Yeah, so. I was reading this article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_why_the_conservatives_are_skeptical_of_the_affordable_care_act_.html) (you can mock me for reading Slate later), and I have to say that the conclusion reached seems to be both accurate and disturbing.
Basically, the effort to repeal the ACA is essentially an effort to give us the freedom to ignore people in need. Scalia even said that we need to rethink our social norms of hospitals treating injured people without insurance in emergency rooms. "I want the liberty to let a fellow citizen bleed to death outside a hospital!" is the battle cry. "I want The FREEDOM not to care about the suffering of others!"
Once, Mel Brooks made a joke about the Roman Senate: "Gentlemen, do we want to give money to help the poor? Or do we want to save the money for ourselves?" a senator asked. The response was unanimous. "FUCK THE POOR!" Not so funny now, though, because we are living in that joke.
I've said it before: The strength of a nation is, in part, comprised of the strength of its citizens. Supporting the citizens of a country is helping strengthen the nation. The constitution is there to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure justice and tranquility. So no, the government does not have the freedom not to care about the people. To ignore suffering is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Fuckers.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 28, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
Basically, the effort to repeal the ACA is essentially an effort to give us the freedom to ignore people in need. Scalia even said that we need to rethink our social norms of hospitals treating injured people without insurance in emergency rooms. "I want the liberty to let a fellow citizen bleed to death outside a hospital!" is the battle cry. "I want The FREEDOM not to care about the suffering of others!"
Guess who pays HIS hospital bills?
Oh, yeah. You & I.
Not to mention that is is bad policy. Whether or not people should care, emotionally, about the poor is one thing. But even on an individual selfish level, it makes no sense to NOT care for the poor. The consequences of poverty to communities are inescapable whether people want to pay attention to them or not. Even not allowing the poor to have access to emergency care will cost communities.
So it's just a stupid argument to even consider. Let the people be callous and not give a fuck about the poor, but don't fool them into thinking that not caring for the poor is somehow going to save them money. That's just complete bullshit.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 28, 2012, 04:20:30 PM
Not to mention that is is bad policy. Whether or not people should care, emotionally, about the poor is one thing. But even on an individual selfish level, it makes no sense to NOT care for the poor. The consequences of poverty to communities are inescapable whether people want to pay attention to them or not. Even not allowing the poor to have access to emergency care will cost communities.
So it's just a stupid argument to even consider. Let the people be callous and not give a fuck about the poor, but don't fool them into thinking that not caring for the poor is somehow going to save them money. That's just complete bullshit.
What's an epidemic or two, RWHN?
BRING BACK POLIO! I WANT THE FREEDOM FOR MY CHILD TO BE CRIPPLED FOR LIFE!
Antonin doesn't need to worry about that. He would never suffer the company of the common man.
I agree. The problem is the damned Constitution as it's currently written. In the mid-1700's you could pay the local Doctor with a couple chickens, because at best he was gonna give you some opiates and hope for the best.
On the one hand, the issue of independent States while a cool idea 300 years ago, simply doesn't work well in these modern times. On the other hand, a three hundred year old document that never gets updates turns into a pile of legal spaghetti. The gun issues, abortion issues, healthcare, marijuana, etc etc etc etc all stem from various semi-valid interpretations of words and phrases that are simply not so clear today.
Sadly, any update would get hijacked by one nutty extreme or the other.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
I agree. The problem is the damned Constitution as it's currently written.
Balls. Article I, section 8, clause 1 allows funding things like ER services for the poor.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 28, 2012, 04:24:13 PM
BRING BACK POLIO! I WANT THE FREEDOM FOR MY CHILD TO BE CRIPPLED FOR LIFE!
Or just the flu.
Spanish Flu Pandemic? What's that?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
On the one hand, the issue of independent States while a cool idea 300 years ago, simply doesn't work well in these modern times.
It didn't work then, either...Which is why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of the current constitution.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
I agree. The problem is the damned Constitution as it's currently written.
Balls. Article I, section 8, clause 1 allows funding things like ER services for the poor.
It does, but it doesn't technically support the healthcare mandate... States could mandate it, but not the feds (like car insurance in most states). I think that its absolutely absurd that the US citizens can't simply get on board with some solution to this problem... without arguing about funding.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
On the one hand, the issue of independent States while a cool idea 300 years ago, simply doesn't work well in these modern times.
It didn't work then, either...Which is why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of the current constitution.
Sure... but the current constitution still reserves most of this stuff to the states. Thats the problem. With the way the US is today, state governments need to be less powerful, with most laws etc being consistent across the country. Stuff like abortion/women's rights/gun control/healthcare etc.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:32:38 PM
I agree. The problem is the damned Constitution as it's currently written.
Balls. Article I, section 8, clause 1 allows funding things like ER services for the poor.
It does, but it doesn't technically support the healthcare mandate... States could mandate it, but not the feds (like car insurance in most states). I think that its absolutely absurd that the US citizens can't simply get on board with some solution to this problem... without arguing about funding.
Incorrect. If congress agrees that something is in the best interests of the nation, they can fund it. The general welfare clause is completely open-ended.
:lulz:
Yeah, the whole thing is a really great idea. We need to make sure everybody coughs up some green for the common good.
Um... so what do we do to the ones who can't afford to pay? I mean, after they can't afford to buy insurance that costs twice what their rent does every month, and after we fine them twice that much for not bending over like good little atm machines?
Do we get to publicly flog them? Throw them in jail? Or do we just shoot them?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
Sure... but the current constitution still reserves most of this stuff to the states.
Not if you read it like a lawyer. :lulz:
Thats what problem i have with the mandate. Thats where my inner socialist jumps out and starts talking about socialized healthcare.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 28, 2012, 04:50:33 PM
Thats what problem i have with the mandate. Thats where my inner socialist jumps out and starts talking about socialized healthcare.
Yep.
I've always been a fan of socialized health care.
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
In regards to the OP:
In large republics, a neglectful ruling class can mostly afford to ignore the citizenry, as they can move to gated communities and national organization is hard for citizens to achieve.
This is why I, as a rule, prefer city states. While there are some obvious downsides, such as being conquered by nation-states, the ruling class of a city-state cannot afford to not be active in the political life of the country and take into account the needs of all citizens. Because when a revolution comes, the revolutionaries all know your address. And a city is just about the optimal size for when it comes to self-organisation without anarchy or top-down tyranny, meaning shit gets sorted out.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
Agreed.
Before the law passed, there was some discussion of allowing healthcare to work across state borders which would let places like Wal-Mart offer cheap basic insurance. There was also discussions about allowing co-ops that would get the same benefits as companies of an equal size. None of those are perfect, but they would be far more effective than tort reform.
I have become a fan of socialized medicine as well. It works in the UK, it works in Canada, it works here in Turkey. We had to go to the hospital a couple months ago and it was so simple when compared to going to a hospital in the US that I was stunned. You show your ID, pay 20 lira and see a doctor in 30 minutes or so.
Some fun facts concerning tort "reform":
http://www.saynotocaps.org/factsandfigures/justthefacts.htm
QuoteA Leading Texas Medical Malpractice Study – "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas ," is the most extensive examination to date of a state's medical malpractice claims and its potential correlation to malpractice insurance premiums. The study was done by leading law and medical school professors out of the University of Texas , University of Illinois , and Columbia University . The researchers reviewed every medical malpractice claim resolved by an insurer in Texas over a fifteen year period beginning in 1988. Their findings include the following:
"The data present a picture of remarkable stability in most respects and slow, predictable change in others."
"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crises that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states."
"The rapid changes in insurance premiums that sparked the crises appear to reflect insurance market dynamics, largely disconnected from claim outcomes."
The three biggest insurers in the state have increased rates by an average of 135% over the last five years (1999-2003). However, data from the Texas Department of Insurance shows that the number of claims, the value of claims, and the rate of claims per physician have all remained constant or declined over the last decade.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:10:26 PM
Some fun facts concerning tort "reform":
http://www.saynotocaps.org/factsandfigures/justthefacts.htm
QuoteA Leading Texas Medical Malpractice Study – "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas ," is the most extensive examination to date of a state's medical malpractice claims and its potential correlation to malpractice insurance premiums. The study was done by leading law and medical school professors out of the University of Texas , University of Illinois , and Columbia University . The researchers reviewed every medical malpractice claim resolved by an insurer in Texas over a fifteen year period beginning in 1988. Their findings include the following:
"The data present a picture of remarkable stability in most respects and slow, predictable change in others."
"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crises that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states."
"The rapid changes in insurance premiums that sparked the crises appear to reflect insurance market dynamics, largely disconnected from claim outcomes."
The three biggest insurers in the state have increased rates by an average of 135% over the last five years (1999-2003). However, data from the Texas Department of Insurance shows that the number of claims, the value of claims, and the rate of claims per physician have all remained constant or declined over the last decade.
Well the head of that research panel is a slut.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:10:26 PM
Some fun facts concerning tort "reform":
http://www.saynotocaps.org/factsandfigures/justthefacts.htm
QuoteA Leading Texas Medical Malpractice Study – "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas ," is the most extensive examination to date of a state's medical malpractice claims and its potential correlation to malpractice insurance premiums. The study was done by leading law and medical school professors out of the University of Texas , University of Illinois , and Columbia University . The researchers reviewed every medical malpractice claim resolved by an insurer in Texas over a fifteen year period beginning in 1988. Their findings include the following:
"The data present a picture of remarkable stability in most respects and slow, predictable change in others."
"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crises that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states."
"The rapid changes in insurance premiums that sparked the crises appear to reflect insurance market dynamics, largely disconnected from claim outcomes."
The three biggest insurers in the state have increased rates by an average of 135% over the last five years (1999-2003). However, data from the Texas Department of Insurance shows that the number of claims, the value of claims, and the rate of claims per physician have all remained constant or declined over the last decade.
Well the head of that research panel is a slut.
And an America-hater.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
Agreed.
Before the law passed, there was some discussion of allowing healthcare to work across state borders which would let places like Wal-Mart offer cheap basic insurance. There was also discussions about allowing co-ops that would get the same benefits as companies of an equal size. None of those are perfect, but they would be far more effective than tort reform.
I have become a fan of socialized medicine as well. It works in the UK, it works in Canada, it works here in Turkey. We had to go to the hospital a couple months ago and it was so simple when compared to going to a hospital in the US that I was stunned. You show your ID, pay 20 lira and see a doctor in 30 minutes or so.
It works so well in the UK, the Tories have decided, after decades of failed attempts to convince people that it is terrible, that they are just going to privatise it indirectly (http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/nhs-reform/8501/nhs-reforms-guide-controversial-bill).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you). I just find it very hard to believe that in the past thirty years the lawyers haven't gotten any greedier (or at least kept up with the cost of living). On the other hand, I have little difficulty imagining insurance companies arbitrarily raising premiums simply because they think their pockets are a little lighter than they could be.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you).
Well, that, and the link I provided. It has about 300 sourced figures concerning payouts and premiums.
Oh, and concerning that last bit, go fuck yourself with a Sean Hannity DVD.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you). I just find it very hard to believe that in the past thirty years the lawyers haven't gotten any greedier (or at least kept up with the cost of living). On the other hand, I have little difficulty imagining insurance companies arbitrarily raising premiums simply because they think their pockets are a little lighter than they could be.
The Doktor may be rough, but if he quotes numbers... they're based on facts.
Aw, the RWN buggered off. :sad:
Dok did you track something in from capitol grilling?
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 28, 2012, 05:36:31 PM
Dok did you track something in from capitol grilling?
Naw, that's Warfrog/ASCII dude. He changed his moniker.
But if I didn't know that, I'd assume that I had. :lulz:
Tort Reform is just a wedge issue used by Republicans to woo away (normally Democratic) lawyers. No-one has an actual interest in tort reform and it will never happen. It's like when the Democrats pretend to care about gay marriage.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you).
Well, that, and the link I provided. It has about 300 sourced figures concerning payouts and premiums.
Yeah, didn't see the link until after I replied. Looks legit, but I have some questions on the numbers behind some of those statistics, but overall it's obvious that both sides of the issue are full of asshats.
Quote
Oh, and concerning that last bit, go fuck yourself with a Sean Hannity DVD.
Wait. Sean Hannity has a DVD out? Is it as good as that one with Sarah Palin and Obama doing the horizontal mambo? Because I really loved that one!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 28, 2012, 05:36:31 PM
Dok did you track something in from capitol grilling?
Naw, that's Warfrog/ASCII dude. He changed his moniker.
But if I didn't know that, I'd assume that I had. :lulz:
Well, make sure to scrape your shoes, just in case... more variety is good... more variety of bad smells is not :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on March 28, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Tort Reform is just a wedge issue used by Republicans to woo away (normally Democratic) lawyers. No-one has an actual interest in tort reform and it will never happen. It's like when the Democrats pretend to care about gay marriage.
OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:43:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you).
Well, that, and the link I provided. It has about 300 sourced figures concerning payouts and premiums.
Yeah, didn't see the link until after I replied. Looks legit, but I have some questions on the numbers behind some of those statistics, but overall it's obvious that both sides of the issue are full of asshats.
All of the figures named are sourced. If you doubt them, you can look at the original source material.
And as far as both sides being full of asshats, what have the people who oppose tort reform done to be on the same level as the insurance company assholes quoted at the bottom of the page to which I linked?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 28, 2012, 05:44:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 28, 2012, 05:36:31 PM
Dok did you track something in from capitol grilling?
Naw, that's Warfrog/ASCII dude. He changed his moniker.
But if I didn't know that, I'd assume that I had. :lulz:
Well, make sure to scrape your shoes, just in case... more variety is good... more variety of bad smells is not :lulz:
That's because you're not
serious about having a good time. I'm enjoying this immensely. We haven't had an honest-to-"Bob", real live right wing nutjob here since that Voice of Truth guy.
Yeah, well, I'm never in the mood to turn on the funnay, so this is the best I can do to be entertaining. Working in industries which surround me in right-wing basket cases gives me more material than I can regurgitate.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:53:41 PM
Yeah, well, I'm never in the mood to turn on the funnay, so this is the best I can do to be entertaining. Working in industries which surround me in right-wing basket cases gives me more material than I can regurgitate.
Sucks to be you.
I spend every day in conference rooms surrounded by people who say things like "Sarah Palin will be ready in 2016", and several evenings a week surrounded by LEFT wing nutjobs who are still pissed off that George McGovern lost in 1972, and I don't let either one tell me what to think.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:45:46 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:43:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you).
Well, that, and the link I provided. It has about 300 sourced figures concerning payouts and premiums.
Yeah, didn't see the link until after I replied. Looks legit, but I have some questions on the numbers behind some of those statistics, but overall it's obvious that both sides of the issue are full of asshats.
All of the figures named are sourced. If you doubt them, you can look at the original source material.
And as far as both sides being full of asshats, what have the people who oppose tort reform done to be on the same level as the insurance company assholes quoted at the bottom of the page to which I linked?
I wasn't being clear. The issue I was stabbing at was the whole "health care costs" bugbear and how it's pretty much a two-man con. Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
Um... so what do we do to the ones who can't afford to pay? I mean, after they can't afford to buy insurance that costs twice what their rent does every month, and after we fine them twice that much for not bending over like good little atm machines?
The law states that if you're too poor (up to 400% of the poverty level), you will get credits to pay, and if you're WAY too poor (up to 113%) you get medicare.
So, yeah. Do some fucking research.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:53:41 PM
Yeah, well, I'm never in the mood to turn on the funnay, so this is the best I can do to be entertaining. Working in industries which surround me in right-wing basket cases gives me more material than I can regurgitate.
Sucks to be you.
I spend every day in conference rooms surrounded by people who say things like "Sarah Palin will be ready in 2016", and several evenings a week surrounded by LEFT wing nutjobs who are still pissed off that George McGovern lost in 1972, and I don't let either one tell me what to think.
Meh. I don't really think anything one way or another. My hobby is finding buttons and pushing them to see what they do. If I thought you flounced around in real life even half as much as your words imply then I'd probably shit myself from giggling too hard.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:59:40 PM
I wasn't being clear. The issue I was stabbing at was the whole "health care costs" bugbear and how it's pretty much a two-man con. Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money.
Interesting. Would you include in that assessement the people that point out that having poor people using the ER (because they can't afford a doctor, and the ER has to treat them) causes costs to skyrocket? Or the people that point out that the Canadian-style system is cheaper for everyone, as a result of patients being able to see regular doctors instead of cramming up the ERs?
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 06:02:26 PM
Meh. I don't really think anything one way or another.
Again, sucks to be you.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 06:02:26 PM
My hobby is finding buttons and pushing them to see what they do.
Good to know.
Good day.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 28, 2012, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
Um... so what do we do to the ones who can't afford to pay? I mean, after they can't afford to buy insurance that costs twice what their rent does every month, and after we fine them twice that much for not bending over like good little atm machines?
The law states that if you're too poor (up to 400% of the poverty level), you will get credits to pay, and if you're WAY too poor (up to 113%) you get medicare.
So, yeah. Do some fucking research.
See his post directly below yours. Debating with him is like having a conversation with poptard or wade.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:02:56 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:59:40 PM
I wasn't being clear. The issue I was stabbing at was the whole "health care costs" bugbear and how it's pretty much a two-man con. Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money.
Interesting. Would you include in that assessement the people that point out that having poor people using the ER (because they can't afford a doctor, and the ER has to treat them) causes costs to skyrocket? Or the people that point out that the Canadian-style system is cheaper for everyone, as a result of patients being able to see regular doctors instead of cramming up the ERs?
What part of "Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money" isn't clear? It's less about what really causes price increases and more about ways to increase profits.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 28, 2012, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
Um... so what do we do to the ones who can't afford to pay? I mean, after they can't afford to buy insurance that costs twice what their rent does every month, and after we fine them twice that much for not bending over like good little atm machines?
The law states that if you're too poor (up to 400% of the poverty level), you will get credits to pay, and if you're WAY too poor (up to 113%) you get medicare.
So, yeah. Do some fucking research.
I'd skimmed over something to that effect only because I thought it had to be some sort of typo. 400%? Really? Won't that cover about 60% of the people in the US?
Before I start ignoring you, I'll just suggest you do a little thinking before you respond, and consider the amount of people who have employer-provided healthcare.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 28, 2012, 06:32:14 PM
Before I start ignoring you, I'll just suggest you do a little thinking before you respond, and consider the amount of people who have employer-provided healthcare.
Meh. He's already stated that he's just here to push buttons.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
I don't know who you are, but I'm pretty sure you're a complete fucking idiot.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:24:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.
Tort payouts have not increased since 1980. Malpractice insurance premiums, though, have gone up 350%. Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.
Complete lack of data. So sue me. I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you). I just find it very hard to believe that in the past thirty years the lawyers haven't gotten any greedier (or at least kept up with the cost of living). On the other hand, I have little difficulty imagining insurance companies arbitrarily raising premiums simply because they think their pockets are a little lighter than they could be.
Wow. Have you ever tried "reading a book" or "doing some research so you know what you're talking about"?
Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.
I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.
I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.
Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on March 28, 2012, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.
I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.
Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. :lulz:
And his head is TOO FUCKING SMALL. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:38:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 28, 2012, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.
I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.
Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. :lulz:
And his head is TOO FUCKING SMALL. :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
There's also this:
Health Insurers: We’ll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/19/447157/health-insurers-well-deny-coverage-for-pre-existing-conditions-if-health-mandate-is-repealed/)
QuoteHealth insurers and supporters of the Obama administration’s health-care reform law are currently in the midst of drawing up possible contingency plans in case the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
The insurance industry argues that premiums are likely to skyrocket without the individual mandate in place to aid in pushing millions of new enrollees into the marketplace, as healthy people will be less likely to buy insurance, while insurers will still be required to sell policies to all applicants. In fact, a repeal of the individual mandate would increase insurance premiums by 25 percent, according to a study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
“The insurance reforms would have to change if the mandate were struck,” said Justine Handelman, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association trade group.
Health-insurance officials say that if the mandate is repealed, “their first priority would be persuading members of Congress to repeal two of the law’s major insurance changes: a requirement to cover everyone regardless of his or her medical history, and limits on how much insurers can vary premiums based on age.” Their next step would be to “set rewards for people who purchase insurance voluntarily and sanction those who don’t.”
Other possible alternatives to the individual mandate that insurers are weighing:
- Penalize those who enroll outside of short annual windows; deny treatment for specific conditions, especially right after a policy is purchased
- Reward certain insurance buyers, such as offering much lower premiums for younger and healthier people
- Expand employers’ role in automatically enrolling employees for health insurance
- Urge credit-rating firms to use health-insurance status as a factor in determining individuals’ ratings
Although the mandate has been upheld in two appeals courts, it was struck down in a third. The Supreme Court hearings are scheduled to begin March 26, and an official ruling is expected to be delivered in June.
And we are all probably boned forever.
I keep hearing all this rhetoric about "Well could the government force you to buy broccoli?"
It already is! We subsidize farms for like a bazillion dollars, and that money comes from taxpayers - taxpayers are buying broccoli via government mandate, just like they buy bridges and elementary schools and aircraft carriers.
Clearly part of Obama's Socialist Masterplan for the USA.
Snark off, exactly. And health care is somewhat more reasonable in terms of rationale than farming subsidies, as well. The arms industry is almost the definition of a government supported enterprise, too. It's not like Goldman Sachs are looking to buy F-35's, after all.
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 06:16:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 28, 2012, 06:02:56 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 05:59:40 PM
I wasn't being clear. The issue I was stabbing at was the whole "health care costs" bugbear and how it's pretty much a two-man con. Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money.
Interesting. Would you include in that assessement the people that point out that having poor people using the ER (because they can't afford a doctor, and the ER has to treat them) causes costs to skyrocket? Or the people that point out that the Canadian-style system is cheaper for everyone, as a result of patients being able to see regular doctors instead of cramming up the ERs?
What part of "Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money" isn't clear? It's less about what really causes price increases and more about ways to increase profits.
Funny how it is cheaper in other places. Are the people in those other places a superior breed of man with les greed? I highly doubt it. Some ideas are better than others. Saying that everyone is selfish so nothing will ever become cheaper makes no sense in light of the very real examples where this kind of thing works.
Quote from: Nigel on March 28, 2012, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: Lethal Dejection on March 28, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Wait. I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.
Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?
Or, you know, fuck me to death....
I don't know who you are, but I'm pretty sure you're a complete fucking idiot.
I totally read that reply to the tune of Dead Ringer by Meatloaf. :lulz:
Linguistic analysis of the Supreme Court suggests the mandatory purchase is going to be shot down.
Irony alert: the language of the ACA on that particular area was designed in particular to convince Scalia, based on his own reasoning about the state and marijuana. It didn't work, because it failed to take into account Scalia is a massive dick, and consistency is for "little people".
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2012, 03:09:27 PM
Linguistic analysis of the Supreme Court suggests the mandatory purchase is going to be shot down.
Irony alert: the language of the ACA on that particular area was designed in particular to convince Scalia, based on his own reasoning about the state and marijuana. It didn't work, because it failed to take into account Scalia is a massive dick, and consistency is for "little people".
Most accurate assesment of Scalia, ever.
:thanks:
Also, Justice Kennedy, IIRC, said something alone the lines of "it would have been more honest for the government to just go ahead with a single-payer system", basically opening the door for Obama to do just that, should he get in next term. So it's not all bad.
Quote from: Cain on April 02, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
:thanks:
Also, Justice Kennedy, IIRC, said something alone the lines of "it would have been more honest for the government to just go ahead with a single-payer system", basically opening the door for Obama to do just that, should he get in next term. So it's not all bad.
FUCK I hope we get single-payer.
It seems unlikely, but I really really do.