Slashdot Mirror
Tech In the Hot Seat For Oct. 1st Obamacare Launch
bednarz writes "In four days, the health insurance marketplaces mandated by the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act are scheduled to open for business. Yet even before the sites launch, problems are emerging. Final security testing of the federal data hub isn't slated to happen until Sept. 30, one day before the rollout. Lawmakers have raised significant concerns about the ability of the system to protect personal health records and other private information. 'Lots and lots of late nights and weekends as people get ready for go-live,' says Patrick Howard, who leads Deloitte Consulting's public sector state health care practice."
How many times have you guys been told by a project manager that QA testing starts on Wednesday and Go-Live is on Friday? I had a meeting once where a manager said we needed to improve our planning so we weren't constantly doing bug fixing on Thursday and Friday morning, and was willing to put in place so many new procedures, workflows, and documentation but never give more time between the start of QA and product roll-out.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Yes, there is a point to this.
It may well be a long time before the Republicans have enough votes to get a repeal through the Senate. The way Demographics are headed, the Republican party of today will have to evolve significantly to stay relevant beyond this decade. And what Republicans fear about Obamacare more than anything else is that once it's implemented, people will decide that they like it, making it impossible for them to repeal it (much like Medicare and Social Security).
Nope. In a few years you'll see Tea Party demonstrations with placards like "Don't let government get its hands into my Obamacare!".
The Republicans can only get rid of it if it is unsuccessful, which is why they tried so hard to get rid of it before it was enacted. Even so, repealing it would take a Republican president and simple majority in both the house and senate, which is much harder.
Luckily for the Republicans they will always be able to find some metrics that show that it was a failure. Health care premiums will continue to rise no matter what until we serious talk about rationing care, so any health care plan written by either party will always leave room for complaints.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
We can only hope. I've looked at this whole mess and clearly the politicians supporting it have absolutely no clue what they're doing. Only that it's someone else's mess to fix.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
if by "evolve" you mean "lean further libertarian instead of continuing to be basically the laziest Democrats ever", I agree with that part.
As far as the "decide that they like it" part, I'd say it will be more along the lines of "dislike it but fear the disappearance of what few scraps it throws them"
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I would tell you that it doesn't matter if a Republican president gets elected, he still has to implement the laws that Congress has passed.
Although if the current presidency is any indication, I guess that's no longer true.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Um, no, it's not fully hands off. The Medicare act is Federal legislation that sets certain criteria for how the Provinces run their healthcare systems. The Provinces are given some latitude, but key aspects must be respected by the Provinces.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since it would be replaced with the option to die in the gutter I think axing is a bad move.
Considering that the feds in Canada fund the majority of our health care I'd suggest that they are very far from being "hands off". Just look at the legislation concerning the delivery of health care in Canada and you see what a dumb comment Mashiki is making.
Laziest democrats? Nixon was a socialist compared to todays republicans. If they leaned any further right they would fall over.
Barry Goldwater was a prophet. The religious right now owns the Republican party.
Pelosi logic? Isn't it how we get all our laws? Give them cute names like PATRIOT ACT so nobody will want to get bad press for voting against the Cuddly Puppies Act. It's not like anyone bothers to read these things anyway. Faster to just slap as much pork amendments on as you can and head out for some jack and strippers at 2pm after putting in a hard day's work.
. . . the same wonks that gave us so many failed DMV systems haven't found work in this sector too.
You're joking right? It's the exact same people.
SAIC is already in on the action.
That's the company that scammed New York out of all that money.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
What are you on about?
That statement has been true at least since Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court.
. Lawmakers have raised significant concerns about the ability of the system to protect personal health records and other private information.
Would that be the same lawmakers that authorized the handling of our sensitive personal health records by people making pennies on the dollar in foreign countries... because hospitals asked them to disregard HIPPA safeguards to save a few bucks?
'Lots and lots of late nights and weekends as people get ready for go-live,' says Patrick Howard, who leads Deloitte Consulting's public sector state health care practice."
Wait, rolling out national access to one of the most complex databases ever designed, with multi-tiered access controls, and peering with tens of thousands of providers, in realtime... isn't easy? Shit, why not just hire some more 14 year old kids? They seem to know how these computer whatcha-things work. Can't be any harder than Youtubing the Facebooks.
Let's be serious for a minute -- the launch can't possibly go as badly as the Republican's last major foray into IT -- Romney's campaign. I mean, their competitor to Obama's data analytics software didn't just explode on the launchpad, it actually fired itself into the ground as it did so. So the idea that Obama might pull off another big data project while they're still trying to figure out where the off button is on the internet, is probably a bit frightening to them. And that's really all it's about. Have you seen the scare advertisements on TV? I mean, creepy guys dressed as Uncle Sam putting on lubed blue gloves and making a mockery of what is undeniably the best medicine in the world (once you're sick, that is, and as long as you can afford it)... they're going all out on this.
So yeah, big surprise they're predicting the end of life as we know it, asteroid smashing into Earth, total extinction of the human race kind of doomsday predictions over the launch. But truthfully, here's what's going to happen; It's going to work. Sortof. There's going to be spotty and random problems, many caused by humans, because whenever you launch a new, complex piece of software, the interaction of so many untrained people in an uncontrolled environment (read: "It worked fine in the lab!") is going to cause unmitigated stress and support headaches until people get used to the software... and the software gets used to them. And by used to them, I mean patched. Probably quite a bit. It's the classic support bathtub curve: High initial support costs, followed by a rapid falloff, a long period of stability, and then rising costs again as the product ages and reaches EOL.
This is IT Management 101. Nobody should be surprised when things go haywire... but it'll be haywire in the "Y2K" sort of way: A few newsworthy problems (that'll inevitably be blown well out of proportion), but mostly... it'll work. It'll be lagged, and people will be frustrated, but it'll work.
And no matter how badly it goes... it's still better than the alternative, which is for some people literally dying in place, due to a lack of access to health care. Even if it set every 20,000th's applicant on fire, it'd be better than what we have now.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
"Don't judge a philosophy by those who misapply it."
I'm sure that's a quote, but of whom I don't know.
I'm neither going to defend Nixon nor today's GOP. Neither deserves the defence. The few that deserve defence are the ones the GOP "leadership" (if you want to call it that) already hate.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The idea of having affordable health care as opposed to being told sorry but you must just go die someplace as quietly as possible does tend to make it more than likely it will succeed. In year's time this will be old news and the GOPTP will be whining about something else, looking for another hostage to take to get their agenda passed.
Yup, it's a mess. Perhaps if you Americans would finally just introduce a proper universal health care system, instead of these constants half-measures, you could stop spending such an enormous portion of your GDP on health care.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In hindsight letting it be called obamacare is probably the only mistake the democrats made.
The teapartiers will never carry a placard with a pro-statement next to a democrat president's name.
Obama should have named the Reagan Memorial Health Care Act, shortended to ReaganCare... now that's something tea partiers can get behind 5 years from now.
Not their fault. They had to pass the legislation before they could know what was in it.
The healthcare act sets out "how" the system should be. And what min. level of care should be. Provinces decide "how" to do it. In the US, the ACA determines "how" states should do it, and even "how" to implement it. See the difference now?
Om, nomnomnom...
I wept bitter tears at your post.
People did try to call it Romneycare, but maybe the magic underwear made it less convincing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So said, funding = telling provinces how to do it. Gotcha, can you tell me when the last time the federal government dictated where to build a hospital in Ontario, Alberta, or even Quebec? Right. How about the number of doctors that need to be hired in each specific province. Right. And let me know when you get around to reading the federal healthcare act again, which should take you all of about 8 minutes. I'll see you sometime next year when you're done reading the ACA.
Om, nomnomnom...
The problem for Ted Cruz in 2016 is that on his present course he looks as if he will be so successful in dismantling the US government that its unclear if there will even be a presidency in 2016. However, I'm sure in that case, he will probably just appoint himself as the rest of the country just stand back helplessly in horror.
Somehow it hasn't stopped people from driving. I suspect that the few glitches that do show up will get fixed and people will get health care.
Federal IT contracting also has the kickbacks and other BS that put's lot's of PHB's in the way of getting work done.
And these, folks, were the best politicians we could muster as a nation?
If that's the case, maybe if we beg really nice, we can get Queen Elizabeth II to take us back and end this silliness.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Actually, the name "Obamacare" was invented by Republicans and was used as a derisive name for ACA at first.
I don't think this is possible. Once it goes into effect, people will pretty much love it. Already a strong majority of Americans either like the legislation or wish it were stronger, and many of the remainder will come on board the second the legislation goes live. Even more support the individual parts of the legislation. The actual implementation of the healthcare exchanges will be differently-named in many states, so that a lot of its details will not carry the stigma of "Obamacare". Very soon, we'll have Republicans standing up and saying, "Keep the government's hands off my Obamacare!" Well, they won't say Obamacare, but they'll name a part of the legislation that they probably don't realize is a part of it.
I don't know that I'd call it "proper", but it would be cheaper and more effective. What would really help though would be taking health insurance and government healthcare entirely off the table. The long-term damage of insulating the cost of healthcare from the market is what we're really up against. Just like anything you subsidize, prices always rise to match the subsidy.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
and then then some should do a sick kids sick out on the capitol steps and tell the kids don't get and in jail under cruel and unusual punishment and others laws they must give you medical care or you can just go to the ER.
Assuming a Republican could even get elected after the party trashes the economy (yet again), it wouldn't be easy to unwind ACA. For one thing, they have time to fix the technical glitches. They'd have a shot at fixing the programmatic glitches if the Republicans would stop acting like spoiled brats. Every entitlement has always required programmatic fixes, this will be no different. And those fixes would happen were the Republicans not hell bent on screwing Obama. I don't recall the Republicans being so worried about the economy or the health care system before the ACA. Now all of a sudden they've had a come to Jesus meeting.
And their budget objections have nothing to do with the budget. They simply do not like what the Federal government does...especially supporting Science. Science prevents them from making shit up and spewing it out over the media...ok, so it doesn't stop them, but at least it clear they are full of shit.
I know, but Obama approved and took ownership of the name, so it is often reported as obamacare even by neutral and pro-democrat sources now, planting the name much more firmly.
Had it been left only as the term used by the extreme right-wing mouth breathers as a term of derision it would be more likely to fade away, especially if the act itself gains popularity in the future.
Well tell that PM that new procedures are more time over all and more man power if you are getting done / ready for finale / RC QA testing just days before go live.
Yes, the Provinces decide how, but the parameters are not all that wide, and because the system is in considerable aspects Federally proscribed, you don't see that much variance between Provinces. And, in fact, the Feds have on occasion flexed their muscle and have sent warning shots to provinces who have traveled too far off the line.
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
you obviously don't know what you're talking about. $92 a year? Bullshit. For me it will cost an addition $8,000 dollars for health insurance, PLUS the cost of my diabetic wife's insulin, needle, test strips, etc have all doubled in price. For a grand total of almost $14,000 a year. I don't know where you got your $92 quote but it's WAAAAAAAY off. btw, I make less than 100k a year.
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Better cartoon.
Sure, people might like parts of Obamacare, but the thing as a whole is killing our economy. Just ask the workers who are now part time because their employers can't afford Obamacare.
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
For all of those if us concerned about the privacy/sanctity of our medical information, it doesn't exist *now*. If you are treated under any private health insurance plan, all of the diagnoses and treatments are fed into a database (http://www.mib.com/facts_about_mib.html) that all the insurance companies share to protect themselves against people applying for insurance and "forgetting" about a pre-existing condition. Next time you have a few minutes, pull out the mice-type on your health insurance plan and read up on how they can collect and share that information.
Actually they're quite wide. Go and read the healthcare act then look at the provinces. In fact those "warning shots" have been at Quebec most of the time, because they simply dump the money direct into general revenue, then take it back out. In order to claim that the money came directly from their own general fund. Aka useless BS Quebec type stuff.
And to highlight difference, in Ontario I pay nothing. I don't pay for any tests or diagnostics out of pocket. I pay for notes from my doctor, and that's it. And if I end up in another province, I still won't be billed--because OHIP will cover it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Exactly, its a shitty handout to the insurance industry. Government mandated spending on for profit industry. A right wing corporatist bill through and through.
What we really needed is nationalized single payer healthcare. But right wing Obama and his conservative democrats bowed down before the crazy wing tea party leadership and their regressive republicans.
We have that option in Canada too, but at least you're usually in an ambulance.
Om, nomnomnom...
The "tea party" isn't a philosophy. It's a bunch of idiots and corporate patsies. At one point it had an underlying philosophy which, while fundamentally flawed, was at least consistent. Now it's just a bunch of reactionary Obama haters.
That remains to be seen. After the law has been in place for a year or two, it may turn out to be a very good decision.
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Not at all clear-- the president can neither pass nor repeal legislation. Even a Republican president would have to work through Congress to do so, and unless both chambers are also Republican, this may be difficult.
In any case, though, the reason that Republicans are trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act so urgently is that they believe that once it is in place, people will like it so much that it will be impossible to repeal. So if this is true, then no.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What do you mean by demographics? The Us population is getting older, which is traditionally more Republican demographics. Oh, you mean the huge influx of Latinos. Right, I understand now. Only, in their own countries Latinos tend to elect fairly conservative governments so once the Democrat deception regarding the immigration issue stops working, things might change.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
>> Lots and lots of late nights and weekends as people get ready for go-live
Translation: "We've been sandbagging hours with folks in India and newbies right out of college for months. Now we may need to actually pull some of our senior guys off sales and deep-end pissed-off customer calls and see if they remember how to program again."
Too bad for you 0bamacare's shaping up to be anything but affordable. Even that is assuming they can crunch the numbers, which isn't a valid assumption either.
On an anecdotal note, my employer switched from a PPO plan to an HMO plan to keep its costs somewhat under control. You have the option to stay in a PPOish plan, but it now costs about 4x what we had previously been paying. I switched to this plan to keep access to its better network in case my wife had to quit working and go onto my plan; her oncologist is available through the PPOish plan, but not the HMO. (She's since passed away. :-( Now that it's just me, I might suck it up and switch to the HMO to save some money. So much for "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.")
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Tea Party is in favor of reforming SS, Medicare etc. It is typical of the deceptive way liberals operate to take the placard held by some idiot to represent an entire movement. Do you also take everything every junkie wrote on a cardboard during the occupy protests as representative of the liberal policies?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
For Chrissy's Sakes!!! I will take either of your systems!
That is because ACA is not a single payer system...
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Some do. Some don't. Some have too much money for medicaid, but not enough to pay for a big hospital bill. Some charge hospital bills on their credit cards, and then go bankrupt when they can't pay them (sticking you and me with the bill). Some can't get credit cards, and use the Emergency Room for health care. Some just die.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
"Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
Because we got FREEDOMS!!!!
So you think because it has "affordable" in the name, that it actually is affordable. Don't you know of the tradition of that bills in congress are given names that are exactly opposite of the bill's effects?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Religious right most definitely does not own the Republican party. It has moved more to the right fiscally, but it has become less religious.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The security testing mentioned, do you think they will stop just because it goes live?
Or will they have a constant, dedicated intrusion detection/prevention team?
As far as I know, there is no province in Canada where you spend more than about $80 per person per month on public health care... which is less than $1k per year. However, public health care does not cover the costs of medication, which I know can get pretty expensive if you have certain medical issues.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
Because we got FREEDOMS!!!!
Especially the freedom to bend over and take it...
Well tell that PM that new procedures are more time over all and more man power if you are getting done / ready for finale / RC QA testing just days before go live.
Oh that is cute, thinking that a PM with such ridiculous opinions can be reasoned with. Many people did try, but eventually it was only fixed when higher level management got fed up and fired the PMs in question.
But now that I work as a consultant, I find these kinds of PMs all over the place. Luckily now it is easier to just not work with these kinds of people, or at least keep racking up billable hours fixing the problems caused by their ridiculousness.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Universal health system = rationing = substandard care, waiting lists and corruption. I have lived under the NHS and under the US system and I will take the US system any day. for the 86% that have insurance in the US, the care they receive overall is superior to any major country (please don't start throwing in countries with 4 mil population and unlimited oil resources like Norway as a fair comparison to the US) with a single payer system .
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Well, I thought that it was quite a coup. Now Obama will be associated with decent medical care (ACA is going to work vastly better than the current mess) for a looong time. The current Tea Partiers are generally beyond help, but future generations might remember that their healthcare was the result of government program fiercely opposed by Republicans.
Actually, I long ago got the impression that the sole reason for the existence of the post-2008 Republican party is to ensure that every thing Obama ever did is completely and permanently erased forever as though they had never been.
Obama certainly has a lot to answer for and no few things that richly deserve erasing, but they started even before he took the oath of office.
You do realize that what you have is INFINITELY better than not having that access at all or breaking your back and going bankrupt because you cannot work and your insurance drops you, right?
Yeah, totally, just like the entire progressive movement died after that total failure of government largesse, Social Security. People old enough to remember Social Security all agree on how terrible it was. Nobody liked it because it was a government takeover of medicine, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. Nobody ever again got to see the doctor of their choice, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. It was unaffordable and bankrupted the country, just like conservatives said when it was passed. It was very unpopular, was never expanded, and people cheered when it finally died a short time later.
Yeah, totally.
Before clicking on any health care related article in Forbes, you need to ask yourself "am I about to read something written by Avik Roy?" If so, just stop. He spews crap. Now, I have not actually clicked on your link yet, but I am about to. And we will see if my powers of prediction are at all accurate.
And remember. The more you depend on other people, the more control other people have over your life. Soon, we will all be more dependent on each other.
FTFY. Government by the people, for the people, right?
I didn't catch the fish I ate at lunch, which was gotten commercially, but I didn't have to wonder if it was safe to eat, which the government inspectors deal with. And I took the metro, which the government runs. And when I walked home late at night in the dark I didn't have to worry about getting robbed or worse, because of the police being around. God, it really sucks to have to deal with other people, huh?
That's right. And what portion of the total federal budget is taken up by SS today?
Had that been known when it was being pushed through would it have passed?
No.
Your whole ideology thrives on ignorance, misinformation, and lies.
In the full light of day - you wither.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In Canada:
A married couple with no children pay, on average, $11,381 in government healthcare premiums.
Those premiums cover 70% of healthcare costs.
The other 30% of costs are paid out of pocket.
89% of the time, the time for an appointment is less than 90 days.
11%of the time, you have to wait more than 3 months.
For any doctor other than a GP, the average wait time is longer than 30 days.
Patients are not permitted to pay for faster service.
Patients are not permitted to pay for higher quality care.
Patients may pay for services not covered by the government program.
In the US, costs are similar, but slightly higher. Wait times are measured in hours, not weeks. If you're not satisfied with one doctor, you can get a second opinion from another doctor.
The US system is of course not perfect. It does have (had?) a lot of advantages over the Canadian system.
That's right and I want:
- Freedom from having to pay my mortgage ... [insert any expense]
- Freedom from making payments on my car
- Freedom from paying for my groceries (single payer groceries!)
- Freedom from paying
Just need to vote for other people to pay for it and I'll be all set.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
And what, you don't think the US system has a ton of horror stories. My run-in with serious illness was my wife's thyroid cancer, and the only real delay was because the initial symptoms aped salivary gland blockage. Within days that that specialist figured out that it was a probable tumor (initially they thought a carotid body tumor), we were driving to Victoria to see an ENT (ear-nose-throat specialist) whose specialization was cancerous tumors. She had surgery a few weeks later, which identified it as a thyroid tumor, and the big delay for removing the thyroid gland (total thyroidectomy) was that she had to heal sufficiently from the initial surgery.
Yes, there are delays and rationing, but really that happens in any system. In the US, in many places, rationing is basically defined by the size of your wallet. In Canada and other countries with universal systems, it's defined by utilization.
The public health system saved my wife's life, and other than her need to take thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of her life, she has fully recovered. Furthermore, I was laid off right in the middle of this nightmare, and the end result was that there was no bankruptcy or loss of our house.
I'll take the odd delay in treatment over no service at all or going bankrupt to save my loved ones' lives. If you like the American system so damned much, I urge you to move there.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So if I'm unemployed under your system, how will I pay for, oh I dunno, treatment for melanoma?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The new resident cant do it alone, it will require a cooperative congress.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The government figures say a married couple with no children pay on average $11,381 in government healthcare premiums, and pay $3,414 for medication and other expenses.
Adding those two official numbers, that's $14,795 per year, or $1,232.94 per month for two people.
If only you guys didn't have snow and your surfing was better, I'd move up there.
Only if you can afford the FREEDOMS.
Tea Party is in favor of reforming SS, Medicare etc. It is typical of the deceptive way liberals operate to take the placard held by some idiot to represent an entire movement.
What is this Tea Party you refer to? That sounds like a political party... let me check... no... doesn't seem to be. I see many parties. Green Party. Libertarian Party. Even the Prohibition Party is still kicking. The Tea Party is not a political party, therefore does not have a platform in the traditional sense.
Do you also take everything every junkie wrote on a cardboard during the occupy protests as representative of the liberal policies?
Do people even use the word "junkie" anymore?
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Feel free to disregard it if his brand of propaganda scratches your itch.
Let me explain something to you. Canada is a confederation of ten provinces with clear separation of powers. And yet we still have the Canada Health Act. And there's certainly no lack of Federal legislation that the States have agree to.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A married couple with no children pay, on average, $11,381 in government healthcare premiums.
Wow, that's basically the same as the US. I didn't realize it was so high.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Two hours for an X-Ray sounds short for the US. Note that all those people who can't afford health care wait until they're really sick and then the clog up the emergency rooms. Which means that if you have a broken bone you sit and wait while the person next to you is coughing from the flu.
Also you'll be able to get care for that back in the future. In the US this won't happen if you can't afford insurance, you'll get emergency care only followed by a string of bill collectors calling to threaten you. The US system only works so far as you've got stable employment at a medium sized company or larger. If you're a food services worker then forget it, you will probalby never be offered health insurance or be able to afford it and just have to hope that your spouse gets insurance on the job.
I don't think they necessarily feel the fear of being unable to repeal it in the future. I think they're only using it as the current scare tactic to get votes. If it gets entrenched then they'll get another topic to get the fan base worked up over.
My mom, around 80 years old at the time, broke her arm on a Saturday, went to the hosptial. They gave her some pain medicine, a sling, and told her to go to her primary car physician on Monday to get it set and cast. This is in the USA, and she had relatively good insurance (not just Medicare).
Nonsense. Reagan is a liberal commie compared to these new congresscritters endorsed by the tea partiers.
These "freedoms" and more are available... but they come at a price.
For instance? No problem...
The county where I live offers an anus-puckering discount on poor families wanting to buy a home (imagine this - being offered a decent home in a neighborhood full of $250k homes for a mere $27k at 0% interest. No, that's not a typo.) Only thing is, the county gets to stop by and make sure you're still poor during the 5-year 'mortgage' period, else the rates and total price rises accordingly. Oh, and CPS gets to check in on your kids any time they want, among other governmental visits that would otherwise demand a warrant.
Groceries? No problem, present an appropriate sob story and proof that you lack income, and most states will lavish you with an EBT card. 'course, unless you get creative about how you dodge it, there's an approved list of foods you can and cannot buy.
Car payments? Well, most metro areas do subsidize free mass transit if you make less than a certain income level... but really - it's mass transit. That means you're stuck with living within walking distance of it, and no further.
How does this relate to healthcare? Well, there are folks already demanding that people be forced to wear health activity monitors if they want that subsidized health-care... but you're forced to buy the subsidized plan if you cannot otherwise afford it on your own, so guess what happens if you have the misfortune to be impoverished? Yup - the government now owns your health.
Long story short, the "freedom"s are there, but the dependencies and (IMHO) conditions you subject yourself to in order to receive them are, well... about to become rather dehumanizing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Remember a few years back before ACA when everyone was bitching about rising costs of medical and were accusing the health insurers of making excess profits? Now we have a law trying to rein them in and eventually lower costs, with provisions to stop the worst practices, and now people actually are defending the health insurers!
(sorry, I think the current politically correct terms for health insurers are "job creators" and "private enterprise")
It's good that you put "Sovereign" in quotes, because they certainly are'nt Sovereign States. They can't choose to make war, for example, which is something a sovereign state can do.
They are also bound by the federal laws of the government of the United States of America, some of which will be the ACA laws which will be funded shortly. So get ready.
You'd take the US system because you have enough money to participate in it. Healthcare is ALWAYS rationed. Currently we ration it based on who can pay the most. I'd rather it be rationed based on who needs care most urgently. Societies that choose this method always pay less as percentage of their GDP on healthcare, and get better healthcare outcomes than the US system.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
So, you really mean: 100% their fault.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Investigate (from reliable sources ) how health care works in countries that have it, and you really must learn the meaning of the word "socialist" or you'll wear it out. Before long it won't even be a boo-word for your troops. anymore.
And what portion of the total federal budget is taken up by SS today?
Negative 85.6 billion dollars.
Social Security has a net surplus right now. That will over the course of the next couple decades as the boomers retire, but that can be fixed by (for example) allowing the tax ceiling to be adjusted with inflation.
It's funny that you would claim our ideology thrives on misinformation and lies. Perhaps you're doing a bit of projecting?
Where do these numbers come from?
It does seem to me that the "left" (i.e. the moderate right wing) in the United States uses "racism" as an accusation quite often.
But you truly think that the Republican party finds itself tarred as "terrorist"? Perhaps you are talking about some other planet?
Or did you get used to typing and saying the word 50 times a day at anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with you, and it was used in error in your post above.
Yeah, but they don't know that.
Yes. And, woosh.
The US spends more on health care as a portion of GDP than pretty much any other industrialized country on the planet. Ponder that as you denigrate a public system and pump your fists for the US "model".
All I know is that I didn't go bankrupt even when faced with my wife's serious cancer and my own concurrent lay off.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Obama called it Obamacare at least twice during the Obama-Romney debates. He wanted to own it and he does.
What website are you looking at? Specifically.... this does not correspond with anything that I've read for BC, Alberta, or Ontario.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"The reason we pay so much for health care is because the recipient doesn't know and/or doesn't care how much it costs, namely because they don't pay for it. Likewise, they don't shop around."
Oh, when was that? 1981?
In actual fact, in the USA, average people are FAR more exposed personally to the extreme costs of medical care and yet the total spending and, of course, PRICES, are much higher in the USA than any other nation. As is the compensation of the managers of medical care institutions.
Why is that?
Why is the solution, as always, AMP UP THE PAIN! (and some how let the market fix it despite not fixing anything for 40 years). And why does this always seem to apply to the poorest?
Go ahead, repeal actual, Federalized socialized medicine (Medicare) first.
It's an anecdote off.......
I required an x-ray on 2 occasions for possible arm injury.
On both occasions I was seen within one hour and on one of those occasions received a cast and follow up treatment.
And paid nothing for any of it. (It is paid through taxation which I do or course pay).
This is in Filthy, Secular crypto-communist Europe (Boo!! Hiss!!).
But we are full of people suffering the effects of crippling bureau-incompetence and socialistic hobbling of the human spirit. Galt save us! How did I get treatment??
That is what national Republicans want you to believe, that they're no worse than the other guys. Sometimes the lesser of two evils results in less net evil.
You're lying. Or perhaps just regurgitating lies you heard on Fox or AM radio. Not a big difference, either way.
Here's an official Senate report showing that removing the tax cap would ensure the solvency of Social Security for over 75 years (the maximum duration in their calculations).
Do you see how I keep citing numbers and figures? I'm able to do that because I'm telling the truth.
Waiting lists I'll agree with... but what evidence do you have of the others? I live in a country with universal health care and see absolutely none of the other issues arise.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's right. SS makes money.
You didn't answer my question.
What portion of the federal budget is SS?
Can you process that without your cognitive dissonance turning you into a vegetable?
Because your last post suggests you're not actually able to have this discussion.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Democrat stooge here with my "snarky" replies. Please enjoy.
Every trick in the book is on the table with this thing. By hook, crook, nail, and claw... this thing is going down or it will be so horribly scrambled that the democrats will wish it did die.
I can't really respond to this one. I will agree that the law isn't without issue. A lot of us on the progressive side believe in universal health so this was not the bill that we wanted. The good thing is that it does allow states to opt out of the implementation so long as they can provide their own implementation. Vermont is actually doing this in providing universal care to all its residents, but if your state has better ideas, then you do have options.
Granted, opting out of the law isn't an option. I'm sorry for you feel that you don't need health insurance, but I will that I am glad that you will have it when you need to go the hospital.
Politically, the republicans were completely sidelined for this thing. Utterly emasculated.
This is a talking point I hear a lot and I'm sorry, but it just is not true. The original legislation was drafted by three democrats and three republicans. Baucus ultimately shut down the drafting because Grassley was intentionally dragging his feet. I watched all the open committee hearings as the law was being debated because I was about to quit my job and deeply concerned about my family not being insured. Yes, there were lots of ridiculous amendments that were voted down without discussion, but there were lots of republican amendments that were accepted as well. For example, John Ensign was deeply concerned about the implications of the mandate and his suggestions were incorporated into the law.
To survive as a political organization, the republicans need to so thoroughly annihilate this move that the democrats for generations to come remember it.
Repealing the health care law alone will not save the republican party. Changing demographics is the huge issue. Can you believe analysts are predicting Texas may go purple in the next ten years? Granted, these are democrat analysts and may be foolishly optimistic, but they are actually investing money into the state which says more to me than press releases.
Let me opt out and we have peace. That's all we've ever wanted in this venture. Let people vote with their feet. If its such a great program you wont' need to force people to join it. If you do need to force people then its not actually a great program you irredeemable lying aholes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to healthcare, we are all in the same boat. To really let you opt-out of the health care system would mean forcing health care providers to require proof-of-insurance or ability to pay before being treated. Lack of proof would mean no treatment. I just don't see any other way.
As a long time slashdot user to another slashdot user, hang in there.
I think that we do need an option for people to "opt out". We'd then have to somehow make it very, very clear that no matter what happened to them, accident or illness, that emergency personnel and everybody else should just let them die on the ground like an insect. Maybe a forehead tattoo that says, "I want to die"? It would have to be very visible and obvious to anybody. We wouldn't want a person such as yourself receiving even the tiniest bit of health care since you'd be choosing to "opt out" of paying for your own health care.
I don't respond to AC's.
Yup - the government now owns your activity
FTFY yes, they own your health in your example but that's less scary to most people than owning your activity (slavery)
I can't speak to any other province, but here in BC we have Pharmacare, which sets up limits to what any person will pay for meds, and it is means tested. In other words, a person making $100k per year will have a higher ceiling than someone making $25k per year. There are also provisions, though you have to obviously prove it, for emergency coverage of drugs. This often kicks in when you suffer a catastrophic illness and require very expensive meds.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
To take some specific examples in the English-speaking world, in Australia, the local conservatives did manage to repeal it the first time around. The second time around, they didn't get back into government for thirteen years until they promised to keep it, and they've never seriously tried repealing it since despite long periods in power. In the UK, even that hero of the right, Margaret Thatcher, left the NHS alone. The overwhelming evidence is that once universal health care systems are introduced, they are enormously popular.
So, yeah, drag this one out into a political fight to the death. It's unlikely, but possible, you'll knock it off. But if your lot continues with this crap for too long once it's in place, you will consign yourself to electoral irrelevance; even the ridiculous malapportionment and gerrymandering that goes on in the US won't be enough to save them.
In the medium term, I won't be terribly sad at that; while sensible health care reform will ensure that millions of your fellow citizens have healthier, longer lives, it doesn't affect me directly. But a couple of your party's other insanities, particularly its delusions on climate science, do. And if you do manage to consign yourself to complete electoral irrelevance for a few terms, the United States will be able to act effectively on climate change.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The exceedingly hyperbolic
You have perverted every law in the land.
does make me think you are just someone looking for an internet fight.
I still suspect that Obama has had it said about him more than his people have said it about his opponents. Perhaps you remember election campaigns in 2008 and 2012?
Moving along, what metaphors would you allow to describe the tactic of "We will stop the goverment of the nation functioning unless you entirely remove a policy you were elected on?"
You claimed affiliation so I assumed you had it.
As to the whims of adjusters... you could make the same argument about anything. What's next? Free food? Free housing? Free clothing?
And who pays for it because nothing is free.
And as to other countries... the US is not alone in being eaten alive by socialist welfare policies. Europe is full of such countries... The EU is melting down as we speak.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's fine. Only I would pay for MY healthcare so I wouldn't be left to die.
So you know what... I accept that option. I'm good with it. Your system can rot and my system won't.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I have health insurance, idiot. My health insurance was deemed illegal by obamacare.
Premiums around the country are doubling to tripling due to this legislation. Do not tell me it isn't happening. It happened to my brother and I've seen a few companies slash work forces BECAUSE of this bill.
You wanted something. And you didn't care who you hurt to get it. It didn't matter that you were pissing our rights. It didn't matter that it would hurt the economy. Nothing matters to you if you get what you want. I'd call that evil if weren't so oblivious that you didn't even realize it. So you're just stupid. You can take offense or not on that... its just logically inescapable. You're either a scum bag or clueless. Pick one.
Open a newspaper. Do you think your stupid law is making the economy better or worse? Ask corporate America. Ask the small business people. Even ask the big labor unions. They all hate this bill. They all want out.
Even congress wanted out... which is why congress is exempted from Obamacare. The only difference between us and them is that we don't have the power to opt out.
NO ONE likes this law that understands it. The only supporters at this point are the ignorant and the corrupt. I suspect you're in the first category.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'll take freedom from mortgage and foreclosure fraud.
And freedom from contaminated food.
Freedom from a few other things too.
Why does that matter, so long as it's paid for?
The deal was "pay X% of your income into this pool, and we'll use that money to take care of you when you're old and sick". Who gives a flying fuck about (X% * mean income * population) / ((X% * mean income * population) + military spending + medicare + discretionary spending) ? Why would the value of that expression matter in the slightest? It's obviously going to be driven by several factors that have nothing to do with the program itself.
The answer is around 22%, by the way. If that number, in and of itself, is what scares you, let's just triple military spending. That'll "fix" it. Or you can admit that that number is meaningless, and a distraction from any actual issues.
How YOU pay for it is up to YOU.
What you didn't want to ask is "So if I'm unemployed under your system, how will I get you to pay for, oh I dunno, my treatment for melanoma?
"His name was James Damore."
Everybody has the option of making more money
Life on your planet must be very pleasant.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You must be too young to have 1st-hand experience in this bit of history.
First, Nixon was very far to the left in the Republican party (he implemented wage & price controls and created the EPA while hugging Communist China and trying to make nuclear arms deals with Russia that favored the Russians) but he got the support of the GOP base because [1] he had a history of fierce anti-communist action earlier in his career and [2] in each election cycle he cozied up to the social conservative base... not very hard to do given that BOTH parties used to be primarily Christian, with Democrats having somewhat higher penetration onto the Jewish communities. NOBODY in national politics back then would publicly embrace ANYTHING homo-, or drug-, or abortion- or athist-related.
Barry Goldwater was not a prophet, nor was he a conservative... the man was very Ron Paul in his views (i.e. a Libertarian) though not the same in his public persona. Barry had the strong support of a certain political block in his earlier races, and when they came back to him years later to beg him to run for president as a standard-bearer for conservatives within the Republican party he felt morally obliged to do it... which is why he ran that race (and his lack of desire to actually win was probably part of the problem with that campaign). The young conservatives at that time begged Barry to run because the establishment GOP was pushing the usual Rinos (not called that back then) like Mitt Romney's dad and the Rockefellers, none of whom were for smaller, constitutional government.
The modern GOP is FAR to the left of the GOP of 1980 (many modern Republicans have gone Libertarian on social issues like abortion, gay stuff, and half the current Republicans in the senate just voted to fund Obamacare...) you just think the GOP has moved right because the modern Democrats have moved so far left so fast that the gap between parties has grown very wide. Just 8 years ago, EVERY Democrat running for President was opposed to "gay marriage"... Democrat President Bill Clinton signed DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policies. During the 1980s Democrats used to scream and hollar and stomp about deficits and they repeatedly demanded Reagan negotiate with them on debt cieling limits... now they yell that the limits do not matter and they are printing money faster than anybody in history ever has...
Of course it's not a party but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a platform. This list is a good start seeing that most Tea Party groups endorse it and most Tea Party congressmen have signed up to it:
From http://contractfromamerica.org
1. Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nationâ(TM)s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)
3. Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)
4. Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 wordsâ"the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)
5. Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitutionâ(TM)s meaning. (63.37%)
6. Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isnâ(TM)t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)
8. Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)
9. Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2013. (53.38%)
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Except they don't pay for your retirement with that money. They pay for someone else's. And when you retire someone pays for you.
Were it a real retirement policy it would work the way ACTUAL retirement policies work.
Every person would pay into a fund. You OWN that fund. Its yours. The account increases in value and then you retire... and when you retire you draw from that account.
We could do that with SS right now. Government won't do it because it would make it harder to raid as a government slush fund. Which is basically what is now.
As to percentages, add medicare etc to the list and recalculate. You little programs have gobbled up about 70 percent of the federal budget.... and counting.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you like the American system so damned much, I urge you to move there.
For some reason when this topic comes up, we never seem to hear much about stories like this:
Report: Thousands fled Canada for health care in 2011
A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.
The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.
Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded.
It's a misleading number. It comes from this study by the Fraser Institute. Basically, they said "the government spends X% of it's income on health care, therefore we can take X% of each citizen's tax bill as the amount that they paid for health care". This is perfectly reasonable on its own, but the GP cherry-picked the number for a married couple with no kids because they have the highest tax bill. This makes Canadian health care costs seem higher than they truly are.
If you do an apples to apples comparison, the Canadians have a clear advantage.
Single adult: $3780 in Canada, $5884 in US
Family of four: $11320 in Canada, $16351 in US
Canadian numbers are from the Fraser Institute study, US numbers are from this study by KFF.
A thing cannot take up a negative percentage of a budget.
You are spinning things right now, several times even. First, you are pretending that inlays minus outlays is the budget (no sir, thats the deficit or surplus of the budget) and second, you seem to are claiming that raising taxes can solve any arbitrary budget shortfall.
"His name was James Damore."
Way to change the subject, buddy.
Of course the money is pooled. That's how you manage risk. I suppose you think car insurance is terribly unfair as well, and that it should just be an individual savings account. And that Apple is foolish for using money from the iPod to fund development of the iPhone.
And LOL at adding Medicare to the list. Still only 37%. What other programs shall I add for you? Oh my God!! The federal government is spending 100% of what the federal government is spending!
Yes, the Provinces decide how, but the parameters are not all that wide, and because the system is in considerable aspects Federally proscribed, you don't see that much variance between Provinces. And, in fact, the Feds have on occasion flexed their muscle and have sent warning shots to provinces who have traveled too far off the line.
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Obamacare gives us exactly this. Plus another 5X costs for variant billing, deductibles, and other overhead for still having insurance companies involved, rather than going single payer.
My wife has been through several surgeries as well. I have health insurance through my employer that I pay about 300 dollars every two weeks for. I usually, due to her medical condition, spend about 4500 dollars out of pocket every year. It's a lot of money but it's better than losing my wife. We went through several doctors before we found what was wrong and frankly, if I was stuck with the idiots we started with she'd be dead. It's nice to pick and choose doctors as I've had to fire a few. The hard cold fact of the matter is that it costs a lot of money to keep people alive that would have died 100 years ago. I don't know about Canada's system, I only know the one I've been on for my 53 years and I know it's expensive but it works. The new one being foisted on us is pretty bad and likely to cost as much or more. I remember looking at the bastardized setup they cam up with and thinking that they might as well just socialize health care entirely. What they did has all the problems of both systems with none of the benefits. They passed it and now we're finding out what's in it.
My wide is evidence that what you posted is a lie. That makes you a liar.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Fraser Institute is a right wing think tank. It's like calling the Koch's non partisan.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Notice: elective treatment. Also notice: they weren't denied the procedure, they just had to wait a little longer.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Quite right. The number one thing they never explain is why premiums are going up. I read a story about something like this once. I think it was called either Chicken Little or The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
70% / 30% is the Canada number. In the US, government pays about 46%. Of course that's about to change.
Can't choose faster service? In my city of 160,000 people, there are three hospitals and at least one of them has a billboard advertising their average ER wait time for the month. At clinic I go to I can normally get in the same day. If I can't, I can choose to go to the walk in clinic near where I work.
As I said, the US system certainly isn't perfect. Compared to waiting weeks for an appointment in Canada, the US system certainly has some advantages. Some Canadians I know come to the US to get better care. Some Americans go to Canada to but cheaper prescriptions. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The wise thing to do is to try to combine the best of both. For example, if Canadian clinics could compete for patients by either being "zero cost" by charging the government rate or trying to offer better, speedier care to attract patients willing to pay an extra $25, that might work well. As is, Canadian clinics have no incentive to do the best they can. They get paid the same whether their doctors are awesome or if they're drunk.
Charlie Brown: Where did you get those numbers Lucy?
Lucy: I made them up!
Dude I hardly said anything about the US system, much less pumped my fist. I just provided the numbers for the Canadian system, which was being presented as "free" and some kind of paradise.
The US spends a LOT on healthcare, and changes are needed. When you're making major changes to a system that important and that complex, it's wise to CAREFULLY consider different options. Almost any change that helps solve some problems will also create new problems. Anything that has an effect also has a side effect.
In general, cheaper = lower quality, but we need to cut costs. That means we need to be careful. One way to reduce costs without reducing quality is to allow Texas consumers to ditch a crappy Texas insurance company and get a much better company from Arkansas. Right now, that's illegal. You can only buy insurance from a few companies in your home state. What do you think would happen if Maryland residents were only allowed to buy TVs made in Maryland, if it were illegal to buy from Samsung, Sony, LG, or any other major manufacturer? The reason Samsung keeps making their TBs better and cheaper is to compete with LG. Why not let insurance companies compete, have them try to EARN your business?
I'm not sure if this is still true, but one horror story about hmo's is that they have special extra protection against malpractice and lawsuits that the ppo's don't have.
go in for a procedure and they cut off the wrong thing? if its an hmo, good luck suing them!
that, alone, was enough to drive me away from the 'cost savings' of the hmo plans.
again, this may have changed, but I doubt it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
republicans have been in a 'war on women' and 'war on poor people' for a while, now.
guess what: a lot of the US population is in those 2 groups.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
you are incorrect. if anything, the R's are more religious then ever before. they are doubling-down, in fact, on their 'core values'.
very few people really respect those core values once they see the light of day.
the jig is up. people see the R's for what they are. rich guys who want to keep the current power structure and, in fact, make things even more polarized.
if you heard the phrase 'american taliban', which of the 2 parties do you think more closely fits this description?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
please unmod that post - he's not trolling. he's simply describing the reality that we currently have. like it or not - but he's not trolling.
the tea party is a hijacked group. nothing trollish about calling it for what it is.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I have health insurance, idiot. My health insurance was deemed illegal by obamacare.
I don't know your situation so I'm only speculating, but it sounds like your policy didn't provide basic coverage. You may not think so, but the law is actually doing you a service in case you end up in a real mess. I would be interested to hear some details about the policy and the process it was deemed illegal.
Premiums around the country are doubling to tripling due to this legislation
The law may have contributed to increased premiums as insurance companies can do no longer discriminate again their customers. But you're not seeing the whole story. Customers have been receiving refunds due to these increases since the law states that 80% of a premium must be used for health care. Over one billion dollars have been refunded in 2012 because of the 80/20 rule. Also, there's also inflation, so there's a whole lot of stuff going on. Just keep in mind that even if the law didn't pass, your premiums would still be going up.
You wanted something. And you didn't care who you hurt to get it. It didn't matter that you were pissing our rights. It didn't matter that it would hurt the economy. Nothing matters to you if you get what you want. I'd call that evil if weren't so oblivious that you didn't even realize it.
We obviously see things differently from one another. I'm interested in why you think expanded health coverage is "evil" and why you see it as a freedom issue. The truth of the matter is that every person will require health care at some point in their lives. By not electing to be covered, I'm paying for your freedom through higher premiums in the worst possible way.
Now as for the mandate ... that sucks. I think we can agree on that. I don't like the idea of government requiring me to purchase a product. I believe in universal coverage. It's the most pragmatic option. We get the most bang for our buck, if we pool our bucks together and buy insurance together as a group. And no one loses coverage.
But here's the thing ... as a nation ... we needed something to address health care spending. Have you looked at the rate of health care spending in our country before the law took effect? It was simply unsustainable. Because of the law, medicare spending is at its lowest in fifty years. That's a huge victory.
I wish Obama had made a push for universal care, then allowed Republicans to negotiate back to Romneycare (which is really what it is) so that Republicans would feel that like "they won" (remember, this is a republican plan once championed by the heritage folks). Now Republicans have nothing to offer outside of high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions which some states don't even offer.
These are all outrageous suggestions! Praise be to the IRS and the Democrats for attempting to slow down the formation of such "crazy" groups.
"You have to pass the bill to know what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi
And this representative from California was re-elected. Huh. Well as Ron White says "You can't fix stupid."
If you wanted to fix the US Healthcare system by making care affordable for all and allowing people with pre-existing conditions to get insured, then it wouldn't take 2700 pages of other crap that's in the legislative package. What we didn't get was:
1) No direct influence over rising expenditures for Medical Care. You have a system which doesn't abide by market forces and hospital administrators get paid millions of dollars in salaries and benefits. When you're seriously ill, you don't usually have the time to shop around so whatever they charge you (or your insurance) is what's charged. Sure, there's negotiations and maximums that insurance companies negotiate but that drives further business through insurance companies, forcing you to deal with them.
2) There was no discussion on tort reform so thousands of ambulance chasers can still sue the doctors and hospitals when your scars comes out a little bit strange. A big component to care is the necessary malpractice insurance which can cost upwards of $200,000 in some high cost states. Add that to office staff, paying the Nurse, the building costs and the medical coder to bill the insurance companies correctly and you can see easily why it costs a lot to see a doctor over a routine sniffle.
3) The Drug companies were let largely intact. There are a few costs they'll have to put up with but they're still expected to rake in Billions in profits under the ACA. Ask yourself why that pill you're taking is $5 and why, if it was allowed, you could get it for $.25. Sure the drug industry will claim that "these are inferior" but really it's a smokescreen.
4) The Single Payer system died. Nobody wanted to go against the big Insurance Firms and their lobbyists so we love big business in this country, so why not throw a few billion dollars their way. Well, they do now have to spend more on direct costs for Insurance which is good but allowing interstate competition and other market driven forces into the process would have been much better. That's what the exchanges are supposed to do but here we have the US Government trying to create markets rather than creating incentives with appropriate regulatory oversight for markets to flourish. Oh wait, considering the Financial Collapse, the Regulatory Process failed, so DC can't be trusted with that.
To be honest, you could have taken this 2700 pages, cut out the BS, the Pork like the "Exchanges" which Deloitte is now merrily feeding upon it seems and done away with it and had legislation that was no more than 10 pages long. Starting next year you'll hear more pigs in DC all lining up because the Feds have just blessed one industry with unlimited monopoly powers and you have to pay what they want to charge you. You have no choice, so invest in big Pharma, Hostpital chains and big medical concerns because they'll be raking it in even more.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Posting AC because I moderated.
Single payer is what we need, and is what most other developed nations have made work well, but it's completely impossible to implement in the United States at this time. Obamacare, the ACA, whatever you want to call it, is at least a substantive step in the right direction. Incremental, imperfect progress beats waiting for the perfect solution we won't get to for a couple of decades.
Hold on there spin-doctor! Net surplus: as in the T-Bills are not of the debt amount originally forecasted for. But, hey, 4.8 Trillion of intragovernmental debt is nothing to worry about. Right?
Life is not for the lazy.
You obviously don't watch TV or talk to many Republicans :) They have gotten even more fiscally liberal (as if they ever weren't), and there are laws in some states that literally don't allow non-Christians to run for public office. Every southern state is running deeply in the red financially, and in Tennessee it is literally illegal for a non-Christian to hold office. I had to leave for that exact reason...
One analysis shows that family of 4 will have an increas of $7500 a year, Obama promised a cut of $2500 a year
I've never seen such a study but I would be interested in viewing it if it does indeed exist.
You think the mandate sucks but think universal is good? What is the difference? Let me answer. Mandate = corporations run it, universal = government runs it. You are required to buy it either way, one through premiums with a choice, the other through taxes with no choice.
Incorrect. A mandate has nothing to do with who actually implements health care. All it means is that the action is on you whereas universal means action is not required. Now we can quibble whether a tax is considered "buying something" but the fact remains that health care would far cheaper since there would be no shareholders or profit margins in the equation.
As for the GOP input, give me a SPECIFIC example of what they put in it.
This took me all but two seconds to find. Like I said, I watched all the proceedings:
"Republican Sen. John Ensign scored a victory in his pursuit of healthy lifestyle rewards with passage of his amendment to health care reform legislation that would offer deep discounts to those who quit smoking, lose weight or otherwise meet healthy milestones." -- source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/01/john-ensign-scores-win-health-care-amendment/
There is ONE section and Obama has decided he will ignore that, and that was the part where Congress was required to be on exchanges and pay for it themselves
From my understanding, this is a popular conservative talking point. I haven't felt the need to research it.
By the time the next Republican gets elected President "Obamacare" will be so embedded it will be practically impossible to repeal it, just like it's politically impossible to axe Medicare. That's why they're so desperate to stop it from really getting started now.
My policy didn't coverage pregnancy, birth control, or breast cancer...
I'm a man.
Your health law is retarded and so are you.
My policy covered cancer, heart conditions, any neurological condition you could imagine, accidents like getting hit by car, etc.
What more do I really need here? it is health INSURANCE.
I'm a young healthy guy. What I need is accident insurance. And it gave me that.
Your plan is making my bills go up because it won't let me negociate the plan I WANT for myself with the company.
You took my choices away. You made us all less free.
And yeah... for that, I hate you. You hurt me. You hurt my family. You hurt this country.
And you're too dumb to realize it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The HMO itself has legal protection but not the doctors who did the damage. You might be limited to arbitration depending on the language in the HMO and contract with the provider but that's another story altogether. Malpractice by the doctor is malpractice regardless of who provides the treatment.
HMO's were created by the federal government in order to tame the costs of Medicare which was created shortly before. It gave power to determined covered treatments to secretaries with little medical training or experience based on a "best practices" rule which the ACA is implementing too. With this power to override doctors who are actually seeing the patients, the HMO's were also exempted from law suits based on what they allowed to be covered. So if your doc says we need to perform this expensive experimental procedure that has a 50% success rate to save your leg and the HMO said no, we aren't covering that, cut it off, you can't sue the HMO for not allowing the procedure that could potentially save the leg. But that is the entire purpose of the HMO or Health Maintenance Organization, to control the costs of medical care.
Now it does get dicey when something is accepted practice or best practice now but the HMO hasn't updated their criteria and refuses to allow the procedure. Then a suit can happen to force them to cover it but you will not make any windfall profits from it.
Lol.. That's a real funny lie I hear all the time. There is no war on women or poor people. Its a difference in approach about certain things.
Poor people should get a hand up not a hand out. It is more expensive to get a job for the poor right now then it is to stay on welfare and milk the public tit. Of course welfare is the reason why minimum wage is being paid at almost every job in larger cities with large concentrations of poor people. It is the ultimate business subsidy where they do not have to pay their employees a living wage because the government will step in and make up the difference.
The so called war on women is little more then not wanting to use public funds taken from you and me to provide for someone's condoms and abortions.
It makes a good sound bite, it even makes lesser intelligent people believe it. But it is a lie.
A retirement plan is not about risk.
A retirement plan is about planning for the future. A proper retirement plan should give each person ownership of their contribution to the plan.
Now you want to give some people more then they put in and some less? Fine. Doesn't mean I can't own my share.
Do that and the system can't get under funded. I will own my share. Touch my share and you're stealing. I can sue you.
As it stands right now, I own NOTHING in regards to SS. Everything I get is subject to government whim. If I contribute to the plan and then die, my family doesn't get that money. If it were a retirement plan that I owned, they would.
That isn't a retirement program. Its a ponzi scheme everyone is forced to join and where the payouts can arbitrarily change... so it hasn't collapsed... yet.
Had Madoff had the backing of the US government and could change payouts on a whim... how long could he keep his program going?
Exactly.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Obviously you have never looked into the issues or spent any time dealing with the tea partiers.
Your description couldn't be farther from the truth. Obama has nothing to do with what they are pissed at other then him currently being the one trying to implement the stuff they are pissed at.
With the Affordable Care Act, you are now obligated to purchase something from a third party simply for being born in America or residing in it. Never before has anything like that ever happened in the US or any so called free country that I know of. After a few shootings, the democrats are trying to take constitutional rights (guns) away from people. Whether you support gun control of not, it doesn't stop shootings, just look at Chicago and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control laws and criminals still get guns and still kill people with them. Just last week, 13 people were shot in Chicago.
Decades from now, people will look back and ask where their freedom went. They will see your post and wonder why everyone thinks they are so smart when they aren't.
Quite now.. let him have his delusions for a bit longer. Companies are laying people off, refusing to offer spousal coverage if they work somewhere, reducing hours of employees to not be forced into providing coverage. Unions are complaining that it increases the costs of their coverage- most of which will have to pay the Cadillac health care taxes, but more importantly, this is going to be so expensive, Obama and the senate democrats worked out a deal where the government slushes money from one department to another in order to cover 75% of the insurance costs for congress and their staff from the exchange.
This is a mess of an ordeal and the only people who like it are the people who seem to think "Insurance" is "health care".
I hope you meant "wife".
Posting AC because I moderated.
Oops!
It would put health insurance companies out of business.
Well, actually when Reagan and the Democrats doubled the Social Security tax in the 1980's us baby-boomers did start paying for our own retirement as well. That's why the trust fund has built up to such a high value.
In my opinion SS should have never been included in the Federal budget to begin with. It has its own fund and the only interaction with the rest of the budget lies in the T-bills they buy or redeem. I think SS was included in the Federal budget mainly because as long as it runs a surplus it helps hide the rest of the deficit.
Then we agree. Segment SS and grant those that pay into it ownership of the money they contribute. Yes yes... you can do your redistribution to take some money out of some accounts and put more into others... fine. But after you've had your fun with that... we need to own what is left.
Washington will do neither because they want it as a slush fund. Which is what it is now.
If it defaults tomorrow... who will be accountable? No one. They'll say "mistakes were made" and your money will be gone.
That you trust this system to guard the retirement of millions is inexcusable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Apparently, the new rule of law at least according to President Obama is that if the president doesn't like the law, he can choose not to enforce it. There is no law that says the administration can waive the employer mandate, and yet the mandate is waived. Similarly, the law saying that people have to buy insurance, or the Feds or states have to set up an exchange, or that people get subsidies. Apparently that is all now waive-able. Or maybe more damaging to ACA, the next president could choose to enforce it to the max and remove all the waivers.
I'm a young healthy guy. What I need is accident insurance. And it gave me that.
You had a junk policy. It might may have made you feel better to be "covered", but it would provide nothing in terms of coverage in case, god forbid, you did come down with anything serious (which, you know, happens all the time).
My niece required over a million dollars of care when she came down with cancer. Would your junk policy have done the same? No. You would have been bankrupted, and I would have to pay for all your additional trips to the emergency room plus any additional social services. Yes, your "freedom" has a cost and I'm tired of footing the bill for it.
I get that you think you are immortal and that there's nothing in the wings that has your name on it, but once you've been around the block a couple of times, you get know that bad things happen to good people. That's why we have insurance.
And yeah... for that, I hate you. You hurt me. You hurt my family. You hurt this country. And you're too dumb to realize it.
Growing up can be painful and your entire discourse shows that you have a lot growing up to do. If you hate me for rationally arguing the facts of the law, actually listening to your arguments, and not returning any of your personal barbs, then you do have a long road to walk, indeed.
Healthcare is ALWAYS rationed
No it is not!
You must learn that the Holy Market (pbuh) does not magic up infinite resources, even when applied in a fully Galt-compliant Randian fashion.
When you can grow surgeons and nurses and doctors and drugs and hospital beds and replacement organ you might begin to have a point. Until then, you are willfully blind.
Blinded by your religion. Worryingly, market worship has become a religion for people like you.
Lyndon Johnson started the shenanigans with his "unified budget" that included trust funds not subject to budgetary legislation, and over the years Congress used the concept for further obfuscation (such as pinning automatic budget cuts to the unified budget rather than the actual budget).
I have no idea what the current situation is, but the SS trust funds were officially off-budget as of 2005 according to http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
"present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget."
(By the way, did you know that men also get breast cancer?)
He might well have known, after all the goal of these people is to ensure maximum ignorance and thus keep the less-than-wealthy voting for investor class bailouts and tax cuts. Or maybe he is just stupid?
here's another one
An actual candidate for political power in your country. The politest thing that can be said about that woman was "boastful ignoramus", and your lot chose her, put her within reach of serious decision making. Such a close call for your country. Your hagiography of Reagan led your GOP drones to think that intelligence is a fault.
And you nearly elected a former beauty contestant and religious zealot to be leader-in-waiting.
It would have been the biggest incentive ever for cancer research though wouldn't it? All the money in the world would have been spent on stopping McCain getting ill, would have been twice as important as the Manhattan project and Apollo put together.
Here's one from another pretty lady.
You need a sockpuppet.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I can't speak to any other province
For. You can't speak for any other province. You can speak to anyone you want to.
(Parenthetical remark - it' great to hear from so many Canadians, all this talk of "provinces" is like some kind of echo from an alternate reality where the American "revolution" didn't happen. Which is, I suppose, what Canada is).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Further libertarian? WTF in any of the current Republican partty is "libertarian".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Obama should have named the Reagan Memorial Health Care Act,
More honestly he should have called it the "Heritage Foundation Heath Care Act", since they were the ones who came up with the idea.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
what nonsense, there is always a market even in countries with "socialized" medicine. things cost money, people need wages.
my cousins in spain had to wait half a year for necessary surgery, until then they always were telling me what a superior system they had. that was before they actually had to use it
I can see why you replied as an AC. If i was that intelectually lazy, i wouldn't want anything associating it with my real self either.
Perhaps you could add some real insight to what wasn't true in that post rather then attemp an unsuccessfull ad hominen attack. I know you don't have much to work with, but your effort is less than inteligent or honest. Then again, so is the war on women claims.
Corporate paid shills? Sure, probably. But what corporation would pay to have someone bash the tea party? Corporations love the tea party. Corporations are where the tea party gets its money.
Yes, we're going to turn into a communist dictatorship, like Canada. Or Norway. Hellholes, I tell you!
And who is it that you would want to decide "who needs care most urgently"? The political bureaucrats? The guys who give kickbacks to their friends and make life hard on everyone else? Is that who you would trust to decide whether they give a liver transplant to one of their alcoholic friends instead of to your sick child? A government system always results in corruption, and the people who get ahead are the ones with political connections. I would take the US system any day over that.
Actually, it is far worse then communist dictatorships like Canada or Norway. At least there, the government doesn't rely in third parties for their services.
Canada and Norway do not have constitutions like the US does nor do they have provisions in it guaranteeing the citizens will never have their right to keep and bear arms infringed by the government. But I do find it interesting that you would bring up a couple of other countries who have socialized medicine- calling them communist dictatorships in the process, and those countries have strict gun laws. It would seem they had to disarm their populations first before becoming that hell hole you likened them to.
Hmmm, where to start with this.
First off, I wasn't actually likening Canada and Norway to hellholes. That's called sarcasm, and I don't have a lot of time to go into detail about it here, so feel free to look it up yourself. Suffice it to say, the point of this sarcasm of mine is that Canada and Norway are actually very far from communist dictatorships.
As for the second amendment, I'd like to remind you that this is a discussion about health care, not gun rights. I actually quite like the second amendment. I think it's an excellent idea, and quite frankly, lack of access to health care kills a lot more people than private individuals with assault rifles do.
I do believe that government provided health care would be better than relying on private entities as the ACA does, but at this point the ACA is better than nothing. Hopefully we can change that some time in the future.
I know it was sarcasm. Couldn't you sense my rhetorical BS in attempting to deal with it? Feel free to look that up too.
And what has that to do with my points about Canada and Norway actually providing the services instead of forcing it's citizens to purchase something from a third party? My original point was about what the tea party is pissed over. Your sarcasm couldn't even hit an apples to apples analogy.
Actually, this is a discussion about the tea party within a topic about healthcare. I think I brought the second amendment up when I schooled the AC who posted BS about the tea party. You simply provided an easy example of illustrating it.
The ACA is worse then what we previously had. People who had insurance are loosing their coverage or facing steep increases in costs for it. Some employers are refusing to cover spouses now if they work- even of their plan is cheaper or better. People are getting their hours cut in order for the company to get under the requirement to provide coverage (30 hours a week average or more requires coverage). If it hasn't happened already, a large amount of businesses announced they planned to do so. Instead of having 500 full time jobs, we are seeing 700 part time jobs. Union workers are having to take lesser coverage plans or face stiff penalties for their so called Cadillac coverage. Medical devices, you know, the crap that saves you life and allows you to get out of the hospital and live at home now have massive taxes on them driving the cost of health care up. How is that better?
About the only things I can see better about the ACA being law verses it not is the preexisting condition clauses (which I think could be worked a little better), federal minimums on certain types of plans so those plans are available in every state regardless of the state's laws, and the elimination of lifetime caps on coverage payouts. Other then that, it is a disaster hurting more then anything. All of those can be done, including the expansion of medicaid which I didn't list because some states refused to implement it, without the other crap. In fact, I have a few ideas that could completely remove the negative crap about this law without going to a strictly government or single payer institution.
I hope you know that we are in the shape we are with healthcare because government got involved in the first place right? They created the HMO's in an attempt to control the costs of Medicare and screwed it all up in the process.
The war on the poor is obvious from the recent attack on food stamps. Your glib dismissal of those in need is a simple demonstration of the sort of mean spirit that pervades the Republicans these days. Regarding the war on women, look here, which gives a better list than I can amass on short notice.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
Social Security has been helping people for 80 years. You sound ridiculous saying "yeah, but any day now it could become a problem! Any... day..." Multiple generations of Americans have lived and died and that prediction was never true during their lifetimes and if Social Security ever became a problem then we could get rid of it. So far it's been wildly successful -- no wonder it so pisses off people who don't want government programs to work.
Oh 80 years? Then it will go on forever. Nothing that has gone on for 76 years could ever possibly end horribly in epic failure and collapse.
You sir fail history.
In the words of Marcus Aurelius, "things that can't go on forever... don't."
The system is going through a predictable demographic melt down as the number of people paying into the system goes down and the number of people pulling from it goes up.
Minimum the SS system will have to raise the vesting age. And again... you do not own any of it. You are entitled to nothing. If they give you more or less you can't audit them or sue them or do anything short of shake a cardboard sign at some politicians.
And THIS is your idea of a retirement program. Twit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You seem to misunderstand my statement. I refer to the few who are vilified by the GOP establishment, not the handful of people within the party who have been elected against the establishment's will.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't lump them into either party. For all their stupid, partisan tricks, neither party is the "American Taliban".
In fact, I tend to hear it in reference to John Walker Lindh. Even the Wikipedia search for "American Taliban" links directly to him.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Your question is malformed. You seem to want your question to look like a query as to how you will afford something, but what you're really asking is how you get someone else to pay for something. With the implied undertone of the belief that the outrageous cost of treatment we see on bills today actually reflects the necessary costs of a given treatment.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Doctors and healthcare professionals will decide based on empirical data and studying the problem scientifically.
A market bases system always results in higher prices and worse healthcare outcomes. See, I can make sweeping generalizations too. Mine are closer to the truth, however. The evidence supports my claims and is against yours. Countries with national healthcare programs simply pay less for healthcare as a percentage of their GDP. That didn't have to be true. It could have been the other way. It just happens to be true when you look at the facts. Same with healthcare outcomes. It just happens to be true that they do better when it comes to measurable qualities relating to outcomes like infant mortality, life expectancy, obesity rates, et al. We can measure all of these things, and the socialized systems do a better job--even with their flaws.
Again, you'd take the US system because you have enough money to participate. Millions don't, and that's not acceptable in a prosperous Western democracy in the 21st century. Imagine not having insurance, and not having enough money to pay out of pocket expenses. It doesn't matter if the streets are paved with MRI machines if the system restricts access to them to those who can pay. The best healthcare in the world does me no good if I don't have access to it, and in the US, if you don't have insurance or can't just pay cash for everything you ARE denied the highest levels of care and you ARE denied nearly all preventative care, and you ARE denied most medication. Then there's the inconvenient fact that the majority of people who are driven into bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAD INSURANCE. So even with insurance, most people cannot financially handle a catastrophic health crisis. Go to the ER? ER is the most expensive option for everyone, and doesn't cover routine preventative medicine which would save our country billions.
Rationing care based on a market solution is insane. It's perverse. It's against humanity.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I don't understand your point. We should never do anything that won't last forever and ever? What's your time horizon, is it before the heat death of the universe? Is it before the sun swallows the Earth? Because in my opinion a social program that helps people for 80 years is a social program that outlived its critics nonsense rhetoric by 70 years. Once again I'll say "if Social Security ever became a problem then we could get rid of it" and in the mean time it would have made the world a better place.
My time horizon is to build things that are sustainable.
Because social security is a slush fund with the payout largely set by politics and not economics it is inherently unstable and unfair.
I don't like it. It merely invites corruption and eventual default.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right, okay. Sustainable. Sustainable for how long? Like, for as long as a Presidency (eight years)? As long as a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (say about forty years)? For a century (the current estimate for Social Security solvency)? As long as the entire history of the USA (about 250 years)? As long as the longest ever human empire (about a thousand years)? As long as humans have been genetically modern (about one or two million years)? As long as the entire history of life on planet Earth? Until the heat death of the universe?
In my opinion the eighty year history of Social Security is way, way longer than whatever amount of time it had to survive to be regarded as a successful program. If we don't change it, it will be 100% solvent until its 100th birthday, and if we change it (which we will) then it will be solvent for however much longer.
You don't have to like it. As I said three posts ago, Social Security is the most contemptible program to people like you because it completely razes the political ideology which says government can never be successful doing anything but warfare. As it turns out, that ideology is wrong.
Where does it stop? Why not go full communist?
And if you would stop it at some point... why?
Once you understand the limits and the rules you'll realize you already went too far.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I accept your concession on the point of the longevity of Social Security.
New questions: "Where does it stop? Why not go full communist?"
1. Wherever we decide to stop, as a democracy
2. Because that doesn't seem like the best possible social policy to me, as a voter
Does everything have to be Communism vs. Anarchy to you? Have you ever considered political moderation? Maybe you should consider it; moderation is nice.
I didn't offer a concession. My previous points stand refuted. Come at me from a different angle and I reserve the right to reposition dynamically.
As to your response about where it stops... That's an evasion.
By your own rhetorical rules, that means you concede that point... right? Or will you contradict yourself by adopting my rules?
As to communism versus anarchy. That's a good question. Does it? Do you not charge me with being in league with anarchy?
What I want is freedom. I want you to leave me alone unless you absolutely need to put your hands upon me. And even then, I want that subject to due process.
Short of that, take your f'ing hands off me.
That is my policy. Back off, mother fucker.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... un-refuted... typo.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You conceded the point of sustainability by changing the subject. You didn't disagree that 100 years of sustainability is "enough" because it would be preposterous to do so. Obviously 100 years is more than enough. You changed the subject to some kind of slippery-slope-policy question and I responded to it directly. That's exactly the opposite of what you did.
I didn't evade your question I gave the obvious answer. "Well if you allow the government to do X then what stops Y?" The answer is "we don't like Y, so we don't do it". Duh. That's how policy is made, man. If we like socialism but don't like communism, then we have socialism and not communism. If we like Alaska and Hawaii but don't like Puerto Rico, then we admit Alaska and Hawaii as states and we don't admit Puerto Rico. If we like to allow 18 year olds to vote, but not 17 year olds, then we do that. If we want government-subsidized private insurance, but not "communist" government-run hospitals, then we do that. This isn't a mystery.
Blah blah blah freedom. That rhetoric is meaningless. Boil it down to specifics or it's just hot air. Who the heck do you think is "against freedom"? If you want to be left alone then move to a place with no other human beings like antarctica or the moon, but if you want to live in a society then society "forces" you to obey some rules. Lucky for you there is democracy where you get a little bit of a voice in how the rules are made. This isn't rocket science it's sixth-grade level civics.
So if I ever get bored with an issue that we won't find agreement upon it means that I concede the point to you?
Really?
So if I wanted to talk about how your grand mother was really a jelly fish space alien... would you be conceding to my logic if you lost interest in the discussion or changed the subject?
Don't try rhetoric with me.
I am profoundly analytical.
We can agree that social security is not indefinitely sustainable. The time horizon depends largely how high you set the retirement age, how high you set the taxes, and how low you set the payouts.
Suffice to say you do not own your SS payments. You have no right to them. What you get is what you get. You can't take the government to court to sue them for your share. You have no share.
And that is my problem with it. If I contribute money to an involuntary retirement fund, then I demand to own my share. Own. It has to be in account with my name on it just like a REAL retirement account. As opposed to a bullshit retirement account.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"We can agree that social security is not indefinitely sustainable."
Actually no, SS is exactly indefinitely sustainable.
Indefinite, adj, lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time
You seem to not like it because its potentiality is indefinite. Going way back to the beginning you said this: "Oh 80 years? Then it will go on forever." If your standard for laws is that the must last "forever" then you are an anarchist because nothing lasts forever. I suspect you don't actually think that way, you're just full of it, trying to win an unwinnable argument. I know, empty rhetoric is fun on Slashdot, I just hope you don't actually think and vote this way.
You stated previously that the time horizon was relevant which infers that it was not indefinitely sustainable. So that's something of a contradiction.
As to my my dislike for it, I said already captain strawman, that my reason for not liking it was that we don't own our payout.
I think was was actually very clear on that point. Your interest in lying about that is one of the reasons I don't want to continue that line of discussion. You're so biased that you can't be trusted to talk about this honestly. So what is the point? You don't argue in good faith.
Talking with people like you bores me at a certain point. You have nothing to offer and can't even be convinced because if I start to paint you into a corner you'll just start lying. So why bother?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
wow luck seems a lot less per month Im with my moms health care and its 500 a month . 0.o and if we need medical assistance for anything , we still have fee's even though we pay every month