Congress threatening to shutdown unless ACA is defunded/repealed immediately.

[ringthree]

So I don't get my mail today? Ffffffff

Post Office technically pays for itself, so mail delivery isn't interrupted at least as of the last i heard.

[ringthree]

Can someone explain to me why the fuck my premium doesn't go towards the deductible? Shits so fucking retarded. I hate insurance. There has to be a better system.

Yes, there is. A system with one insurer. But that's communist. Or something.

[Callisto]

Post Office technically pays for itself

One hell of a technicality there lol

[ringthree]

Insurance companies are an integral part of the ACA. It's better than what we had, but we don't have to go all Walter White and pretend like unintended consequences don't exist. Especially when young healthy people who make too much money for subsidies paying more is essentially an intended consequence.

It's not perfect? Well fuck that! Go back to fucking me in the ass please!

Insurance was never based on the individual. It's based on groups. The larger the pool, the lower the average rate.

[ringthree]

technically that's what other countries do, and that's what obamacare was originally designed to do. But then opponents were all INSURANCE PEOPLE GONNA LOSE THEIR JERBS, CAN'T DO THAT. And so we're left with this weird system where insurance companies still get to be the middle man.

This, so much this.

[ringthree]

wut

if you hate insurance so much you could always stop buying it and put the money in a savings account instead. self-insuring has always been a thing and you eliminate all of the overhead. the problem is what if something happens to you that costs more than your savings? hence why comprehensive insurance is supposed to be a temporary thing and catastrophe coverage is so valuable.

and of course the other problem is that someone who totally knows better than you might come along and say that's illegal now because everyone needs everything covered by insurance for their whole lives, so

You know there is this thing that was created to serve the place of insurance right? It's called government.

[Drex]

technically that's what other countries do, and that's what obamacare was originally designed to do. But then opponents were all INSURANCE PEOPLE GONNA LOSE THEIR JERBS, CAN'T DO THAT. And so we're left with this weird system where insurance companies still get to be the middle man.

other countries have government employees that work for free? fascinating.

also the notion of our politicians using funds for their original intended purpose is cute but call me cynical i guess. if we ever do go universal, i do hope it works out.

[Ksandra]

other countries have government employees that work for free? fascinating.

I don't even remotely see how paid gov't employees have anything to do with what I said.

Oh wait, are you implying that anti-obamacare people are that dumb they couldn't realize those insurance people could instead work for the gov't?

On that I agree. They are retardedly stupid.

[Synbios]

So I just checked and all those plans will cost me at least $400 extra per month then what I'm paying now plus have higher copays. I think I'll pass.

[Drex]

I don't even remotely see how paid gov't employees have anything to do with what I said.

Oh wait, are you implying that anti-obamacare people are that dumb they couldn't realize those insurance people could instead work for the gov't?

On that I agree. They are retardedly stupid.

100% spending on healthcare r&d implies no overhead, aka free service. you said that's what other countries have which is obviously wrong.

I don't know where the rest of that came from.

I also don't know where day's ponzi scheme accusation came from since there are plenty of public and private programs that operate under the concept of "pay in now, receive benefits later" that aren't ponzi schemes with varying degrees of success. you receive less than you pay in because there is value in having protection from unexpected large expenses and receiving the lump sum when you need it (when your car crashes, when you need surgery, when your SO or parent dies). that service is intangible but still valuable and if you don't want or need it, then you don't buy it.

whether the premiums are paid as taxes or subsidized expenses is irrelevant at this point. the gov can charge the $400 premium to your taxes and be your insurer or just set a $400 subsidy cutoff below your income and outsource it to a private corp like obamacare. the question is who will provide the service for the best quality at the lowest cost and I think it is bizarre to claim the govt would pull it off.

[Salodin]

100% spending on healthcare r&d implies no overhead, aka free service. you said that's what other countries have which is obviously wrong.

I don't know where the rest of that came from.

I also don't know where day's ponzi scheme accusation came from since there are plenty of public and private programs that operate under the concept of "pay in now, receive benefits later" that aren't ponzi schemes with varying degrees of success. you receive less than you pay in because there is value in having protection from unexpected large expenses and receiving the lump sum when you need it (when your car crashes, when you need surgery, when your SO or parent dies). that service is intangible but still valuable and if you don't want or need it, then you don't buy it.

whether the premiums are paid as taxes or subsidized expenses is irrelevant at this point. the gov can charge the $400 premium to your taxes and be your insurer or just set a $400 subsidy cutoff below your income and outsource it to a private corp like obamacare. the question is who will provide the service for the best quality at the lowest cost and I think it is bizarre to claim the govt would pull it off.

I'm pretty sure you're just getting whoosed by their exaggerations. The sub forum title wins again.

[Dimmauk]

Thanks to shutdown 800k people arent working, and I also cant get a gun permit. And Republicans did this?

[tyven]

Currently lolling a piece meal legislation.

Still in hot air stage and every channel I go through says there is absolutely no real negotiation going on. If there is it is suddenly the best kept secret in DC.

My money says they will fold the issues into the debt ceiling which has a drop dead date of 10/17

For the record I would gladly help zealot in any and all of his political endeavors.

[Ksandra]

For the record I would gladly help zealot in any and all of his political endeavors.

How you two haven't teamed up yet for a glorious drunken raged sex scandal yet, I have no idea.

[Quicklet]

Currently lolling a piece meal legislation.

Still in hot air stage and every channel I go through says there is absolutely no real negotiation going on. If there is it is suddenly the best kept secret in DC.

My money says they will fold the issues into the debt ceiling which has a drop dead date of 10/17

For the record I would gladly help zealot in any and all of his political endeavors.

When I saw this, my first thought was, "Okay, so the new Republican strategy is to fund everything except the parts of government they don't like and hope people believe it's negotiation."

[archibaldcrane]

the question is who will provide the service for the best quality at the lowest cost and I think it is bizarre to claim the govt would pull it off.

The problem with Obamacare is there is little to control costs. When you are in a single-payer system, the Government (representing the entire health care purchasing body) can roll up to doctors, drug manufacturers, medical device makers, etc and say "hey, guess what - we're paying only $X for X service, if you don't like it, feel free to go kick fucking rocks" and then an aspirin doesn't cost $50 in your $9000 a night hospital bed. Right now if an insurer will only pay $X amount, and a medical provider wants more, they'll say "hey fuck you we don't accept your insurance anymore" and they can keep charging what they want to the insurers who want them in-network.

[archibaldcrane]

And for the exchange, there are plenty of places where there is only a single insurer on the exchange (partially because states are refusing to run their own exchanges), quite literally 0 competition in the marketplace, so there is no mechanism there at all to hold prices down (other than medical cost ratios, but if an insurer gets 20% and they're the only game in town, there is little incentive for them to push health care providers for cheaper services - they can just jack rates instead).

[archibaldcrane]

tl;dr Obamacare doesn't stop this fucking nonsense: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3232678.html

[Cantih]

the question is who will provide the service for the best quality at the lowest cost and I think it is bizarre to claim the govt would pull it off.

Hasn't Medicare part A & B (you know, THE GOVERNMENT) been providing just that, best quality at low cost to seniors (you know, people who are basically slowly falling apart), for decades?

[Synbios]

The problem with Obamacare is there is little to control costs. When you are in a single-payer system, the Government (representing the entire health care purchasing body) can roll up to doctors, drug manufacturers, medical device makers, etc and say "hey, guess what - we're paying only $X for X service, if you don't like it, feel free to go kick fucking rocks" and then an aspirin doesn't cost $50 in your $9000 a night hospital bed. Right now if an insurer will only pay $X amount, and a medical provider wants more, they'll say "hey fuck you we don't accept your insurance anymore" and they can keep charging what they want to the insurers who want them in-network.

Serious question, for countries who've gone to a single payer system, have any of them actually developed/discovered/invented any new medicines or devices? I ask because I don't see why any developer would want to spend any resources (aka money) in developing products they know they have little chance to at least break even on. Do the countries that have single payer systems fund the research themselves?