Printable View
The "dotors" I know don't do it - no. They don't even work in hospitals for the most part. I don't mean every doctor does it, I meant a doctor - at least one or two - in every county in the U.S.A. does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I'm sure a lot of the time the hospital administration itself is pressuring otherwise moral and correct doctors to run extra tests and over bill. Thats why a for-profit health care system is a lousy idea. ESPECIALLY one that is insurance based
Well yeah, but that is every business. With any large area with a multitude of people doing the same job, you're going to get assholes who over charge or do extra work and bill you for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
This is true. Hospitals are businesses. And they are going to try to find ways to cover losses on people who have insurance that under pays them or people who skip out and pay nothing. My dad just takes the hit, but we both know a large business like a hospital won't. They will factor it into the cost of patients that DO pay well.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
That isn't greed. It's a shitty attempt to cover one's own ass.
Disagree. Most companies don't overcharge the next guy because the previous one defaulted - they just send that shit off to a collection agency and hope for the best. Cost of doing business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I'd imagine the default rates for health care are higher than most industries because of how high the cost is to begin with - but thats why you ask for money up-front
No way. Credit cards are notorious for this. They have a relatively high degree of default, so the interest rates are insane on people who do pay their bills. And now that the interest rates have been attacked, the annual fees have gone up in a lot of cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Well the credit card situation stems from a lack of regulation. They know they're allowed to do it so they try to. The best customers for credit card companies are ones who pay the minimum balance every month - and that customer is only one unforeseen accident from someone who never pays at all.
Health care should not be a for profit industry, ever.
That's a great way to destroy advancements in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Bullshit.
Unfettered For Profit health care isn't working out so well either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Wait, advancements in healthcare? What advancements are you talking about?
You mean the drug research that is subsidized by our tax dollars anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Which also gets more money for adjusting existing drugs in the new bill! Improve your medicine? Get Govt. Moneys!
Okay, so this health bill is going to cost us zillions of dollars, while doing practically nothing the Democrats or Republicans really want... which would explain why it polls terribly among the people.
Am I missing a piece of the puzzle here?
I have to disagree. Customer and employ theft, damages, and generic fuck ups are all factored into the final cost of any service or sale. This kind of shit is taught in the first and second years of any business major.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
But Hospitals do send it off to a collection agency. Defaulting on a Hospital bill can ruin your credit. My sister had a horrible car wreck a few years ago and the collection agency is still trying to find her to make her pay for the hospital stay.
But in the mean time, someone has to pay d'm bills.
You can't do that in health and medicine, it is considered inhumane.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Shockingly, Glenn Beck has been asking for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Also, My mother has told me numerous times that it does not cost 300 bucks for a MRI. $50 is the most. So, I tend to agree with Dave. I think there are no right answers. Which is the issue, I think I said this before. The industry has gotten so bad and rotten to the core. You'd have to restart the whole thing. But then you'd have to rely on someone to take charge and make it happen.
The question is do you want the Gov't(I don't trust them anymore) or Private industry(I don't trust them either)? We're fucked either way.
Is she getting CT mixed up with MRIs? Unless the price has dropped rapidly since Bush's Health Care reforms; which tried to control MRI cost and overuse. That price seems off by a few hundred; MRIs cost a shittonne and take a very long time complete a scan.
Americans are so fucking paranoid. I'm not sure how weak your democracy actually is, but a government accountable to you. If they fuck up; if they don't perform, vote them out, put social pressure to get them fired. Is America not like other democracies where the people control the government?
MRI's only cost that much because America is willing to pay it. Japan told the MRI manufacturers to fuck off and now they pay 90 dollars for a full scan, while in America you can pay upwards of 2 grand for the same thing
Nope. Symbolism over substance. The way Pelosi wants to not vote on it just makes this even more clear. Hell, Obama's interview with Baier admitted as much too.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
US government has had shit rigged so that it's very hard to enact quick and surefire change. So yes, I'd say our democracy is weaksauce at best. For some reason voter apathy and turnout is appalling so it's extra hard to get the right people in power to get shit done.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
It's the two party system that's the problem.
Wanna system like Switzerland? 6 parties, multiple presidents, and direct democracy meaning ANYONE can write a law with a petition, and everyone votes on a new law passing?A referendum every day. Run your country from the polls on Goodmorning America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Hold the presses, there is something Yoshi and I both agree on politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Maybe not that overboard. Hows about a no party system where every one votes on the person they like who in turn hopefully writes and votes on the shit the voters like with out regards to them being Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist etc. etc. etc. and quit bullshit infighting that happens in any country with party systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That's a fucking terrible idea.
Mr-K a whig, confirmed.
Holy shit. I'm a Whig too.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1269114050
two party and career politicians are what does this country in
I think Career Politicians are more of a problem.
They're basically glorified welfare queens. They don't do shit and live on public money. They're just better at it.
Speaking of Queen. Obama is giving a second State of the Union address right now.
What a douchebag. I thought Clinton was a useless walking sound byte until you morons elected this guy.
Because our other option was a president dieing under stress and sending us back 50 years when Palin became president.
I know for a fact you had no fucking idea what you were voting for, since you essentially admitted it here, so STFU. You might as well have voted for Nancy Pelosi.
edit: You were so worried about Palin that you supported this guy.
Biden also said that this Bill will lead to the Gov't running the Insurance companies.
please note: I did not vote for this guy.
Dear Yoshi,
Regarding you being a fucking idiot;
Stop being such a fucking idiot. You had no idea what you were voting for since you're posting about it here.
Regards,
Finchiekins the Owl
Biden would at worse be a small figure head who would be quickly ousted come next election, Palin would actively hurt America instead of accomplishing anything.
And the chance of Biden becoming the president was much smaller than Palin. Talking a million to one with what looks like there was a great chance for Palin coming into office with McCain dieing.
Quote:
please note: I did not vote for this guy.
No fucking shit, you have your head so far up the Republican ass, no one would ever assume you voted for Obama.
What exactly was Palin going to do with the Democrats having a majority in both houses of Congress? Embarrass us? That's being done now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
Send us back socially 50 years while embarrassing us.
Honestly though attacking Obama is consistently the wrong choice. I would love for all of congress to be kicked out. I don't think most of Obama's plans have been bad ones, I think most of Congresses's attempts to inact them have been fucking terrible. Which ultimately falls on Obama's shoulders, but guess what, that'd be the exact same if there was a Republican president.
If I had to say anyone I'm angry at, any politicians that are disappointing and failing America it's all of Congress.
Like I said, Democrats are trying to avoid forcing issues through because it would make them look like assholes, and Republicans are sitting around pouting screaming and yelling while getting nothing done. This whole thing is a disgrace and infuriating.
Essentially Obama is recreating McCain's failure to lead and get people on board that he did during the election where he abandoned all his values and tried the Bush approach and lost the election. Oh, but when Obama tries to do something to take charge you guys cry. "Oh no a second state of the union address, let's cry about it!" fuck you.
Having a woman in the White House would send us back socially? :wtf:
Actually 50 years would be just prior to the hippies. Sign me up for that.
Her being a woman has nothing to do with it, her ultra socially conservative point of view is what I'm talking about. Same problem Romney has except he doesn't have some retarded charm. His points of view look like he just came out of church on Leave it to Beaver. Palin has essentially become Fox News if they were a politician instead of a comedy channel.
http://www.mortalkombat.com/download...mage/mk024.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
When people's religion is more important than their qualifications for the job they are applying for, we're fucked. And Romney was the right guy out of the choices we had in both primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
I am curious as to what an "ultra socially conservative point of view" is though, just to see whether I am being painted with your broad brush strokes.
Check back in the Elections thread, Bucky. I wanted Edwards. This was before the whole Sex scandal broke. I even stated after he lost. I wouldn't have minded Hilary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
Edwards was the absolute worst possible candidate. Don't be proud of that.
I'm not, but I want to point out to Thief that my head is not "up the ass of the republican party." I am for the best possible candidate that was in line with my political values at the time. Which was John Edwards, considering who were the candidates.
As Governor, Romney passed a health care reform plan with a mandate - almost exactly like the one you are criticizing Obama for trying to pass. You'd be all for Romneycare, I'm sure - which makes you a dicknose hypocriteQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I was about to point that out, Dave.
No, I'm against national healthcare, period. But Romney would not have done the bailout bullshit and knows that government spending does not end recessions. It exacerbates them.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Then you should love this plan, considering it has no public option or government run system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
That depends how you define "government run." Let me rephrase. If it's not public education, police, fire, military, or roads, the government needs to stay the fuck out of it. And privatizing some of those may work too.
edit: And by the way, supporting states' rights to do stuff like health care is a very, very Republican thing. I am just glad I don't live in a state that did it.
From Biden's mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Fun starts at 30 seconds in.
And this is why they waited until the last minute to publicize the bill. Wasn't this the "transparency" candidate?
I love hearing this from people who actively bash one party or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Romney doesn't know jack shit. He's an empty-suited moron that can't take a shit without getting the polling data on it first. I'll take John Maynard Keynes over that toolbox any day of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I don't understand why you believe there should be a public system for "them" but not health care. Why is health care any different than education? You don't want to pay for assholes that smoke themselves to death? That's why you heavily tax cigarettes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Health care is probably the only time a service is more efficient when government run, well education too. The demand is fixed; it's not like in the front of hospitals there are signs that say "leg amputations $12 buy one get one free" and the next door hospital have "$10 leg amputations $10 get a free peg leg" the competition is at the insurance part of the system where demand can affect the price. But then again, why would you want your health care provider to be competitive? You can't generally give "better" service, the triple bypass has been done correctly or it hasn't, the only thing competition would do is cut the quality of the service to make more profits. But if you cut costs will you cut the price? It's not like they won't pay it :)
Research happens even in a public system, they still need to use drugs or different technology. There is still a lot of money to be made. Only research about Non cost effective treatments would lose funding.
If making cigarettes $10/pack and forcing disgustingly fat people to put the fork down were in this bill, I'd be tempted.
But this piece of shit is going to pass, and it's going to obliterate the unemployment rate over the next few years, because businesses are going to be the hardest hit. They can only account for the massively increased costs two ways: increase prices or fire people. Talk about win-win! </sarcasm>
Cigarettes are already $10 a pack
Not in some states. In some States like PA and NJ , it's the state tax that's making it $10 a pack. The Fed is going to raise it higher.
Not even close here. The tobacco lobby is too strong. We have (or had last I read) the second highest gasoline tax instead, which is complete horse shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
It's such a tough life Yoshi has bearing all these crosses.
Yeah it was kinda weird seeing gas prices in NC only 20 cents off of NJ's. I do know that the top two states with high gas prices are Cali and NJ. Since, NJ based half of their taxes prices off of that state. THANKS CORZINE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Cali, yes. Jersey, no.Quote:
I do know that the top two states with high gas prices are Cali and NJ
True. NJ pays less for gas than nearby states, even though all of our stations are full-service.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
I couldn't find the NJ average at the government site but this is a decent indicator: http://www.global-fleet.com/stateaverages.asp
I can't wait for the day where having a fire truck show up at your house costs $600 dollars and every single street has a toll booth on it. Sounds like a free market would make the world better!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If people actually cared about the cost of a giant healthcare reform bill like this or the deficit at all - they'd support single payer, that would save more money than any other system period. But people don't care about the cost, they only claim they do. They care about the private industry gougers that have doubled premiums over the last decade. When young healthy young people stop underwriting old sick people, insurance stops working as intended.
SIDENOTE: I had horrible tooth pain yesterday and couldn't sleep at all Friday night. After trying every home remedy online and using tubes upon tubes of Orajel and handfuls of painkillers, I finally was convinced to go see a dentist (first time seeing any doctor/dentist/etc. in 10 years).
I got there, he told me my wisdom tooth was crushing the nerve and he had to yank it. Took about 5 minutes, cost $275.00. And when I told the lady at the desk I had no health insurance, she was like "Yeah, me neither". She worked about a block or two away from where I do - at a small law office that also doesn't insure it's employees.
You act like small businesses will stop offering insurance if this bill passes - the truth is that they already don't. It's really so expensive to insure one or two or three or four people. They'd probably barely make a profit if they insured us with the current costs. So bring on the exchange.
Who are "people"? Those with no skin in the game? Of course they don't care about costs. They shouldn't have the right to vote in the first place.
And small business are going to pay crazy rates or face $2,000 per employee fines for not insuring now. Like I said, they'll just fire people or have to raise prices. When the latter fails, they'll fire people anyway.
I have zero sympathy for people who choose to not insure themselves. People who get fucked for pre-existing conditions (and being a fat ass is not a pre-existing condition) need protection. People who would rather buy God of War III can fucking die.
A. I'm fairly healthy
B. I can't afford even the cheapest MA plan at least I checked (250+ per month). Granted this was before the Romney shit, may be cheaper now
C. I don't own God of War or a PS3
There are plenty of people who can't afford to insure themselves. And it's not because they're spending money on shit, it's because insurance is retardedly expensive
New Jersey's gas is among the lowest in the nation. It has nothing to do with taxes, it's just how the pipelines are set up IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
I wonder how your political leanings will change if your opinions were actually built on reality.
Does pointing out your numerous errors in logic and fact actually cause you to rethink your opinion?
lol @ Christie cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class/working class btw
So its more equitable now? How awful!
Nah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Despite the argument this is a very on-point argument. Obama campaigned on the back of transparency in information for the people and hasn't done anything close to that (the opposite, in fact).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Isn't the whole reason the vote is taking place on Sunday because they needed to post the bill for 72 hours before voting on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I'm pretty sure it is
Why just 72 hours? When did the Senate pass this again?
Everybody knows what's in this bill, 90% of it is unchanged from... last August or September. Even the differences between the original House and Senate bills in the grand scheme of things are pretty minor. The other 10% is fringe stuff irrelevant to the big picture arguments happening on forums across the internets. None of this is going to change anyone's opinion.
So then why not post it sooner?
What do you care? You weren't going to support it anyway. That's just inside baseball shit.
72 hours is a valid step in the right direction. I'm not going to argue against it. I'm just being greedy. Should have had peoples eyes on the draft from the get-go (though not let them make changes directly) but I guess what does it matter at this point anyway. People have been polarized to a side like everything in American politics anyway.
Because this asshole used the word "transparency" 700,000 times during the campaign. I didn't claim to support national health care and then decide to be a massive hypocrite when it was convenient.
The main concern I have is that this will force hospitals to run more efficiently as businesses. I don't want my hospitals to run themselves as efficient businesses.
The insurance industry will see far tighter regulation as well. I'm fairly certain capital will be even harder to come by. Interesting to see the impact this has on the overall industry.
Changing your opinion isn't hypocritical so long as you justify it through facts, Yoshi. There is a difference between pandering and a legitimate paradigm shift through new information.
Like I said though, we've known about what's actually in this thing for months. The public debate on it has gone on forever. I don't remember Medicare Part D or the MCA or the bailout bill being like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's fine if you don't like him, but it sounds like you're using nitpicky *Congressional* procedure shit to bludgeon the President. Not surprising but pretty inane.
Part of his transparency pledge was that any non-emergency bill be posted on the White House website 3-5 days before a vote, which is what he did. Stop bitchingQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Armageddon looms; you guys may stop spending the highest % of your GDP on a health care system that lags behind the rest of the world. The horsemen shall ride.
WHO TOLD YOU!?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Obama did something positive after 14 months. He pissed off the feminazis.
Seriously, who would get rid of this magical system now where those things just pay for themselves at no cost to you or me?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Lags behind the rest of the world or pulls it along? I'm not in favor of the status quo, but doesn't our current system have the best doctors and generate the most significant medical advances?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
The film points out examples of corporations and government conspiring to fuck us, and blames it on "capitalism."Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Oh, so our taxes would go down if we switched to private fire departments and infrastructure ? Riiiiight.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Lags behind. It doesn't matter if you have the best healthcare on Earth for millionaires when 95% of the population are not millionaires.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
I think thats fake. Worth1000.com is a photoshop site
It is fake. But it's also true.
It doesn't make sense to me. I think it only makes sense to people who consider this bill a 'government takeover' of the insurance industry. Which it isn't. If there was a public option - it might make sense
If I'm paying taxes that fund this, then that is what it is. Because where else is the money going to come from? Unless they tax unhealthy stuff 100% which I'd be all for for the most part.
Depending on your view, that may or may not be a negative. If it gets rid of the administrative waste and keeps all the good things about current practice, then it's awesome, but I don't see that happening. People will continue to be unhealthy and the burden will be passed along, because the wealthy aren't going to just sit there and foot the bill.
Everyone's rates who is insured are going up if this passes, except for Congress'. If it's good enough for us, come join us, you assholes.
No. Doesn't work that way. If the government is taking a part of the private sector over, or just getting rid of it altogether - then you can call this that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
In this current bill, they are not.
They're just increasing the private sector's cost and tax payer's liability.
Is your point that government is reluctant to release power (money) when it's already got it? I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Whether or not a privatized road system would be better/cheaper, I can't say, never looked into it. My guess is that privatized roads would be constructed more quickly and efficiently, be better maintained, and cost the public less, but there would be fewer roads servicing fewer areas and a lot of inconvenience from tolling. There are plenty of privatized roadways and bridges already, I'm sure there's plenty evidence to the strengths / weaknesses of non-public roadways.
So your complaint is that their premiums aren't going up? WE PAY for their insurance. It's a good thing when it doesn't go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The fact that insurance premiums for vets, public workers and congress have been going up should infuriate you - not that they're staying the same
That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
bullet points for what the bill actually does: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319
Seems like it removed coverage limits and prejudice against pre-existing conditions while putting forth nothing resembling a public option. Sounds like a win-win to me!
I'm still not sure why this stipulation was included, though:
*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.