The bible stuff was specifically asked for.

I'm not saying that it wasn't appropriate or requested, it just didn't add to my enjoyment of the discussion.

Chris asked a legitimate question about religious beliefs and how they factor into the equation. You asked for places where the Bible says to help others. He provided.

Don't ask if you don't want to know. You know, the same thing you do with the rest of reality.

LMAO!

Didn't have your coffee yet?

That is too funny. I asked where it says to help others?

Don't drink coffee.

Apparently you should.

And it is funny how libs (Chris and D in this case) use the bible when they think it helps their politics.

Don't like being called "prejudice" (assuming I was one of the two guys you left unnamed) especially against my own religion.

Don't start pouting. We all have prejudices.

And it is funny how libs (Chris and D in this case) use the bible when they think it helps their politics.


So senile. He wasn't supposed to use the Bible to find places in the Bible where it says to help others? And yes you did ask where it says to help others, that's what your cranky-ass conservative speak really meant.

Don't start pouting. We all have prejudices.

Pouting? Make sense.

Now I agree with Gla.

So senile. He wasn't supposed to use the Bible to find places in the Bible where it says to help others? And yes you did ask where it says to help others, that's what your cranky-ass conservative speak really meant.

Thanks for posting this morning.

You, friend, are cracking me up.

Pouting? Make sense.

Now I agree with Gla.


Uh oh, you're getting owned. Have to bring in third person.

Only in your disjointed vodka in your orange juice thoughts are you making sense, let alone owning anyone.

No death threats or spitting, please.

As for the cost of obesity vs cancer argument, do you factor in the lost research dollars that could be going toward curing something that in many cases is an unavoidable disease vs finding ways to help people who have consciously fucked themselves over?

Also, isn't the point of health care "longer life". So wouldn't you have to do it as a ratio to life span rather than simple $ amounts.
My argument is simply that most of the dollar costs associated with obesity seem like funny math to me. To get a true sense of the cost of obesity, you have to subtract "costs because some are obese" from "costs if no one were obese". No one seems to do that, instead preferring to throw big dollars around to shock the innumerate people. You see the same thing with the costs of cybercrime, software and media piracy, etc.

What led me to mentioning cancer a lot are two intertwined concepts:

1) If you die of nothing else, you die of cancer. This was something I heard an oncologist say on some PBS special awhile back that stuck with me. Given the many manifestations and causes of cancer, I don't think there'll be a silver bullet for it.

2) Cancer treatment can cost an awful lot. Most of the way that it _doesn't_ cost a lot involves you being too late or too old/infirm to catch it. As better screening tests evolve, you can end up spending a fortune over nothing, thus the recent controversies about how to screen for breast and prostate cancer.

I'm not sure I totally get your point about ratios. It certainly is the case that if you were to eliminate obesity, the ratio of people dying from other diseases would increase to some degree. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if the quantity/quality of life goes up. But it can be a costly thing, inasmuch as we have a system where >65 means Social Security and ending one's stint in the general workforce. While we have improved quantity of life, we haven't improved the quality of life to the point where we could justifiably raise the minimum retirement age to 70+.

Mxy to the rescue!

I mean putting it back on topic.

My argument is simply that most of the dollar costs associated with obesity seem like funny math to me. To get a true sense of the cost of obesity, you have to subtract "costs because some are obese" from "costs if no one were obese". No one seems to do that, instead preferring to throw big dollars around to shock the innumerate people. You see the same thing with the costs of cybercrime, software and media piracy, etc.


The math may indeed be funny because there are a lot of different ways to estimate those costs. However, obesity as a risk factor in a whole host of expensive chronic conditions is something that can be measured in a meaningful way and there's a pretty solid consensus that it's a problem.

Of course the scope goes far beyond health care. To places like the farm bill where we subsidize the crap the makes us fat and the schools where phys ed is becoming extinct.

The math may indeed be funny because there are a lot of different ways to estimate those costs. However, obesity as a risk factor in a whole host of expensive chronic conditions is something that can be measured in a meaningful way and there's a pretty solid consensus that it's a problem.




But you'd end up with some condition eventually anyway. And I don't think those are any cheaper than a swift stroke. Dirty little secret, it's the old people who soak up all the healthcare.

As far as kicking the bucket early, yeah, no question, being fat kills you young. But dying at all? Turns out everyone does it.

But you'd end up with some condition eventually anyway. And I don't think those are any cheaper than a swift stroke. Dirty little secret, it's the old people who soak up all the healthcare.

Would you rather pay for 40, 50, 60 years of treatment for chronic conditions that obesity puts you at higher risk for at a younger age? Or try to dodge as many bullets for as long as possible--shortening the number of years that it would have to be treated before you died?

As an aside, not all strokes are swift. Many lead to lengthy and expensive rehabilitation or even permanent and expensive disability.




As far as kicking the bucket early, yeah, no question, being fat kills you young. But dying at all? Turns out everyone does it.

It would be better (ie: cheaper) if it killed you young. So many of the things it puts you at risk for though are treatable so you can go another 30 or 40 years taking pills and getting treatments for your chronic conditions.

Would you rather pay for 40, 50, 60 years of treatment for chronic conditions that obesity puts you at higher risk for at a younger age? Or try to dodge as many bullets for as long as possible--shortening the number of years that it would have to be treated before you died?

I'd sooner pay for the 40-60 since I'm guessing obese dude will get something else in the next 5. I am pissed about paying for the hoverround.





It would be better (ie: cheaper) if it killed you young. So many of the things it puts you at risk for though are treatable so you can go another 30 or 40 years taking pills and getting treatments for your chronic conditions.

What flavor are the pills? I might hang around if they are grape.

this is a pretty good schpeal on some of the obvious early cracks:


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-passed-how-will-individuals.html

the gov just incentivized companies that did offer coverage to drop, and with the prohibition on screening pre-existing, it just incentivized healthy individuals to just not have health insurance, and wait til something bad happens. i will look at this, but i have pretty good coverage and pay less a year than the fine, i think.

if you think healthcare was broken before, get ready.

no one wanted this bill. people maybe wanted reform, but not this.

the dems knew they had 7 months before they'd lose the votes needed, and wanted a buffer before the elections. if nothing passed it would have looked like a political defeat, so they just passed whatever, lied about the price ( since they lost the 60 super majority, reconciliation was their only option. reconciliation required the bill to be deficit neutral. or atleast be called deficit neutral. anyway...) and called it a day.

Here's a reasonable summary of the trumped-up numbers that some corporations will claim the new healthcare reform law will cost them:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/03/26/189296/the-healthcare-party-is-over-now-comes-the-hangover/

Note that the hit to companies who take this Medicare Part D subsidy is spread out over the lifetime of its current and future retirees -- decades. But, with asset-based accounting, the cost has to be added up immediately. Imagine if you were told that your broadband bill was going up by $5-10/month a few years from now, then declaring you have a $5-10k loss today and you had to make major changes in how you spend money. That's roughly equivalent to what's going on here. Insight into what the "real" costs will be like 10-20+ years down the line is poor, but that doesn't stop beancounters from recalibrating the asset values based on what they know.

this is a pretty good schpeal on some of the obvious early cracks:


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-passed-how-will-individuals.html



That article is a load of shit. it is just a subsidy shift from one group to another. If the govt. hadn't jacked up the costs of medicare by subsidizing private insurance through medicare advantage in the first place, these companies would have had to pay those costs anyways. Businessfolk sure get pissy when their subsidies are taken away. i guess its only socialism if someone else benefits.

Let's take a look at this right wing "brilliance"




I ran the same simulation for the company I retired from.

They can save $607,000 by terminating the health insurance plan, offset by a fine of $200,000.

If cost savings were distributed to employees as raises, employees would presumably be able to purchase non-Cadillac plans with better benefits, and some potential savings. If there are minimum benefit schedules, then price would be the major consideration in buying health insurance.

This argument is incoherent. Apparently, his company's plan is so shitty that the company could drop the plan, take a $200,000 tax penalty, and increase wages based on the savings. Then, individuals could purchase a better plan "with some potential savings" despite that $200,000 fine and despite the fact that the employer gets a huge tax break for providing insurance, a tax break unavailable to the employees in the individual market.

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with. This isn't my preferred bill, but it is a step in the right direction. The US pays vastly more for health care than any of those "socialist" countries, yet has shitty health outcomes. This suggests to me that we have, in fact, the worst fucking health care system in the developed world dollar for dollar. Anything to standardize and better spread risk in the system should lead to the savings on the whole.

Essentially, most of the arguments are based on companies saving money because health care costs are more than the penalties. So fucking what, are they asking for a bigger penalty? Employees are not going to be pleased if their health care is dropped just because it is cheaper than paying penalties. Hell, if all health care were bought and sold on properly regulated exchanges, i'm sure costs would go down for everyone.

Ha, that article about supposed unintended consequences is even more ridiculous than i thought. It basically just disallowed corporations from claiming bullshit tax deductions for money received directly from the govt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/technology/companies/27phone.html


Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.

The more insurance moves out of the sphere of employer control the better we'll all be.

Edit: I hadn't seen mxy's post before my 2, but i think it goes beyond his reasoning, because the tax breaks were a government error (loophole) in the first place. it is not like these companies are victims here. anyways, also kudos to the dems for taking away bank welfare in the form of guaranteed student loans.

b-diddy, the initial cut of Social Security was such that, in practical terms, only white males were covered. Medicare was amended a year after it was passed to deal with significant loopholes and other fucked-uppedness. This is the start. not the end. There will undoubtedly be refinements to healthcare reform as the evitable and inevitable loopholes rear their ugly heads. No one was going to get it right on the first try, and there's going to be constant recalibration to get things closer to "right", as there is with most government programs.

What is needed:

Tort reform, to stem frivolous malpractice suits and curb hospital insurance costs.

Basic healthcare packages for illegal immigrants who file for citizenship. It's a problem that's not going away, so make the best of it (excludes Canadians).

Line item procedures, where having a medical procedure is like buying a car -- everything is itemized and transparent (so scalpel blades don't cost $100 ea.)

Umbrella plans for local Chambers of Commerce, so even the smallest business can offer the most basic health care for their employees.

Make local politicians accountable for regional health care campaigns. When Martin Luther King Hospital (King/Drew Hospital) went under last year, I blamed the local congressmen, such as Mark Ridley Thomas, who'd rather blow his load on getting an NFL team to LA than protecting the area hospital/trauma center.

it just incentivized healthy individuals to just not have health insurance, and wait til something bad happens.

This is precisely why they also the mandate that so many people are up in arms about. To prevent people from gaming the system and just waiting until they got sick to buy coverage.

Umbrella plans for local Chambers of Commerce, so even the smallest business can offer the most basic health care for their employees.

There is a tax subsidy for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Not quite the same thing but it does at least target the smallest businesses.

The more insurance moves out of the sphere of employer control the better we'll all be.

I couldn't agree more.

That article is a load of shit. it is just a subsidy shift from one group to another. If the govt. hadn't jacked up the costs of medicare by subsidizing private insurance through medicare advantage in the first place, these companies would have had to pay those costs anyways. Businessfolk sure get pissy when their subsidies are taken away. i guess its only socialism if someone else benefits.

Let's take a look at this right wing "brilliance"



This argument is incoherent. Apparently, his company's plan is so shitty that the company could drop the plan, take a $200,000 tax penalty, and increase wages based on the savings. Then, individuals could purchase a better plan "with some potential savings" despite that $200,000 fine and despite the fact that the employer gets a huge tax break for providing insurance, a tax break unavailable to the employees in the individual market.

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with. This isn't my preferred bill, but it is a step in the right direction. The US pays vastly more for health care than any of those "socialist" countries, yet has shitty health outcomes. This suggests to me that we have, in fact, the worst fucking health care system in the developed world dollar for dollar. Anything to standardize and better spread risk in the system should lead to the savings on the whole.

Essentially, most of the arguments are based on companies saving money because health care costs are more than the penalties. So fucking what, are they asking for a bigger penalty? Employees are not going to be pleased if their health care is dropped just because it is cheaper than paying penalties. Hell, if all health care were bought and sold on properly regulated exchanges, i'm sure costs would go down for everyone.

its not the taxing of subsidies, its the fact that the gov just gave employers an incentive to cut health insurance. since it appears i have to have health insurance regardless, what do i care if a job offers insurance? but for my company? in my situation, i believe my boss pays between 6 and 10 thousand dollars per employee for insurance. under obama care, they can pay a 2000 dollar fine instead, and uncle sam will suddenly have a bigger cost than expected. we have about 50 employees, lets say insurance is 8k, thats 300k savings a year thanks to obama... if thats what they ended up doing. 300k savings for my boss, not america, thats a debit to america.

whats the fix? raise the penalty, right? well, many jobs cant afford to pay for health insurance. i dont know how much the subsidies will counter this, but even at a penalty of 2k, jobs that other wise would have existed simply wont. raise the penalty, more jobs vanish.

I love the question "How is it possible that the richest, most economically developed nation on Earth doesn't provide free healthcare to all its citizens?" Well dummies, it is the richest nation because we've never done stupid shit like give healthcare to everyone in it. Most people have to have an incentive to work,... simple as that. A great country takes a step back with this bonehead move.

I love the question "How is it possible that the richest, most economically developed nation on Earth doesn't provide free healthcare to all its citizens?" Well dummies, it is the richest nation because we've never done stupid shit like give healthcare to everyone in it. Most people have to have an incentive to work,... simple as that. A great country takes a step back with this bonehead move.
The Scandinavian countries enjoy our GDP per capita, and have had socialized healthcare for decades. The Japanese famously managed to kick our butt productivity-wise back in the '80s, with a big boost from the socialized healthcare and other guv'mint aspects we set up for them post-World War II. We're too big to have it as well-off as the smaller countries?

The smaller countries have 1 fuggin MRI machine for the entire country...or something.

Not that bad, but hopefully you get my point.

My brother is a friggin lib and he always comes up with countries that have health care for all.

But some of them don't get MRIs every time they get a fuckin headache.

They don't get hips replaced.

They don't get their knees replaced or operated on because of a pickup game.

They don't get aids drugs (unless they get them from the US).

They don't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

They don't get Heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants.

They don't get therapy cuz they can't sleep cuz they have too much stress in their lives...on top of drugs.

We have the best health care and its fuckin expensive especially because we developed most of it. And we're going to give it to peeps who can't afford it and the working man is going to pay for it.

Life expectancy by country: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)

1. Japan
2. Hong King
3. Iceland
4. Switzerland
5. Australia
6. Spain
7. Sweden
8. Israel
9. Macau
10. France
11. Canada

... how far down do you have to go to get to us...

35. Chile
36. Denmark
37. Cuba
38. United States

Stay classy, America.

The smaller countries have 1 fuggin MRI machine for the entire country...or something.

Not that bad, but hopefully you get my point.

My brother is a friggin lib and he always comes up with countries that have health care for all.

But some of them don't get MRIs every time they get a fuckin headache.

They don't get hips replaced.

They don't get their knees replaced or operated on because of a pickup game.

They don't get aids drugs (unless they get them from the US).

They don't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

They don't get Heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants.

They don't get therapy cuz they can't sleep cuz they have too much stress in their lives...on top of drugs.
I put the key unarguable words in bold. Obviously, every socialized health program is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Who says we have to have a shitty socialized healthcare system?


We have the best health care and its fuckin expensive especially because we developed most of it. And we're going to give it to peeps who can't afford it and the working man is going to pay for it.
If we have the best healthcare, why don't our people collectively live as long and have as good a quality of life and health as some of these other rinkydink countries? What's breaking down?

The U.S. still leads on several fronts, but hardly has an overall monopoly on developing leading edge healthcare and biotech these days. Go look at the explosive growth of Big Pharma in Europe, or the Asian countries where the big-time stem cell research and human trials are happening due to regulatory issues.

its not the taxing of subsidies, its the fact that the gov just gave employers an incentive to cut health insurance. since it appears i have to have health insurance regardless, what do i care if a job offers insurance? but for my company? in my situation, i believe my boss pays between 6 and 10 thousand dollars per employee for insurance. under obama care, they can pay a 2000 dollar fine instead, and uncle sam will suddenly have a bigger cost than expected. we have about 50 employees, lets say insurance is 8k, thats 300k savings a year thanks to obama... if thats what they ended up doing. 300k savings for my boss, not america, thats a debit to america.

whats the fix? raise the penalty, right? well, many jobs cant afford to pay for health insurance. i dont know how much the subsidies will counter this, but even at a penalty of 2k, jobs that other wise would have existed simply wont. raise the penalty, more jobs vanish.

1. There are more efficient ways to increase jobs than provide subsidies for private insurance for retired persons.

2. Employers have traditionally provided insurance because a) they could spread risk across employees vs. the individual market where risk would not be spread and b) there is a big tax break to provide insurance.

The new law increases incentives for employers to provide insurance by instituting the fine (+ the already available tax breaks). This is not a disincentive to provide insurance. On the other hand, the govt. is trying to make it easier for individuals to get their own insurance. This may lead to a decrease in employer provided insurance, but so what. In the long run, we're better off if individuals are not dependent on their job for insurance.

3. boo-fucking-hoo that employers lost their govt. handout through the new law. The fact that employers are threatening to cut off their retirees based on the change from a law instituted in 2003 demonstrates that it is ridiculous to rely on employers to provide insurance in the first place. We always hear about wasteful spending. This seems like wasteful govt. spending to me.

Iput the key unarguable words in bold. Obviously, every socialized health program is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Who says we have to have a shitty socialized healthcare system?


If we have the best healthcare, why don't our people collectively live as long and have as good a quality of life and health as some of these other rinkydink countries? What's breaking down?

The U.S. still leads on several fronts, but hardly has an overall monopoly on developing leading edge healthcare and biotech these days. Go look at the explosive growth of Big Pharma in Europe, or the Asian countries where the big-time stem cell research and human trials are happening due to regulatory issues.

BECAUSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Libs always want to make a straight line out of our crooked population with more Gov't intervention. Its fuckin crazy, imo. Survival of the fittest folks. Let it happen.

Its like Fool interpalatin the bible...cuz throughout the Bible it says help peeps, he says that means the fuggin GOV"T (anyone heard of serperation?) should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care. I agree with Gla...he makes no sense.

Anyway, some peeps think helping peeps means making them responsible for their own actions.

1. There are more efficient ways to increase jobs than provide subsidies for private insurance for retired persons.

2. Employers have traditionally provided insurance because a) they could spread risk across employees vs. the individual market where risk would not be spread and b) there is a big tax break to provide insurance.

The new law increases incentives for employers to provide insurance by instituting the fine (+ the already available tax breaks). This is not a disincentive to provide insurance. On the other hand, the govt. is trying to make it easier for individuals to get their own insurance. This may lead to a decrease in employer provided insurance, but so what. In the long run, we're better off if individuals are not dependent on their job for insurance.

3. boo-fucking-hoo that employers lost their govt. handout through the new law. The fact that employers are threatening to cut off their retirees based on the change from a law instituted in 2003 demonstrates that it is ridiculous to rely on employers to provide insurance in the first place. We always hear about wasteful spending. This seems like wasteful govt. spending to me.

i think your missing my point? 1) the bill is going to destroy jobs. not great jobs, but jobs nonetheless. 2) one of the costs the bill probably isnt considering the firms that will drop health insurance in favor of letting uncle sam flip the tab. my understanding is that the gov planned on the private sector carrying the the load, and expanding on it to fill in the cracks. right now firms pay insurance because workers will go to a firm that does if theirs doesnt. but if it doesnt matter if your job offers insurance, and the fine is far cheaper than actually providing it (it is, as far as i know) then uh oh. well, uh oh if you care about the cost of this bill. my distinct impression is that almost no one does.

BECAUSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Libs always want to make a straight line out of our crooked population with more Gov't intervention. Its fuckin crazy, imo. Survival of the fittest folks. Let it happen.
Seems to be working out well in Somalia, with Terry Schaivo, etc.


Its like Fool interpalatin the bible...cuz throughout the Bible it says help peeps, he says that means the fuggin GOV"T (anyone heard of serperation?) should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care. I agree with Gla...he makes no sense.

Anyway, some peeps think helping peeps means making them responsible for their own actions.
It's against the law for people who choose to kill themselves to do so.
We've got a long way to go, here...

wow this is intense!

i think your missing my point? 1) the bill is going to destroy jobs. not great jobs, but jobs nonetheless.

The bill just takes away a govt. subsidy that was ill-conceived in the first place. Your position seems to be that all government subsidies must be locked in place, regardless of how efficient those subsidies are. The revision of subsidies will always be met with claims about job losses. However, job gains can more than offset losses if subsidies are used more efficiently. Anyways, how many jobs are "destroyed" by the inefficiencies of our current health care system? No other country spends close to the amount we do for health care.


2) one of the costs the bill probably isnt considering the firms that will drop health insurance in favor of letting uncle sam flip the tab. my understanding is that the gov planned on the private sector carrying the the load, and expanding on it to fill in the cracks. right now firms pay insurance because workers will go to a firm that does if theirs doesnt. but if it doesnt matter if your job offers insurance, and the fine is far cheaper than actually providing it (it is, as far as i know) then uh oh. well, uh oh if you care about the cost of this bill. my distinct impression is that almost no one does.


You still haven't explained why imposing fines on companies makes them more likely to drop coverage of employees. Wouldn't they be more likely to drop coverage without the fine? It doesn't make any sense.

Nonetheless, if the long term consequences of the plan lead to a Dutch-style system of individuals purchasing insurance through regulated insurance exchanges, I would have no problem with that. There is no inherent advantage to employer provision of health insurance if you can generate large risk pools without employer based coverage. Right now, we do not have an efficient mechanism for risk pooling. However, that is an aim for the bill.

Anyway, the entire conservative argument against health care reform is premised on the idea that there are no data for alternative approaches to health care. However, there is plenty of evidence that the US approach is both more expensive and less effective than every other first-world country. The do-nothing approach just leads to continuing this trend.

its not the taxing of subsidies, its the fact that the gov just gave employers an incentive to cut health insurance. since it appears i have to have health insurance regardless, what do i care if a job offers insurance? but for my company? in my situation, i believe my boss pays between 6 and 10 thousand dollars per employee for insurance. under obama care, they can pay a 2000 dollar fine instead, and uncle sam will suddenly have a bigger cost than expected. we have about 50 employees, lets say insurance is 8k, thats 300k savings a year thanks to obama... if thats what they ended up doing. 300k savings for my boss, not america, thats a debit to america.

whats the fix? raise the penalty, right? well, many jobs cant afford to pay for health insurance. i dont know how much the subsidies will counter this, but even at a penalty of 2k, jobs that other wise would have existed simply wont. raise the penalty, more jobs vanish.


What makes you think that Uncle Sam is going to pay for your health insurance if your employer drops you? Perhaps you may get a subsidy to pay for part of an individual insurance plan if your income is low enough. Otherwise, you pay a fine and have no health insurance. However, the cost to you for your employer to drop his coverage is far from zero.

The bill just takes away a govt. subsidy that was ill-conceived in the first place. Your position seems to be that all government subsidies must be locked in place, regardless of how efficient those subsidies are. The revision of subsidies will always be met with claims about job losses. However, job gains can more than offset losses if subsidies are used more efficiently. Anyways, how many jobs are "destroyed" by the inefficiencies of our current health care system? No other country spends close to the amount we do for health care.


i havent been talking about the subsidy at all.

i dont see how the old system could have destroyed jobs at all. if i was a small startup, i could offer a job and simply not offer health insurance. if someone wanted the job, regardless, then there was a job. now, that employee has to generate atleast 2k profit a year, or it doesnst make sense to hire them.




You still haven't explained why imposing fines on companies makes them more likely to drop coverage of employees. Wouldn't they be more likely to drop coverage without the fine? It doesn't make any sense.

Nonetheless, if the long term consequences of the plan lead to a Dutch-style system of individuals purchasing insurance through regulated insurance exchanges, I would have no problem with that. There is no inherent advantage to employer provision of health insurance if you can generate large risk pools without employer based coverage. Right now, we do not have an efficient mechanism for risk pooling. However, that is an aim for the bill.


prior to the bill, an employer offering insurance was a significant benefit that would differentiate it from one that did not. after the passing of this bill, does that matter anymore? if not, and its cheaper to pay a fine than pay insurance (it is), then the gov just incentivized companies to stop paying health insurance.

whether it is better to not have employers be involved in the process, maybe. but this bill was a hybrid that counted on employers to do the heavy lifting. if that doesnt happen, the cost of this thing is even more out of projection than it already is.



Anyway, the entire conservative argument against health care reform is premised on the idea that there are no data for alternative approaches to health care. However, there is plenty of evidence that the US approach is both more expensive and less effective than every other first-world country. The do-nothing approach just leads to continuing this trend.

just be careful that the cure isnt worse than the disease. the dems didnt pass *this* bill because it was so great, it was out of political expediency, and the belief that something had to be done. while i think the conservatives were wrong to dig in and oppose everything, they had every right not to support an action they were against. something democrats could take a leason from.

anyway, it reminds me of a line from lawrence of arabia. something like:
"but we cant just do nothing!"
"why not? its usually best."

i havent been talking about the subsidy at all.

i dont see how the old system could have destroyed jobs at all. if i was a small startup, i could offer a job and simply not offer health insurance. if someone wanted the job, regardless, then there was a job. now, that employee has to generate atleast 2k profit a year, or it doesnst make sense to hire them.
b-diddy, Where does the 2k come from? Under 50 employees, and there's no business penalty, just the individual insurance mandate which is subsidized if the employer pays like crap. The penalty for a 50-employee shop (which I wouldn't characterize as a "small" startup) not offering health insurance is only $40k/year, because the first 30 employees are exempt.. If you have 50 40-hour/week employees each averaging <$800/year in profit, then you have problems far beyond healthcare costs.

Note that healthy employees benefit employers as well. Don't get that cough treated? Pass along those germs to others. Scare away those customers. Wanna provide stable services? It's harder to do with the greater turnover and absenteeism and negative impact to productivity associated with sicker employees. Healthy employees lead to a healthier bottom line.


just be careful that the cure isnt worse than the disease. the dems didnt pass *this* bill because it was so great, it was out of political expediency, and the belief that something had to be done. while i think the conservatives were wrong to dig in and oppose everything, they had every right not to support an action they were against. something democrats could take a leason from.

anyway, it reminds me of a line from lawrence of arabia. something like:
"but we cant just do nothing!"
"why not? its usually best."
Often, if you're not doing something, you're having something done to you. No one would ever call this a perfect bill, but getting substantive off the ground means you're inclined to fix it, not pick it apart before it can grow into something useful.

Many conservatives weren't personally opposed to most of the principles within the bill itself. Remember, this is a lot like what Nixon laid out nearly 40 years ago, and one could hardly accuse him of being some lefty liberal. A lot of provisions in the bill enjoy broad support. They were opposed because they knew it kicked their ass politically. It's all part of being the "party of no".

If you're looking for the shitty individual aspects of the healthcare bill, look at the OTC drugs and supplies that won't be expensible with FSA/HSAs in a couple years. It'll be cheaper to buy Claritin directly from a physician or as a hospital inpatient than from a pharmacy.

b-diddy, Where does the 2k come from? Under 50 employees, and there's no business penalty, just the individual insurance mandate which is subsidized if the employer pays like crap. The penalty for a 50-employee shop (which I wouldn't characterize as a "small" startup) not offering health insurance is only $40k/year, because the first 30 employees are exempt.. If you have 50 40-hour/week employees each averaging <$800/year in profit, then you have problems far beyond healthcare costs.

Note that healthy employees benefit employers as well. Don't get that cough treated? Pass along those germs to others. Scare away those customers. Wanna provide stable services? It's harder to do with the greater turnover and absenteeism and negative impact to productivity associated with sicker employees. Healthy employees lead to a healthier bottom line.


Often, if you're not doing something, you're having something done to you. No one would ever call this a perfect bill, but getting substantive off the ground means you're inclined to fix it, not pick it apart before it can grow into something useful.

Many conservatives weren't personally opposed to most of the principles within the bill itself. Remember, this is a lot like what Nixon laid out nearly 40 years ago, and one could hardly accuse him of being some lefty liberal. A lot of provisions in the bill enjoy broad support. They were opposed because they knew it kicked their ass politically. It's all part of being the "party of no".

If you're looking for the shitty individual aspects of the healthcare bill, look at the OTC drugs and supplies that won't be expensible with FSA/HSAs in a couple years. It'll be cheaper to buy Claritin directly from a physician or as a hospital inpatient than from a pharmacy.

I completely disagree.

Conservatives want smaller gov't. They don't want our Govt to take over...what is it? a third of our economy? We don't want the Gov't doing what best left to private sector and competition. Was it perfect before? No. Should it be reformed? Yes, but not the Gov't taking it over and giving our expensive health care to everyone cuz some peeps feel its the right thing to do.

The ~200 amendments authored by Republicans that are part of the HCR law make to think you have it wrong. Many of the no votes were political calculus, nothing more or less.

The journalist who came up with the whole governing best=governing least thing popularized by Thoreau also came up with Manifest Destiny and was a big believer in the expansion of government all over the place.

The ~200 amendments authored by Republicans that are part of the HCR law make to think you have it wrong. Many of the no votes were political calculus, nothing more or less.

I don't know if thats true or not, Mxy. I haven't followed it since the 1st of the year or so. They weren't consulted...or put it this way, the things they asked for weren't even considered in most every case. I bet a lot of the 'no' votes were more of a "well fuck it, they won't consider what we want seriously, so lets blast it" You are aware this is politics, right?

The journalist who came up with the whole governing best=governing least thing popularized by Thoreau also came up with Manifest Destiny and was a big believer in the expansion of government all over the place.

Less Gov't wasn't an 'idea' or 'theory' by 1 person. I don't want Gov't telling me what I can eat, drink and every other facet of my life. That feeling isn't cuz of some journalist.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

^ Holy Moly...if the Repubs are in, I'm in!

And it is funny how libs (Chris and D in this case) use the bible when they think it helps their politics.


You are one amazing person Tahoe. First off, the bible has no influence on my politics. I have been considering leaving the Catholic church for some time because 5 years ago they told everyone they should vote for a republican president because of their stance on abortions (amongst other issues like kicking kids out of catholic school because their parents are lesbians, sweeping abuse cases under the rug, not allowing priests to marry, etc). If I were to listen to my church I would not even be what you think is a disgusting liberal.

So don't tell me I use the bible to help my politics. I don't blindly follow my faith like you are apparently trying to say.

Fool is right. I simply asked a question that I hoped the resident conservative on here could answer about how some religious conservatives manage to cherry pick bible quotes on issues like abortion to back them but ignore issues like helping the poor. Instead of giving a real answer you insinuated that there weren't quotes about helping the poor. I provided them and you simply ignored the facts (shocking, I know).

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled fact ignoring...

I completely disagree.

Conservatives want smaller gov't. They don't want our Govt to take over...what is it? a third of our economy? We don't want the Gov't doing what best left to private sector and competition. Was it perfect before? No. Should it be reformed? Yes, but not the Gov't taking it over and giving our expensive health care to everyone cuz some peeps feel its the right thing to do.

Conservatives don't know what the fuck they want (as a party). They are still applauding Regan even though he oversaw a massive government expansion. Conservatives are too busy voting against their own legislation the minute Obama supports part of it.

I have no doubt you know what you want, but if you ask the average conservative they have no idea what they want. They just want what Rush or Beck happen to spout off about on a given day.

Less Gov't wasn't an 'idea' or 'theory' by 1 person. I don't want Gov't telling me what I can eat, drink and every other facet of my life. That feeling isn't cuz of some journalist.

So do you support taxes in general? What parts of government do you actually feel are justified? Just trying to see where you draw the line at.

http://www.wwj.com/Economics-Dept---Employer-Healthcare-Costs-Jump-7-/6630724

You are one amazing person Tahoe. First off, the bible has no influence on my politics. I have been considering leaving the Catholic church for some time because 5 years ago they told everyone they should vote for a republican president because of their stance on abortions (amongst other issues like kicking kids out of catholic school because their parents are lesbians, sweeping abuse cases under the rug, not allowing priests to marry, etc). If I were to listen to my church I would not even be what you think is a disgusting liberal.

So don't tell me I use the bible to help my politics. I don't blindly follow my faith like you are apparently trying to say.

Fool is right. I simply asked a question that I hoped the resident conservative on here could answer about how some religious conservatives manage to cherry pick bible quotes on issues like abortion to back them but ignore issues like helping the poor. Instead of giving a real answer you insinuated that there weren't quotes about helping the poor. I provided them and you simply ignored the facts (shocking, I know).

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled fact ignoring...

You brought up the bible, you used the bible to make some point about Republican hypocrisy.

Conservatives don't know what the fuck they want (as a party). They are still applauding Regan even though he oversaw a massive government expansion. Conservatives are too busy voting against their own legislation the minute Obama supports part of it.

I have no doubt you know what you want, but if you ask the average conservative they have no idea what they want. They just want what Rush or Beck happen to spout off about on a given day.


LOL...and you have Olberman quoted in your sig.

So do you support taxes in general? What parts of government do you actually feel are justified? Just trying to see where you draw the line at.

I support taxes for our military, roads where its the feds responsibilites, etc.

I'd support more of the libs programs if the Gov't wouldn't waste about 50 cents of every dollar they take.

I'd support more lic programs if the free market didn't try to blow up the world so often.

Founding Father (and radical liberal) John Adams established a mandated healthcare model for the merchant marines, way back in 1798:


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled - That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

Other provisions of the act called for a $100 penalty for employers who didn't pay. The text of the act itself is at:

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

I support taxes for our military, roads where its the feds responsibilites, etc.

I'd support more of the libs programs if the Gov't wouldn't waste about 50 cents of every dollar they take.

Do you support the govt taxing us to support the military and then telling people they can't be serve if they are gay?

And you are ripping the libs for wasting money? That's pretty sad considering Bush wasted trillions in the middle east fighting his made up wars. But I'm sure you will ignore this because I brought up Bush again.

LOL...and you have Olberman quoted in your sig.


You laugh it off yet repubs are sending death threats to people who voted for some of the same health care items their own congressmen supported recently.

The difference is that my sig is a joke (I don't pretend that the GOP would go without air). Yet Rush and Beck slappies actually take their words as fact.

You laugh it off yet repubs are sending death threats to people who voted for some of the same health care items their own congressmen supported recently.

The difference is that my sig is a joke (I don't pretend that the GOP would go without air). Yet Rush and Beck slappies actually take their words as fact.

First the bible now you use death threats to for political purposes.

Death threats should be dealt with harshly. They shouldn't come into politics for political gain.

Unless you are crying about what wacko's say should happen to Bush.

Do you support the govt taxing us to support the military and then telling people they can't be serve if they are gay?

And you are ripping the libs for wasting money? That's pretty sad considering Bush wasted trillions in the middle east fighting his made up wars. But I'm sure you will ignore this because I brought up Bush again.


Depends on if they are full-on queens that want to create drama every fuckin day.

Unless you are crying about what wacko's say should happen to Bush.

Libs comparing him to Hitler isn't a death threat.

I know, it's accurate.

G,SWIDT?

IWC,JHF

I'm quite certain Tahoe has this app:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/irightwing/id362881372?mt=8

The smaller countries have 1 fuggin MRI machine for the entire country...or something.

Not that bad, but hopefully you get my point.

My brother is a friggin lib and he always comes up with countries that have health care for all.

But some of them don't get MRIs every time they get a fuckin headache.

They don't get hips replaced.

They don't get their knees replaced or operated on because of a pickup game.

They don't get aids drugs (unless they get them from the US).

They don't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

They don't get Heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants.

They don't get therapy cuz they can't sleep cuz they have too much stress in their lives...on top of drugs.

We have the best health care and its fuckin expensive especially because we developed most of it. And we're going to give it to peeps who can't afford it and the working man is going to pay for it.

Come on Tahoe. I cannot tell you enough how wrong you are. I've seen transplants and chemo and had MRIs and outpatient surgery myself. My ex-wife had a cousin who had this monster heart defect and everything was done and covered. Her grandmother got a new hip. My paraplegic friend gets everything he needs. Perfect? No. But it borders on insulting how wrong you could be here.

^ snap!

Come on Tahoe. I cannot tell you enough how wrong you are. I've seen transplants and chemo and had MRIs and outpatient surgery myself. My ex-wife had a cousin who had this monster heart defect and everything was done and covered. Her grandmother got a new hip. My paraplegic friend gets everything he needs. Perfect? No. But it borders on insulting how wrong you could be here.

I'll assuume you are talking about another country?

I must have that it never happened? Of course they do.

^ snap!


Fairly typical post.

My mom's a die-hard conservative and brought up the issue of doctor workloads/hours.

How bad are they going to get?

The government has our education system fucked up so badly right now. That's the only reason I'm hesitant to support this thing. Anyone see that Texas Board of Curriculum segment on the Daily Show? Major lolage.

I think our schools should work like European schools. If you show an affinity for something, you get put in a specialized school that fast-tracks your ass into an applicable job-field.

Also, Uncle Mox knows his shit.

I think our schools should work like European schools. If you show an affinity for something, you get put in a specialized school that fast-tracks your ass into an applicable job-field.


I need look no further than the housing market to know how much staying power a cultural ideal has here. Home ownership is central to the american dream, renting means you failed at life. Shoving every american with a pulse into a mortgage left us with the economic equivalent of nuclear winter and our solution is to provide even more subsidies to convert renters into owners.

We're just a few years away from Denzel Washington making his way across the country with a book of real estate listings.

Substitute education for housing market. Plug in you-can-be-anything college degree and trade/vocational for home ownership and renting and you have an idea of the resistance European style fast-tracks would meet. Volcano.

My mom's a die-hard conservative and brought up the issue of doctor workloads/hours.

How bad are they going to get?


I'm sure there are lots of doctors that are way overworked (probably surgeons), but a lot of them just pass on their responsibilities to other people anyway. My wife basically has to hold the hand of some of those doctors. I'll give you an example...

There is a very good doctor where she works (specializes in lung diseases) and she forgot to tell her patients she cannot make her clinic next Tuesday because she'll be at a conference out of state. My wife caught the mistake or she never would have even told her patients.

This type of thing happens with a lot of the doctors she has worked with. Perhaps it is a result of overworking, I don't know. But I do know the ones that suffer are the support staff (nurses and sometimes MA's). They get extra work pushed onto them but they have nowhere to push it themselves so they just do more.

Doctors can delegate Nurse Practitioners, Nurses, MA's, etc to do all the follow up anyway. And when clinics are overbooked and doctors can't see patients in a timely manner then the nurses get chewed out for making people wait because administrators don't dare piss off the doctors.

Sure, I'm sure I'm a little biased, but she's worked at 3 hospitals and 2 clinics (and she's the farthest thing from a complainer I know) so I'm sure she's got a good handle on the situation.

My mom's a die-hard conservative and brought up the issue of doctor workloads/hours.

How bad are they going to get?
Shortages are worse for clueful medical support staff like RNs. Moreover, doctor shortages are most severe among the GPs and pediatricians most needed for the care initiatives that healthcare reform pushes. Would-be doctors discover that the best way to deal with their severe debt from med school is to specialize. Our solution thus far has been to import the talent, but with currency exchange rates as they are, it isn't as lucrative to work in the U.S. as it was. I suspect the weak dollar will lead to more shortages than the healthcare reform act over the next few years, but of course every healthcare problem from now to eternity will be blamed on the new laws by people who ignore how things were beforehand.

There's a lot of employment opportunity for GPs and nurses in the bill, of course. There's some initiatives for doing rural work. There's some funding as part of healthcare reform for bonuses to current GPs, but not really for the medical students to get them on the path. However, healthcare reform is only one part of the equation here. The student loan reforms also passed as part of reconciliation are a big fucking deal, too. Once the student loan program gets distanced from the private banks, "fertilizing" medical students further wouldn't require acts of Congress. It's not European-style vocational training (which I think we need more of, and which our academentia rails against to their detriment), but it's a start.

^Lol @ "big fucking deal".

My mom's a die-hard conservative and brought up the issue of doctor workloads/hours.

How bad are they going to get?

The government has our education system fucked up so badly right now. That's the only reason I'm hesitant to support this thing. Anyone see that Texas Board of Curriculum segment on the Daily Show? Major lolage.

I think our schools should work like European schools. If you show an affinity for something, you get put in a specialized school that fast-tracks your ass into an applicable job-field.

Also, Uncle Mox knows his shit.

Mxy is obviously one of those guys you'd want to cheat off of if you were taking a test. :)

He researches and finds links and understands them. But if he were a conservative, he could do the same thing for the conservative side.

The biggest things missing are ubiquity and cost controls.

Some aspects of what still needs fixing are pretty simple, and require political will -- undoing Medicare Part D's drug buying restrictions, allowing adults to _buy_ Medicare coverage if nothing else, etc.

One aspect that bugs me involves illegal aliens.

I suspect if you poll the population and ask "should illegal aliens get any free healthcare", most would say "no". But what a hospital may have to deal with is someone unconscious or in trauma at the ER. They don't want legal liability for denying treatment to a legal alien. Many staffers don't want the moral liability of denying care to the sick. So, we still have to deal with illegals' catastrophic costs, which is considerable.

Can we actually _bill_ the countries where the illegal aliens come from for the healthcare we're providing to their people? Can we seize their assets in our country if they don't pay? If the countries tell us to drop dead, can we tell the illegals from that country to drop dead? How much blowback would occur? This can't possibly be a new idea, but it isn't one I recall hearing from the pundits. Am I just daft?

If the countries tell us to drop dead, can we tell the illegals from that country to drop dead?

We could but we wouldn't. Of course I'd have said the same thing about torture at one point so who knows, anything is possible. Maybe one day we'll just shoot them at the border and save all the fuss.

He researches and finds links and understands them. But if he were a conservative, he could do the same thing for the conservative side.
It depends on what you mean by "conservative", I suppose.

Let's apply to healthcare, since that's the thread at hand. I don't subscribe to the "every sperm is sacred" camp. I don't subscribe to keeping incurably brain-dead people alive at all costs. Is that a "conservative" or "liberal" definition of human life worth saving? So-called "conservatives" in this country seem to have a very liberal view of what life is and isn't, as far as I can see. But you start talking death penalty, and suddenly many conservatives who call themselves "pro-life" are gung-ho for it... "kill 'em and let God sort it out". WTF?!

Financially, I'm a fan of socialized healthcare because the rest of the modern world (including a few governments we established) pays less than us per-person for similar results. We've lost employers and jobs over the costs our private system. Meanwhile, healthcare companies enjoy record profits during the worst recession since the Great Depression. They have plenty to spend on Lipitor ads to get Joe Q. Public to strongarm their doctors. Healthcare has antitrust exceptions and anti-competitive laws like Medicare Part D prohibiting bulk drug buys so they can be this 800 lb gorilla. But we have so-called "fiscal conservatives" spewing one bullshit argument after another in favor of this? WTF?!

Then, you have the so-called "limited government conservatives", who have sucked at the public tit in gazillions of healthcare-related ways (food and water quality, a functional sewer system, etc.) but this socialized medicine thing is "just too much". Puh-leeze. They can't generally articulate what government is doing for them, let alone what it should be doing for them in any absolute sense, and often go the route of willful ignorance in the face of basic facts. Most elected "limited government conservatives" are nothing of the kind, and just want to limit one area and overspend on another. WTF?!

Is defensive medicine, where you overmedicate just to be on the safe side, a "conservative" or a "liberal" medical philosophy?

Back on track... here's some good "plain language" writeups of the healthcare reform that from that most-liberal of publications, the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2010-04/53055642.JPG
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,5593120.story

We bailed out Pfizer, too. Ugh.

Recall that Pfizer screwed Michigan despite the fact that Michigan wasn't involved with the drugs that fucked them.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.html


But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.

Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.

Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.

"We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients," said Lewis Morris of the Department of Health and Human Services.

So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc.

The CNN Special Investigation found that the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.

Does getting $100 million more from Blue Cross reduce taxable income such that you lose $100 million elsewhere?
I don't know the answer, just asking aloud.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130222/NEWS15/302220082/Bills-transform-Blue-Cross-Blue-Shield-Michigan-pass-state-House-committee

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=0


The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill
Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures

Got my first one coming up!

:excited:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/snowden-offers-to-fix-health-insurance-marketplace.html


MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—The N.S.A. leaker Edward Snowden today reached out to the United States government, offering to fix its troubled healthcare.gov Web site in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

Enter... John McAfee:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ex-fugitive-who-slept-with-17-year-olds-was-house-gops-choice-to-advise-on-obamacare-website/politics/2013/10/23/77306#.UmfsWpGLEUU

He's way too awesome for politicians.

Message from Libs...

"Everything is fine"

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Hopefully Tahoe was able to get... uhh... covered:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/03/31/covered-california-sends-deaf-callers-to-hotline-offering-hot-ladies/

How do you map this gene into stuff than can be discriminated on for for fun and profit??

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140509150822.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

How do you map this gene into stuff than can be discriminated on for for fun and profit??

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140509150822.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

Or should they simply measure how tall you are and charge you that way? And would it cost more or less to insure a shorter person?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140509110756.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

Fuckin Odumba now showed to be a liar...on another issue.


Knew that we couldn't keep our docs and plans.


And y'all just think that's ok. Unbelievable.

Fuckin Odumba now showed to be a liar...on another issue.


Knew that we couldn't keep our docs and plans.


And y'all just think that's ok. Unbelievable.

I don't know what you're talking about. What's new news here, as opposed to news that's years old?

Speaking as someone who's involved in shopping and procuring healthcare for others, there's been so much lying and misdirection by the healthcare industry that I have a hard time blaming Obama when he was right for 95+% of the plans. The plans subject to cancellation because they weren't grandfathered by Obamacare involved plans that didn't map to Obamacare plans. In the vast majority of cases, it was because those plans were so shitty that they didn't qualify as real healthcare plans. Team Obama was unprepared for the hordes of people fighting for the right to shitty plans. Around here, there's ads that were showing specific people who Gary Peters (Senate candidate who voted for Obamacare as a rep) supposedly screwed. Then you do a fact check on them and find that it's full of lies and bullshit, to the point that the Republicans attack ads no longer focus on specific people that Gary Peters allegedly screwed. There were a whole lot of plan changes where Obamacare was cited as the reason, but really it was more about there being a money grab by the insurers. When an insurer says "Obamacare forced us to do so-and-so", I'd be really skeptical. Rates were going to go up regardless of Obamacare.

But hey... my UnitedHealthCare stock's done well.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/primary-care-doctors-handling-new-influx-insured-patients-problems/