6, 2014#315

AshburnerX

I'm actually more in-favor of a basic standard of living being available to everyone, regardless of work status. In my vision this wouldn't be glamorous at all... just enough to survive. We're talking full on dystopia. You don't want to contribute? Fine... you can live. If you can call it living. Don't want to live like you just escaped from the Matrix? Find work or make some yourself. Just because I don't think we should be leaving people to die doesn't mean I think they should enjoy it.

Regardless, it's clear this thing needs some adjustment... but it's not just the subsidy program that needs to be adjusted. As I said before, it makes sense to work less if you can maintain your standard of living while doing so. Many people will use this opportunity to do things like start their own business, expand their education, or actually see their kids for once... and yes, some people will use this as a chance to be fucking lazy and do nothing of value (and fuck those people). But if a place of work can't encourage their workers to work full-time because their isn't enough economic justification to do it, it seems to me that they should also be providing the justification... though I do find it hilarious that it's now the workers working less to GET healthcare when it used to be employees keeping them from working full-time to keep healthcare FROM them.

The workers have had to face stiff economic realities over the last 10 years. Maybe it's time for business to do the same.

Feb 6, 2014#316

GasBandit

It all comes down to "who's paying for it?" I'm not OK with subsidizing someone who isn't doing all they can.

Mar 4, 2014#317

PatrThom

Covar said:
HealthCare.gov deferred final security check, could leak personal data | Ars Technica
Yup.

Oh, come on. Being lax with people's personal details? What could possibly happen?

--Patrick

Mar 4, 2014#318

Necronic

GasBandit said:
It all comes down to "who's paying for it?" I'm not OK with subsidizing someone who isn't doing all they can.

That's basically how all insurance everywhere works though, nothing unique to ACA. Sometimes you are subsidizing true acts of god/random occurances. Usually you are subsidizing bad drivers or lazy fat-asses.

Mar 4, 2014#319

GasBandit

Necronic said:
That's basically how all insurance everywhere works though, nothing unique to ACA. Sometimes you are subsidizing true acts of god/random occurances. Usually you are subsidizing bad drivers or lazy fat-asses.

There is subsidizing and then there is subsidies on being subsidized.

Mar 4, 2014#320

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
There is subsidizing and then there is subsidies on being subsidized.

I think you're splitting hairs here.

Mar 4, 2014#321

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
I think you're splitting hairs here.

That's about a $300-$600 per month hair I'm splitting, there.

Oct 6, 2017#322

strawman

Remember when the ACA came out, and we discovered (because it was all done behind closed doors, so we couldn't see what it was until it was passed) that many aspects of the implementation were relegated to the department of health and human services?

Well it looks like giving that power to the executive branch may not be in everyone's best interests.

Donald Trump's government has issued a ruling that allows employers to opt out of providing free birth control to millions of Americans.
The rule allows employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".
Fifty-five million women benefited from the Obama-era rule, which made companies provide free birth control.

So rather than opting for the "compromise" that allowed workers to get birth control without the employers "paying" for it (a shell game, but I guess it was sufficient for some), the department of health and human services issued a ruling that immediately takes effect which allows employers and insurance companies to opt out for religious reasons. No birth control at all, not even through the previous shell game compromise.

Yet another thing that will change every time we change the presidency.

Oct 6, 2017#323

Celt Z

stienman said:
Remember when the ACA came out, and we discovered (because it was all done behind closed doors, so we couldn't see what it was until it was passed) that many aspects of the implementation were relegated to the department of health and human services?

Well it looks like giving that power to the executive branch may not be in everyone's best interests.

So rather than opting for the "compromise" that allowed workers to get birth control without the employers "paying" for it (a shell game, but I guess it was sufficient for some), the department of health and human services issued a ruling that immediately takes effect which allows employers and insurance companies to opt out for religious reasons. No birth control at all, not even through the previous shell game compromise.

Yet another thing that will change every time we change the presidency.

Every time I see stuff like this I want to burn down the nearest Hobby Lobby. (Which, obviously, is hyperbole, because the people working inside are not at fault, but I digress.)

Two things gall me every time I see this argument. (This isn't aimed at you, @stienman, just the article): 1) Not everyone who takes birth control doesn't it to prevent conception. I cannot tell you how many women I know who weren't sexually active and still on the pill because it is still one of the only things that helps regulate erratic periods, which come with a host of health problem from polycistic ovarian syndrome, ease endometriosis, and a host of other health issues. You're denying basic healthcare to a good chunk of the population. And 2)because businesses are about the bottom line, why wouldn't you support birth control, which is cheaper in the long run than health care for a child? Not just the healthcare, but maternity pay, time off for taking care of said child, etc. This seems like Gileadean logic just for the sake of being hurtful, not because it has benefits.

Oct 6, 2017#324

Dave

But GEEZUS! And really, FAKE GEEZUS to appease a base that is insane while not adhering to the ideology themselves.

Oct 6, 2017#325

Krisken

My wife takes birth control for 2 reasons. 1. we don't want kids. 2. Giving birth could kill her due to her hyper-mobility. So, fuck you religious organizations for forcing your bullshit onto us. Seriously, eat a bag of dicks.

Oct 6, 2017#326

strawman

Tell congress, and have them make sure the president can't screw around with birth control.

Honestly, this is the same thing as DACA - the power over these things should never have been placed in the executive branch, and having a president come along and rip things out so congress has to fix them is painful, but probably better for everyone in the long run.

Oct 6, 2017#327

blotsfan

Lol congress won't fix this

Oct 6, 2017#328

GasBandit

Lol congress won't fix this

You know, if you obscured the actual poster from the quote, my first guess would have been this was Charlie.

That goes for a lot of your posts lately, come to think of it.

Oct 6, 2017#329

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
You know, if you obscured the actual poster from the quote, my first guess would have been this was Charlie.

That goes for a lot of your posts lately, come to think of it.

Don't dehumanize groups or individuals

Oct 6, 2017#330

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
You know, if you obscured the actual poster from the quote, my first guess would have been this was Charlie.

That goes for a lot of your posts lately, come to think of it.

Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a republican house and a republican senate will do anything to oppose this?

And ok I'm Charlie now I guess. I don't really care. What's the point of sugarcoating anything when it's all going to shit anyways and nothing will be done?

Oct 6, 2017#331

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think a republican house and a republican senate will do anything to oppose this?

And ok I'm Charlie now I guess. I don't really care. What's the point of sugarcoating anything when it's all going to shit anyways and nothing will be done?

That's a much less Charlie reply, right there.

It was less a commentary on your sentiment and more on how you've been presenting your arguments, lately. Punctuationless one-sentence eyeroll remarks that start with "Lol" for example. The sort of thing one might more expect to find in an instant message than on a discussion forum.

As for your actual point, you might be correct in the short term, but the only way it's going to change (without upheaval) is for constituent-based pressure to come to bear and to not let up. Granted, it's the long game, but myopically playing the short game is what's gotten us to where we are - with Trump in charge of health care.

With so much power now resting with the executive branch, the next President might give it back... and then the one after that might take it away again. This is the danger of empowering the presidency to circumvent the legislature.

Oct 6, 2017#332

blotsfan

There is no long game. The system is getting more and more rigged for the republicans. It doesn't matter what quasai-fascist bullshit they do, they will always have support of the trash America has to offer, and anyone who doesn't support them will keep getting more and more disenfranchised. America is a shithole of a country and that's not going to change ever.

Oct 6, 2017#333

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
There is no long game. The system is getting more and more rigged for the republicans. It doesn't matter what quasai-fascist bullshit they do, they will always have support of the trash America has to offer, and anyone who doesn't support them will keep getting more and more disenfranchised. America is a shithole of a country and that's not going to change ever.

I can't decide whether to address this unironically, make a snide, cutting remark, dehumanize you, or just post a meme.
But that's some redonkulous shiznit right there.

Oct 6, 2017#334

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
I can't decide whether to address this unironically, make a snide, cutting remark, dehumanize you, or just post a meme.
But that's some redonkulous shiznit right there.

Give him a hug!

Oct 6, 2017#335

strawman

GasBandit said:
Punctuationless one-sentence eyeroll remarks that start with "Lol" for example. The sort of thing one might more expect to find in an instant message than on a discussion forum.

Sad!

Oct 6, 2017#336

Krisken

GasBandit said:
I can't decide whether to address this unironically, make a snide, cutting remark, dehumanize you, or just post a meme.
But that's some redonkulous shiznit right there.

Our state is currently the poster child for gerrymandering, so maybe cut him a little slack. for a little perspective, 39% of people voted for Republicans but they won over 60% of the seats. It's easy to see why we would feel it's essentially a load of bullshit.

Oct 6, 2017#337

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Our state is currently the poster child for gerrymandering, so maybe cut him a little slack. for a little perspective, 39% of people voted for Republicans but they won over 60% of the seats. It's easy to see why we would feel it's essentially a load of bullshit.

I kinda think there's still a few steps between "our state is badly gerrymandered" and "America is a shithole of a country and that's not going to change ever."

Oct 6, 2017#338

Krisken

GasBandit said:
I kinda think there's still a few steps between "our state is badly gerrymandered" and "America is a shithole of a country and that's not going to change ever."

All about perspective. In my state and in this country the winners didn't win and it isn't looking to get better.

Oct 6, 2017#339

GasBandit

Krisken said:
All about perspective. In my state and in this country the winners didn't win and it isn't looking to get better.

And the answer is to go full cartoon and become a walking "Liberals hate America" cliche?

And this is only year one.

Oct 6, 2017#340

Krisken

GasBandit said:
And the answer is to go full cartoon and become a walking "Liberals hate America" cliche?

And this is only year one.

Year one for you. And you're the last person to start pointing out someone else is being a cliche.

Oct 6, 2017#341

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Year one for you. And you're the last person to start pointing out someone else is being a cliche.

Hey, at least I've never hidden who I was or what I believed, or acted insulted when called on it. But I guess now I won't be surprised when a whole lot of liberals start coming out of the "I hate America" closet. Bully on being able to be yourself out loud, I guess, Blots.

Oct 6, 2017#342

Krisken

I’m not even sure on the proper response.

Oct 6, 2017#343

PatrThom

Krisken said:
I’m not even sure on the proper response.

It's ok. It's not like he's actually talking to you.

--Patrick

Oct 6, 2017#344

Krisken

PatrThom said:
It's ok. It's not like he's actually talking to you.

--Patrick

To be fair, I think that is true even when he is talking to me.

Oct 6, 2017#345

@Li3n

Krisken said:
To be fair, I think that is true even when he is talking to me.

Pretty sure that was PatrThom point in the 1st place.

Oct 6, 2017#346

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Pretty sure that was PatrThom point in the 1st place.

More that he was actually talking to @blotsfan, but this could also be true.

--Patrick

Oct 6, 2017#347

@Li3n

Ah, you meant he wasn't talking about him...

Oct 7, 2017#348

DarkAudit

*obligatory link to don't dehumanize thread*

And it's now been reduced to a meme.

Oct 7, 2017#349

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
*obligatory link to don't dehumanize thread*

And it's now been reduced to a meme.

Finally.

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2017#350

D

Dubyamn

GasBandit said:
That's a much less Charlie reply, right there.

It was less a commentary on your sentiment and more on how you've been presenting your arguments, lately. Punctuationless one-sentence eyeroll remarks that start with "Lol" for example. The sort of thing one might more expect to find in an instant message than on a discussion forum.

As for your actual point, you might be correct in the short term, but the only way it's going to change (without upheaval) is for constituent-based pressure to come to bear and to not let up. Granted, it's the long game, but myopically playing the short game is what's gotten us to where we are - with Trump in charge of health care.

With so much power now resting with the executive branch, the next President might give it back... and then the one after that might take it away again. This is the danger of empowering the presidency to circumvent the legislature.

Lot in this comment. I do agree that during Obama's presidency too much power was invested in the executive. Congress won't move on allowing military power in Syria? Keep on bombing. No movement on illegal immigration? Well we'll set up DACA. I agree with some of his actions (DACA not Syria) but he did overplay his powers very often when he needed to kick it to congress and let them get yelled at .

But I think right now there is too much inertia and rot too really have much hope for even the long game.

Problem 1 is gerrymandering Republicans have so many "safe" seats where the only challenge is the primary that even actions that will help the country can't be allowed because a harder right candidate will then take their seat during a primary. So voting to enshrine birth control as a right isn't going to happen until we do the census and redraw the voting maps. Which might happen after the 2020 census or the gerrymandering might keep on paying off getting the people who drew the maps reelected to draw the maps again at which point 2030 is the next best bet for breaking out of that shitty feedback loop.

Then of course we have the problem that our institutions are not actually all that great as it turns out. The State department is a skeleton crew right now ICE has started becoming the fucking jackbooted thugs we were always warned about and the education department is going to be paying huge chunks of money for Betsy's security detail. I for one thought that the Trump people would be forced to fit into the system but so far it seems like our institutions can be controlled by people who actively despise them and that the career civil servants aren't able to defend them nor do we know what kind of shape they will be in after this.

And then we have fucking Russia. This one is by far the most shocking to me cause I'm an 80's kid so growing up there was one thing I knew deep in my DNA and that was not one single American would ever side with Russia over even their most hated America enemy. But at this point we have an attorney general who committed perjury in order to cover up his Russian contacts and a president who gave out classified information to the Russians in the god damned Oval Office. And this is a problem that I have no idea how you even get started on fixing. The official report might come out detailing the Russia influence but in this age where our president claims every article he doesn't like even the ones that just quote him as "fake news" I have no idea how the voting public will break.

I have felt unmoored ever since Trump was elected. I see the way back but I don't know if America will go that way.

Oct 7, 2017#351

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Hey, at least I've never hidden who I was or what I believed, or acted insulted when called on it. But I guess now I won't be surprised when a whole lot of liberals start coming out of the "I hate America" closet. Bully on being able to be yourself out loud, I guess, Blots.

I didn't feel this way until November 8th 2016.

Oct 7, 2017#352

Krisken

PatrThom said:
More that he was actually talking to @blotsfan, but this could also be true.

--Patrick

Yes, but I was quoted.

Oct 7, 2017#353

jwhouk

America started to go down the toilet in November of 2010.

As for the ACA - and I refuse to call it "Obamacare" - it may be the only way I have health insurance after January 6.

Oct 7, 2017#354

GasBandit

Dubyamn said:
Lot in this comment. I do agree that during Obama's presidency too much power was invested in the executive. Congress won't move on allowing military power in Syria? Keep on bombing. No movement on illegal immigration? Well we'll set up DACA. I agree with some of his actions (DACA not Syria) but he did overplay his powers very often when he needed to kick it to congress and let them get yelled at .

But I think right now there is too much inertia and rot too really have much hope for even the long game.

Problem 1 is gerrymandering Republicans have so many "safe" seats where the only challenge is the primary that even actions that will help the country can't be allowed because a harder right candidate will then take their seat during a primary. So voting to enshrine birth control as a right isn't going to happen until we do the census and redraw the voting maps. Which might happen after the 2020 census or the gerrymandering might keep on paying off getting the people who drew the maps reelected to draw the maps again at which point 2030 is the next best bet for breaking out of that shitty feedback loop.

Then of course we have the problem that our institutions are not actually all that great as it turns out. The State department is a skeleton crew right now ICE has started becoming the fucking jackbooted thugs we were always warned about and the education department is going to be paying huge chunks of money for Betsy's security detail. I for one thought that the Trump people would be forced to fit into the system but so far it seems like our institutions can be controlled by people who actively despise them and that the career civil servants aren't able to defend them nor do we know what kind of shape they will be in after this.

And then we have fucking Russia. This one is by far the most shocking to me cause I'm an 80's kid so growing up there was one thing I knew deep in my DNA and that was not one single American would ever side with Russia over even their most hated America enemy. But at this point we have an attorney general who committed perjury in order to cover up his Russian contacts and a president who gave out classified information to the Russians in the god damned Oval Office. And this is a problem that I have no idea how you even get started on fixing. The official report might come out detailing the Russia influence but in this age where our president claims every article he doesn't like even the ones that just quote him as "fake news" I have no idea how the voting public will break.

I have felt unmoored ever since Trump was elected. I see the way back but I don't know if America will go that way.

Believe it or not, I commiserate with you on all counts there.

Krisken said:
Yes, but I was quoted.

The first couple sentences were to address what you'd said, the last one I specifically said "Blots" because it was for him.

jwhouk said:
America started to go down the toilet in November of 2010.

Oh it started down this path a lot earlier than that.

Oct 7, 2017#355

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Oh it started down this path a lot earlier than that.

FTFY

Oct 7, 2017#356

PatrThom

I'm of the opinion it was more mid to late 70's, myself.

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2017#357

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
I'm of the opinion it was more mid to late 70's, myself.

--Patrick

That's what I'm saying.

. . . or are you referring to a different century?

Oct 7, 2017#358

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
That's what I'm saying.

. . . or are you referring to a different century?

I was referring to the most recently completed century, yes.

--Patrick

Aug 7, 2018#359

DarkAudit

A not-so-friendly comment for the "you can afford" crowd.

The federal minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour. Two weeks at full time is $580 BEFORE taxes.

Many ambulance services charge for their services, even in an emergency. Charges can run as high as $800 per trip or more. It's not always covered by insurance.

Need to go to the hospital NOW? Bye bye at least one entire paycheck.

So what'll it be? Your life or your wife or kids vs food or your home? Choose wisely. And quickly, they're bleeding out all over the floor.

Aug 8, 2018#360

GasBandit

That's some excellent fallacious appeal to emotion and false dichotomy work you got there, Lou. Throw in some Cherry Picked "as much as" figures, and you should be working in Fox News in no time.

Oh wait, you did that too.

Aug 8, 2018#361

AshburnerX

Ehh... it's not that far off, fallacious appeal to emotion not withstanding. There are things that can skyrocket the cost of an ambulance ride, such as being from a service not in network. Distance is also a factor; you get charged a flat fee for the ambulance and then per a mile. You can't forget extra things like oxygen and life saving triage along the ride. God forbid you need to be airlifted to somewhere.

Strictly speaking, proper healthcare is out of the hands off the nation's actual working class unless they are willing to mortgage their futures. That's inappropriate and a great ill in our society.

Aug 8, 2018#362

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
That's some excellent fallacious appeal to emotion and false dichotomy work you got there, Lou. Throw in some Cherry Picked "as much as" figures, and you should be working in Fox News in no time.

Oh wait, you did that too.

Better check that privilege there, bub. It's easy to sit there and pontificate when you've never been faced with that choice.

Aug 8, 2018#363

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
That's some excellent fallacious appeal to emotion and false dichotomy work you got there, Lou. Throw in some Cherry Picked "as much as" figures, and you should be working in Fox News in no time.

"It's ok, you guys, you only have to make that choice sometimes, not every time..."

Also, it's not a fallacy if something does actually hurt people and the argument is about that in the first place.

Aug 8, 2018#364

blotsfan

Ugh you care that people go bankrupt due to unavoidable medical expenses? What an appeal to emotion.

Aug 8, 2018#365

Gared

Haven't you learned yet that money is all that matters and showing concern for others is a weakness?

Aug 8, 2018#366

GasBandit

More fallacies - mostly ad hominems to boot. I knew it's what I'd come back to, this morning.

Let me point this out - the REAL false dichotomy we're talking about here is the ever-present one in this debate - that the only choices are to accept what we have now, or go fully socialized medicine. "An Ambulance ride costs a mortgage payment, so the government (read: your middle class neighbors with a gun held to their head) should pay for it!" This ignores the real underlying issue - why does an ambulance ride cost so much? And the answer is the same as why everything else in American medicine costs so much - because administrators and insurance companies have been doing everything in their power to undermine the capitalistic forces that are supposed to keep such things in check, for as long as any of us has been alive.

Let me just throw this idea out there, off the top of my head.
The primary problem, as you point out in an extremely emotional way, is that when a loved one is turning blue or bleeding out, you don't have time to comparison shop. But when you call 911, you aren't calling a specific ambulance or hospital or emergicare company, you're calling a government switchboard. They are the ones who decide which ambulance comes to pick you up. What if they started using a technology that has been around for at least 20 years - the electronic auction? The healthcare providers (or rather their administrators) can submit "bids" as often as they like for the all-inclusive cost of an ambulance trip to the emergency room, and when a call comes in, the dispatcher has an easy interface showing the least expensive bids and their locations. There's no time delay involved because the ambulances were bidding on responding to your emergency, days, even weeks, before your emergency even took place. As companies fail to win bids realize that slightly less money is better than no money, they'll lower their bids for the next emergencies, which will cause the other companies to do the same when they see they're not winning bids, and over a relatively short amount of time, there's a very palpable shrinking effect on the cost of an ambulance ride. This is the kicker - for capitalism to work, there has to be competition. Most of the problems with the price of our medical care has come about as a result of collusion aimed to undermine competition.

Is this idea perfect? No. Is it better than what we have? I think so. Are there even more options, that were not thought of by a layman over the course of a weeknight's sleep? Wouldn't be surprised at all.

But those aren't the debates we're having, either here, or on a national scale. It's locked into "status quo vs single payer," because the people at the top level of this debate have their own axes to grind, and that trickles down through the tribalism. Big Medicine has deep pockets, so they buy one side, and their street-level minions follow along because the OTHER side are headed up by the Ruinous Powers - the socialists, and their every-man-on-the-street followers are just as rabid because not accepting socialism means you want families to die horribly in squalid and abject poverty, you privileged scum.

But the truth is there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it doesn't take much looking at the underlying causes of the problem to find those other ways.

Aug 8, 2018#367

strawman

I advise people to make that decision (and many more decisions) long before you end up in that situation.

Then when you're in it, you don't have to "think" about it, you act based on the path you've decided to take earlier. This is the primary purpose of a DNR, for instance - and the reasoning is similar. Only most people don't think about pre-planning emergencies until near the end of their lives. Do it now. Revisit it frequently. Determine the risks you have in your life and plan for each possibility.

As far as finances, you have to weigh your costs - do you pay more for insurance now, or do you pay for medical care out of pocket at time of service, or do you use payment plans after the care? If you can't afford insurance, and you can't afford the ambulance ride, then you're going to be dealing with medical expenses for a long time. You may have to take a second or third job to pay them off and avoid collections.

My experience with medical expenses, particularly emergency expenses, is that you can work out a payment plan and often get 0 interest, and maintain a reasonable standard of living while you pay them off.

If they go to collections you can often get the bills cut nearly in half, and then work out a payment plan (and in fact one technique some use is to let them got to collections then work out a deal - though it hurts your credit to do so).

So do the math. Are you reasonably healthy? Do you avoid risky activities? Are you at low risk for serious disease - diabetes, cancer, etc? Chances are good you could get away without insurance, and instead save up 10% of your paychecks for emergencies - medical or otherwise - and then use payment plans to cover really big emergencies.

If you aren't in good health, or participate in risky activities, or are at risk for serious disease, you may want to pay up front. Even if you can't afford conventional insurance, you may be able to afford catastrophic insurance. If something goes really wrong and you're in the hospital for weeks fighting a blood infection, they won't take care of all costs, but they'll bring them down to the point where you don't need to go bankrupt to keep up with the monthly payments you arrange with the hospital.

Further, learn some basic first aid and CPR and you and your family stand a much better chance of surviving an emergency situation. Certainly where I'm living it could take more than 5 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, so even if cost wasn't an issue (and even with insurance it can be) someone could easily die if we didn't prepare for basic medical care.

If, however, your plan is to not prepare, and not plan ahead, and instead blame society for not taking care of you when you became ill, and demand that others take care of your medical expense then I'd suggest that's a poor plan, and you may be disappointed with your decision should you become seriously ill.

Besides, even people with good insurance can find themselves in a bad situation. Check your insurance carefully and make sure you understand what coverage you have when going out of state, for instance. Having a heart attack and a triple bypass on vacation isn't fun - and it gets worse when you find out your insurance only covers a fraction of your hundreds of thousands of dollars of emergency treatment.

So this isn't something that's limited to the poor.

Aug 8, 2018#368

PatrThom

Your example works...IF everyone accepts everyone's insurance coverage. Which they don't.
So then we have an extra step during that electronic auction where the person who takes the call has to ask, "Now which insurance do you carry?" in order to filter out all the ambulance rides that are out-of-network and so not covered/too expensive.
But then the solution to that brings us back to single payer again.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#369

Gared

I'm sorry, did I forget my sarcasm tag?

Aug 8, 2018#370

PatrThom

Gared said:
I'm sorry, did I forget my sarcasm tag?

If you'd had insurance, maybe they could've saved it instead of being forced to amputate.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#371

blotsfan

What about in rural areas with only one hospital or only one ambulance provider?

Aug 8, 2018#372

blotsfan

@stienman I don't get what was so funny about my post but please elaborate.

Aug 8, 2018#373

Gared

PatrThom said:
If you'd had insurance, maybe they could've saved it instead of being forced to amputate.

--Patrick

I knew I should've signed up for air ambulance insurance from one of the 18,000 mailers we've received since moving to rural SW Oregon.

Aug 8, 2018#374

PatrThom

blotsfan said:
@stienman I don't get what was so funny about my post but please elaborate.

My guess is it's because he just so happens to live in a rural area with only one ambulance provider.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#375

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Your example works...IF everyone accepts everyone's insurance coverage. Which they don't.
So then we have an extra step during that electronic auction where the person who takes the call has to ask, "Now which insurance do you carry?" in order to filter out all the ambulance rides that are out-of-network and so not covered/too expensive.
But then the solution to that brings us back to single payer again.

--Patrick

Or a simple stipulation that the price of emergency services provided in this manner must be for all insurance companies. That's not single payer, and it addresses another underlying problem - that insurance is no longer insurance, but rather viewed as a "pay in advance" medical payment plan, and so long as your premiums are paid up the bill is "somebody else's problem." Remember what happens when, in a non-emergency situation, you DO shop around and tell the providers you're paying cash? Suddenly prices plummet. What if the model for insurance was reimbursement to the patient instead of directly paying the hospital (which, as it stands, cuts the patient out from any price negotiations and divorces them from the concept that they're actually paying for something)?

See, this is what I'm talking about... there are other avenues to debate and work out, not just a simple "Love Obamacare or you're Satan" false dichotomy.

Aug 8, 2018#376

strawman

PatrThom said:
Your example works...IF everyone accepts everyone's insurance coverage. Which they don't.
So then we have an extra step during that electronic auction where the person who takes the call has to ask, "Now which insurance do you carry?" in order to filter out all the ambulance rides that are out-of-network and so not covered/too expensive.
But then the solution to that brings us back to single payer again.

--Patrick

For the ambulance company to be able to bid for these contracts, they'd have to accept enough insurance carriers to cover at least, say, 95% of the population. For insurance companies to sell in the area they'd have to have basic ambulance coverage that provided at least some coverage even for ambulance companies that they don't cover.

So even if you do happen to get an ambulance that isn't covered, you will still have a small bill. Further, the ambulance would be the cheapest option, so even if they didn't accept your insurance it should be half the cost of what it is today.

Post automatically merged: Aug 8, 2018

blotsfan said:
@stienman I don't get what was so funny about my post but please elaborate.

Mostly because of the pretense that you care about the rural voter.

But your comment is too limited because the reality is that the majority of the United States only have one ambulance provider, not just rural, and they are operated by the government, or area hospitals, or non profit associations working with the hospitals. Only in densely urban areas do you find private ambulance companies (and most often those are non-emergency transport). If you look at the New York situation, 67% of all ambulances are owned and operated by the new york fire department. Most of the remainder are operated by hospitals. While there are private companies, and while the city can call on them for emergencies, there's a strict hierarchy to their operation, and if you started an ambulance service within NYC you would rarely see emergency calls except during mass casualty incidents.

So honestly, this whole discussion, while an entertaining and thoughtful example of how a service could be capitalized for the benefit of the consumer, would simply not work.

Further, privatizing emergency services is nice in theory, but the high costs are largely due to oversubscription because no one wants to be told their father is dead because they city had n-1 ambulances on call, and your father needed that nth ambulance. Usually, they work out deals with neighboring cities so when one reaches a certain point of usage, the other shifts units into the first's area and they share the load, so it's manageable with some planning and preparation. But they have to have vehicles in top working order, trained responders who act exactly as their process and procedure dictates (so they reduce liability for lawsuits), and they have to have more than they need, 24/7 on call, for their population. They'll be paying for the vehicles, fuel, and responders 100% of the time, even though a significant amount of time they are idle. Even if they have responders on call, they still have to have a certain number of working, stocked vehicles for them for when things get busy.

So I don't think to privatize ambulance service and doing instant bidding is something that would work without changing what people expect from emergency services. You could do this in stable communities with an education campaign, but it would really only work in densely packed urban areas (as you rightly point out), and even then you'd suffer significant issues and lawsuits if people didn't understand what services are provided and what level of care and service they can expect.

And the same is true for many emergency services.

So I laughed because
1) I have a hard time believing you care about the rural voters you heap scorn upon for putting Trump in the White House
2) you are probably only covered by one ambulance service no matter where you live, so you're actually asking about your own situation unknowingly

But mostly 1. You're trying to use people you don't actually care about to support an argument they likely would disagree with.

Aug 8, 2018#377

figmentPez

blotsfan said:
What about in rural areas with only one hospital or only one ambulance provider?

If Gas's plan were in place, it woudln't be just rural areas. Every area that currently only has one cable provider would probably also have one ambulance provider. Which would include many major suburbs.

Aug 8, 2018#378

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
If Gas's plan were in place, it woudln't be just rural areas. Every area that currently only has one cable provider would probably also have one ambulance provider. Which would include many major suburbs.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Here in BCS, we only have one cable provider, but we have three hospitals, additional urgentcare facilities (such as CaprockER and Physicians Premier) and even independent ambulance companies. There's just too much money in medicine for there to not be multiple companies trying to get in on the action.

In fact, the cost of the freestanding ERs is part of another debate currently going on in Texas, because they're overcharging, too.

Edit - in fact, you could even say this one-cable-network town is oversaturated with emergency care options.

Aug 8, 2018#379

Bubble181

ITT: smart people deliberately issuing logical fallacies.
Gas, you are the one who brought up the Satanic False Dichotomy. There are plenty of other options, but they all het pushed away as impossible, socialist, or too expensive.
Stien: saying blots doesn't care about rural people because they voted for Trump is bonkers. I can must certainly think my neighbors are dickheads for playing loud music at night, and still hope an ambulance will come save them if they have a great attack.
Gas: your bidding system would mean everyone gets the cheapest option by default, which has been proven a million times over by governments all around the world, is a horrible system which means crappy service for all and a war to get as cheap as possible to the legal lower limits. Yes, I can think of better systems - about 20 of them being used in the EU right this instant. And yes, that means I put Bulgarian and Polish health care above the US system - because they won't let poor people die for lack of insurance.

Aug 8, 2018#380

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
And yes, that means I put Bulgarian and Polish health care above the US system - because they won't let poor people die for lack of insurance.

Fun fact - American emergency services aren't actually allowed to turn people away for lack of ability to pay. They HAVE to accept them and treat them. They don't keep you sitting in the lobby until your check clears.

If it ends up to where you can't/don't pay, that impacts your credit rating, yes, but as Steinman referenced, there are other options at that point, too - all, of course, long AFTER the gushing blood has been stanched.

Aug 8, 2018#381

blotsfan

stienman said:
1) I have a hard time believing you care about the rural voters you heap scorn upon for putting Trump in the White House

Not everyone in rural areas voted for trump. Conversely, there are people in cities that voted for him. Obviously yes I have no problems when trump voters die, especially at the hands of policies that they vote for, but I can't say we should just have a blanket "let them all die" attitude because I care about the good people there.

Aug 8, 2018#382

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Here in BCS, we only have one cable provider, but we have three hospitals, additional urgentcare facilities (such as CaprockER and Physicians Premier) and even independent ambulance companies. There's just too much money in medicine for there to not be multiple companies trying to get in on the action.

In fact, the cost of the freestanding ERs is part of another debate currently going on in Texas, because they're overcharging, too.

Edit - in fact, you could even say this one-cable-network town is oversaturated with emergency care options.

Yes, and you're advocating a system that would drastically cut how much money they can make. What do you think happens when that cut happens? There won't be 3 providers anymore. They'll probably merge, and/or carve things up with non-compete agreements, or whatever cable companies do to decide who serves which area.

Aug 8, 2018#383

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
Yes, and you're advocating a system that would drastically cut how much money they can make. What do you think happens when that cut happens? There won't be 3 providers anymore. They'll probably merge, and/or carve things up with non-compete agreements, or whatever cable companies do to decide who serves which area.

There's a difference between what makes a cable company a geographic monopoly and what determines how many hospitals there are in an area. It would only be an apt comparison if the hospitals had to build their own roads, and only their own ambulances could use the roads they built.

B/CS had 3 hospitals even before all the extra emergency rooms started popping up in 2016.

Aug 8, 2018#384

strawman

Bubble181 said:
Stien: saying blots doesn't care about rural people because they voted for Trump is bonkers.

I agree that's it's bonkers, but it's not a fallacy, logical or otherwise. This isn't the first time he's said it, and it won't be the last:

blotsfan said:
I have no problems when trump voters die

Aug 8, 2018#385

Bubble181

stienman said:
I agree that's it's bonkers, but it's not a fallacy, logical or otherwise. This isn't the first time he's said it, and it won't be the last:

#notallruralvoters

Aug 8, 2018#386

blotsfan

Yes but there's a difference between "this demographic generally voted for trump so I want them all to die" and "I specifically want trump voters to die."

Aug 8, 2018#387

Ravenpoe

blotsfan said:
Yes but there's a difference between "this demographic generally voted for trump so I want them all to die" and "I specifically want trump voters to die."

Can we maybe not wish anyone to die?

Aug 8, 2018#388

blotsfan

Ravenpoe said:
Can we maybe not wish anyone to die?

Nah. I mean, I don't want to start up concentration camps or anything but if someone dies of an treatable medical condifion because they were unsure of how they'd be able to pay for it because they don't have insurance because they voted for the fascist that campaigned on cutting health insurance for the poor, im cool with that.

Aug 8, 2018#389

strawman

Bubble181 said:
#notallruralvoters

I guess that's a conversation you'll have to have with him. I only know what he says on here.

blotsfan said:
Thankfully people in Middle America tend to be too dumb to realize it's insulting.

blotsfan said:
At least now when rural america continues to get fucked worse and worse, I won't have to feel bad. They got their guy.

Aug 8, 2018#390

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Love Obamacare or you're Satan

This just happened to be where I put that post. I could just as well have put it in the general politics thread, but a healthcare thread seemed more appropriate.

Aug 8, 2018#391

blotsfan

A quote from a non-politics thread and from literally the day after the election. Cool, bro.

Aug 8, 2018#392

strawman

blotsfan said:
A quote from a non-politics thread and from literally the day after the election. Cool, bro.

Hey, if you regret saying them and want to apologize or clarify then go ahead and do so. It would be a step up from what Trump does when people quote his old statements back at him - I don't think he has the mental capacity to regret, nevermind admit fault or grow.

Aug 8, 2018#393

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
Can we maybe not wish anyone to die?

That's, like, the opposite of healthcare.
EDIT: Wishing for people to die, that is.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#394

@Li3n

stienman said:
Hey, if you regret saying them and want to apologize or clarify then go ahead and do so. It would be a step up from what Trump does when people quote his old statements back at him - I don't think he has the mental capacity to regret, nevermind admit fault or grow.

Weird how you seem to think he should apologise when you're basically advocating the same thing he is, just not with the more direct terms he uses:

stienman said:
If, however, your plan is to not prepare, and not plan ahead, and instead blame society for not taking care of you when you became ill, and demand that others take care of your medical expense then I'd suggest that's a poor plan, and you may be disappointed with your decision should you become seriously ill.

You both seems to be saying that you don't mind if people's bad choices come back to bite them in the ass when it comes to an issue that might kill them...

Aug 8, 2018#395

Ravenpoe

@Li3n said:
Weird how you seem to think he should apologise when you're basically advocating the same thing he is, just not with the more direct terms he uses:

You both seems to be saying that you don't mind if people's bad choices come back to bite them in the ass when it comes to an issue that might kill them...

The sick and the poor came to Jesus seeking help, and Jesus told them they should have planned better.

Aug 8, 2018#396

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
The sick and the poor came to Jesus seeking help, and Jesus told them they should have planned better.

As opposed to Jesus then turning to the sick and the poor's neighbors and saying "if y'all don't pay for this guy's health care, you're going to hell!"?

Aug 8, 2018#397

@Li3n

Ravenpoe said:
The sick and the poor came to Jesus seeking help, and Jesus told them they should have planned better.

And the real sad thing is that it's been proven again and again that a society is better off not letting people end in in desperate situations because they "deserved it".

Post automatically merged: Aug 8, 2018

GasBandit said:
As opposed to Jesus then turning to the sick and the poor's neighbors and saying "if y'all don't pay for this guy's health care, you're going to hell!"?

That's actually in the Bible... or did they make a camel that fits through the eye of a needle and i'm ignorant about it?

Also, wasn't there something about a poor woman giving as little as she could being more worthy then the rich giving lavishly?

Giving everything to help others was, like, one of his big things...

EDIT: Oh, and aren't you all already paying everyone's emergency care through higher prices, because they have to recoup their costs (and make a lot of profit - i mean, really, no way it's just recouping costs) of those people that can't even pay by getting their property repossessed, coz they don't have any?

Aug 8, 2018#398

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
That's actually in the Bible... or did they make a camel that fits through the eye of a needle and i'm ignorant about it?

Also, wasn't there something about a poor woman giving as little as she could being more worthy then the rich giving lavishly?

Giving everything to help others was, like, one of his big things...

The important distinction is in whether that giving is "giving," as in charity... or if it is being taken in the name of charity, which then may or may not actually go to said charity.

Aug 8, 2018#399

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
The important distinction is in whether that giving is "giving," as in charity... or if it is being taken in the name of charity, which then may or may not actually go to said charity.

Yes, there's really no forcing someone to give when you're just promising them eternal agony if they don't.

GasBandit said:
which then may or may not actually go to said charity.

That's another issue, and one that's not limited to the government... you should know that, since Mega-Churches and needing a 4th private jet are a US thing...

Aug 8, 2018#400

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
The important distinction is in whether that giving is "giving," as in charity... or if it is being taken in the name of charity, which then may or may not actually go to said charity.

Oh, don't start up the social responsibility argument again.

--Patrick

Aug 8, 2018#401

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
The important distinction is in whether that giving is "giving," as in charity... or if it is being taken in the name of charity, which then may or may not actually go to said charity.

Taxation is theft amirite?

Aug 8, 2018#402

jwhouk

So, I don't have time to go back and look through this thread, but did I at some point mention that I'm actually on "Obamacare"?

Of course, Arizona calls it "AHCCCS", or "Access" for short. And it's essentially considered Medicaid. But I bought it through the Healthcare.gov website, so there you go.

Aug 8, 2018#403

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
There's a difference between what makes a cable company a geographic monopoly and what determines how many hospitals there are in an area. It would only be an apt comparison if the hospitals had to build their own roads, and only their own ambulances could use the roads they built.

B/CS had 3 hospitals even before all the extra emergency rooms started popping up in 2016.

I disagree. Hospitals still have to have a certain amount of capital to function. They may not have to build routes to consumers, but they have to have buildings, and vehicles, and equipment, and personnel, etc. If they can't make as much money as they are making now, they won't want to compete, so they'll find ways to make sure they don't. Just like the cable companies make up excuses why they shouldn't have to compete.

Aug 8, 2018#404

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
I disagree. Hospitals still have to have a certain amount of capital to function. They may not have to build routes to consumers, but they have to have buildings, and vehicles, and equipment, and personnel, etc. If they can't make as much money as they are making now, they won't want to compete, so they'll find ways to make sure they don't. Just like the cable companies make up excuses why they shouldn't have to compete.

The thing is, there's lots of fat to be trimmed in American medicine. Nobody denies that - even the hospitals know they charge way more than they "need to operate." If that wasn't true, we wouldn't be getting massive discounts for paying cash instead of going through insurance. And it definitely IS very different from having to literally create your own physical infrastructure. Yes, they don't WANT a competitive market, but the trick is creating an environment that forces competition (and punishes collusion). Because, as I said, without competition, it doesn't work. But even with competition lowering the profits, there's still plenty of wiggle room for a balance to be found.

Aug 11, 2018#405

Krisken

Hospitals shouldn't be for profit anyways.

Aug 11, 2018#406

Bubble181

Krisken said:
Hospitals shouldn't be for profit anyways.

I absolutely agree. The biggest problem is, what else? All state-run isn't a good option; most state-run with not-covered-by-insurance more expensive varieties leads to the problem you have with schools and, to a point, the UK had with hospitals. All just as non-profit private organisations means churches and similar control most of them, which undermines personal freedom - wether it's an abortion, a blood transfusion, or bigger boobs, not being able to get the medical help you need because all local hospitals are run by the same extreme church is problematic too.

Aug 24, 2018#407

DarkAudit

Relevant

Nov 27, 2021#408

DarkAudit

Posting here because it's not funny.

If you feel personally attacked, good.

Nov 27, 2021#409

Cat

The problem with obamacare is that for profit insurance is not the answer to providing access to healthcare and it needs to be made obsolete

Nov 27, 2021#410

PatrThom

As I understand it, that was kind of the idea, but then committees got hold of it, and, well, you know.

--Patrick

Nov 27, 2021#411

Krisken

PatrThom said:
As I understand it, that was kind of the idea, but then committees got hold of it, and, well, you know.

--Patrick

They thought it was so important to get Republican support they started at a weak bargaining position to appease them and then none of them voted for it anyways.

It was Biden thinking McConnel could be reasoned with and Obama naively believing it.

Nov 27, 2021#412

Cat

Krisken said:
They thought it was so important to get Republican support they started at a weak bargaining position to appease them and then none of them voted for it anyways.

It was Biden thinking McConnel could be reasoned with and Obama naively believing it.

Worst part is they're still acting like that's true

Nov 27, 2021#413

Cat

PatrThom said:
As I understand it, that was kind of the idea, but then committees got hold of it, and, well, you know.

--Patrick

One of reason I've been so in favor of medicaid for all is that I did qualify for medicaid after a suicide attempt and that was one of the only times in my life I've had any help for my mental health issues. I lost it when I moved to florida bc governor rick scott declined the medicaid expansion to save the federal budget, and I fell apart again with nothing to catch me this time

Nov 27, 2021#414

ScytheRexx

We have a real big issue of privatizing services that have no right to be privatized, like prisons and juvenile detention centers. Remember that story about those judges that were sending kids to private detention centers for mild infractions because they got kickbacks from the center for every bed they filled with kids? This shouldn't be a thing. People shouldn't be profiting off holding other people in detention or confinement.

Hell, we still have some people calling for the privatization of the USPS because it's not "profitable" but it's not supposed to be profitable. It's a service that is supposed to be open to all American's and people rely on it for more then just letters and junk mail. Some old person in some small rural town gets their medication through USPS because UPS and FedEX don't find the area profitable enough to actually service, and yet some people are perfectly fine with him now suffering so the USPS can turn a profit.

I wouldn't hold my breath for MFA at this point, not unless we get a dramatic shift.

Nov 27, 2021#415

Cat

I'm being realistic, I know better things are not possible

Nov 27, 2021#416

Cat

ScytheRexx said:
We have a real big issue of privatizing services that have no right to be privatized, like prisons and juvenile detention centers. Remember that story about those judges that were sending kids to private detention centers for mild infractions because they got kickbacks from the center for every bed they filled with kids? This shouldn't be a thing. People shouldn't be profiting off holding other people in detention or confinement.

Hell, we still have some people calling for the privatization of the USPS because it's not "profitable" but it's not supposed to be profitable. It's a service that is supposed to be open to all American's and people rely on it for more then just letters and junk mail. Some old person in some small rural town gets their medication through USPS because UPS and FedEX don't find the area profitable enough to actually service, and yet some people are perfectly fine with him now suffering so the USPS can turn a profit.

I wouldn't hold my breath for MFA at this point, not unless we get a dramatic shift.

It's gotten sooo frustrating trying to explain to people why the postal service of all things should not be squeezing them for a profit. There is a propaganda war in this country that my side is losing badly

Post automatically merged: Nov 27, 2021

Social media supposedly has a liberal bias but the accounts with the largest followings are conservative. Funny how that works out

Nov 27, 2021#417

AshburnerX

ScytheRexx said:
Hell, we still have some people calling for the privatization of the USPS because it's not "profitable" but it's not supposed to be profitable. It's a service that is supposed to be open to all American's and people rely on it for more then just letters and junk mail. Some old person in some small rural town gets their medication through USPS because UPS and FedEX don't find the area profitable enough to actually service, and yet some people are perfectly fine with him now suffering so the USPS can turn a profit.

It should also be mentioned that if the USPS wasn't burdened with fully vesting every employee's pension (something no other government or private institution is required to do), whether they are close to retirement or not, it would be by far the most profitable government service. Even then, it stupid to look at it in terms of profitablity: what it ACTUALLY is is a wildly successful and efficient public service that viewed very positively by the public at large. It's only Republicans looking for UPS/FedEx money that want to get rid of it.

Nov 27, 2021#418

ScytheRexx

Cat said:
Social media supposedly has a liberal bias but the accounts with the largest followings are conservative. Funny how that works out

Where are you getting your data? Outside of maybe Facebook, most social media accounts with the highest followers are very left wing. For comparison, Donald Trump's own account had 88 million followers or so when it was nuked. Barack Obama has 130 million. The rest in the top 10 are mostly left leaning celebrities.

Also, you are going in assuming every follow is legit. There are countries that have been using our social media reliance to their advantage through troll farms, places that generate thousands of fake social media accounts, steal abandoned accounts, produce cheap memes (often by just super-imposing a head or switching around some words) and then enter random threads to rant about whatever is the hot button political conspiracy theory. Considering pretty much all of these memes and rants often glorify Putin, you can probably guess the worst country that does it. They often are found padding up right wing accounts to make them look more popular then they actually are.

Nov 27, 2021#419

Cat

ScytheRexx said:
Where are you getting your data? Outside of maybe Facebook, most social media accounts with the highest followers are very left wing. For comparison, Donald Trump's own account had 88 million followers or so when it was nuked. Barack Obama has 130 million. The rest in the top 10 are mostly left leaning celebrities.

Also, you are going in assuming every follow is legit. There are countries that have been using our social media reliance to their advantage through troll farms, places that generate thousands of fake social media accounts, steal abandoned accounts, produce cheap memes (often by just super-imposing a head or switching around some words) and then enter random threads to rant about whatever is the hot button political conspiracy theory. Considering pretty much all of these memes and rants often glorify Putin, you can probably guess the worst country that does it. They often are found padding up right wing accounts to make them look more popular then they actually are.

No data here, just anecdotal evidence from what I've seen of left and right wing media figures on twitter and youtube. Lot of lefties would kill to hit a million followers. Also I don't consider centrist lib celebrities to be lefties but that's a whole different argument

Nov 27, 2021#420

ScytheRexx

Cat said:
No data here, just anecdotal evidence from what I've seen of left and right wing media figures on twitter and youtube. Lot of lefties would kill to hit a million followers. Also I don't consider centrist lib celebrities to be lefties but that's a whole different argument

Ah yes if you mean actual lefties of the usual worldwide variety then yes they don't usually get as popular, but that just has a lot to do with demographics. People on the left don't usually wrap themselves around their politics. Politics are important to them but not the spectacle and the personality of politics. It's the opposite with people on the right, who sometimes contour their entire personalities around the political party they follow. Leftist politicians and personalities are also less likely to grift people.

Fun little fact, but Candice Owens used to be a leftist commentator who even sued one of her schools for racism. She had no following though and wasn't getting any interest, so she deleted her website and decided during the Trump ascension that she would just spout off right-wing talking points as a black woman and claim racism doesn't exist. Almost overnight she was in the grift and the voice of the black conservative movement, because she was saying all the right things to conservatives. Whether she actually believes that stuff is irrelevant.

Jan 19, 2024#421

PatrThom

Because this seems to be the right place for it:

Hospitals owned by private equity are harming patients, reports find

Hospital ratings dive and medical errors rise when private equity firms are in charge.

arstechnica.com

You're saying that quality of care goes down when the hospital owners focus more on the profit than the people? Weird.

--Patrick

Jan 19, 2024#422

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Because this seems to be the right place for it:

Hospitals owned by private equity are harming patients, reports find

Hospital ratings dive and medical errors rise when private equity firms are in charge.

arstechnica.com

You're saying that quality of care goes down when the hospital owners focus more on the profit than the people? Weird.

--Patrick

The very idea that hospitals should turn a profit really does seem to be in polar opposite of public interest. But then we live in the hellscape of late stage capitalism.

Forums