We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.
Despite many Republican voters’ disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:13AM
While the story is another example of people voting against their own interests, I just wanted to be cynical and point out that in the USA wallstreet always gets their piece of the pie. [marketwatch.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:19AM
Don't worry, I'm sure the Free Market (tm) will solve all the world's problems. Any day now....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:35AM
...In the same way the Independent Press(tm) like the NYT can be counted upon to provide unbiased discussions of the administration's activities.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday October 31 2014, @02:35PM
Exactly. Those who benefited the most are the for-profit private insurance industry to whom Obama sold out long before he stopped touting the public option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @05:37PM
While the story is another example of people voting against their own interests
I bet they're a better judge of their interests than you are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 31 2014, @09:37AM
I'll get hate for saying this but as someone who is damned near a communist as well as an agnostic living smack dab in the bible belt I can say that while I never vote for 'em (I vote green most of the time, what little good it does) at least the reps stay on message! Sometimes stereotypes are true and the Dems with all their infighting and waffling are frankly they're their own worst enemy. And can we all admit now that with the exception of Obamacare (which is so much like Romneycare old Mittens should be getting royalties) what we got with Obama was a Bush third term with even MORE fascist bullshit, MORE backroom graft (seriously look up what the top 20 donors to Obama got, they got as much as a 1000% return dollar for dollar, even Nixon didn't kick back that much cash) and MORE outright ignoring what he ran on than Dubya ever did?
I swear if you got 10 reps in a room you'd get 10 copies of the same speech, put 100 dems in a room and they wouldn't be able top agree on what to have for lunch! Between that and backing crap the American people have said loud and clear they DO NOT WANT like yet another amnesty program with ZERO improvements to border security? The ONLY reason dems even have the White House is because the old money keeps picking "winners" like John "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McSame and Mittens "we were so poor we had to live on our stock dividends!" Romney The Third. But if the dems don't come up with a resonable centrist platform, stick to it, and quit waffling? We could very easily end up with another decade of the dems sitting on the sidelines like we had in the 80s.
Lord we need a viable third party BAD folks!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday October 31 2014, @09:54AM
Show me a political party that doesn't have visible infighting, and it'll almost certainly be a fascist dictatorship with a completely totalitarian leader. Even the Communist countries of the world have/had significant differences of opinion amongst their leadership - which in some cases have been ended with purges, but that's not really the point.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:04AM
Because the tea party will "hold their nose" and vote for somebody like Mittens, hell they'd vote for Thurston Howell The Third running on a big government ticket as long as he had an R after the name whereas the Dems just won't bother, see how lousy the turnout for midterms is among the dems.
But someone below nailed it, dems in red states are all city folk and VERY patronizing, they come off as talking down to the voters. Its not like dems can't win if they take a more centrist tone, hell look at Clinton which is loved in AR to this day or the outgoing governor Mike Bebee. But you can't bring hard left politics while talking down to the voters in red states if you ever hope to win, that shit just won't fly.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:16AM
Actually, you got it roughly wrong way round.
The Occupy movement adherents either sulked home (you got that right) or voted for a D (with a few outliers voting G or S).
The Tea Partiers actually put up their own candidates, went RINO-hunting, and rather threw away the chances of an R winning a race than voting for an R they didn't like. Witness: the number of red state D officeholders who are now desperately greasing up their buttholes in preparation for election day.
Voila, the Tea Party gets (grudging) respect in republican circles, while with a few exceptions (Warren springs to mind) the democrats carry on, confident that the livestock will line up for the slaughter in presidential years, at least.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:53AM
The bit about the city folk does touch on an interesting point though. The split between the two main parties isn't really a state-by-state thing, it's a rural vs. urban thing. A far better split currently would be to say that most Democrats tend live in urban areas while Republicans seem to prefer the countryside, something backed up by the purple heat maps of how people vote across the US on a county by county basis, even if that doesn't align with how the Electoral College works. Those states that have more urban voters tend to be those than swing Democract while those that are more rural tend to swing towards the Republicans, although how long it will stay that way is anyone's guess.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 31 2014, @10:45AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:58PM
No they are very efficient at being corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @03:48PM
No, I think he's saying that the republicans are so corrupt its hard to tell if they could govern competently, and the democrats are so incompetent it's hard to distinguish from corruption.
(Score: 1) by schad on Friday October 31 2014, @12:27PM
It's just the echo chamber. Democratic candidates in Republican states tend to come out of the cities, which are usually Democratic strongholds. That means that they genuinely don't understand the things that matter to rural conservatives, and they have no idea how to relate to them. They want to appeal, but they end up pandering. Usually hilariously transparently. Hey, if you never have to learn how other people think, why would you? It requires challenging your own beliefs, which nobody likes doing. Far easier to write off those few people who don't agree with you, and instead spend all your time with the great many who do.
It's not like Republicans are immune to it either. But mostly they seem to have decided that certain demographic groups will never, ever, ever vote Republican. That if it were Hitler running against Jesus, those groups would vote for Hitler as long as he had a (D) after his name. Not saying that's actually true, but it seems to be the assumption under which they're operating. With that said, though, if the Republicans ever decide to try to win the Latino vote, you're going to see some shit that will make you laugh until you pee your pants.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday October 31 2014, @01:54PM
I'm what the average Republican would characterize as a left-wing nutjob (e.g. I'll probably volunteer for Bernie Sanders' campaign if he tries to run for president), so take this as you will.
But from what I can see, the Republicans are in fact correct that certain demographic groups will never vote for them until they stop catering to their bigots. Republican candidates and office-holders have repeatedly made statements that strongly suggest a belief that these kinds of people should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men:
- African-American
- Hispanic/Latino
- Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc
- Poor and working class
- Women
- Muslims, Sikhs, pagans, Unitarians, and just about all other minority religions except Jews
- Scientists
As far as how rural white voters think, here's my understanding of the fundamental story they've been told, and in many cases believe: "For centuries, your ancestors built America into something wonderful. Over the last 40 years, you and your family and your town have lost everything except your pride, your faith, and your weapons. You have gone from being independent homesteaders with your own land and a freedom to do as you please, to now being employees of big corporations if you're lucky (and unemployed and broke if you aren't). The reason you lost everything is that the minorities, women, and irresponsible hippie types convinced the federal government to take your wealth from you and give it to them. They then used this money, stolen from you at gunpoint, to be able to spend their time enjoying drugs, extramarital sex, nice cars, and all sorts of other luxuries."
The first part of that story is completely true: Rural communities have indeed become impoverished over the last 40 years, and many former independent business owners are now employees or unemployed. The second part, though, is mostly a lie: the primary beneficiary of that impoverishment of rural America wasn't urban America, but Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Monsanto, John Deere, Dow Chemical, Walmart, and a few other major corporations. Because the first part is true, and white rural people rarely come into contact with non-white urban people, it's very easy to believe the second part. And believing that story leads naturally to the conclusion that rural prosperity depends on urban poverty and vice versa.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @05:46PM
Republican candidates and office-holders have repeatedly made statements that strongly suggest a belief that these kinds of people should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men
There are bigots everywhere. You are an example of one from the "left-wing nutjob" side as your above quote illustrates. So what? Should you be completely politically marginalized just because you are a bigot? Democracy means bigots get to play too.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 31 2014, @05:52PM
I didn't say bigots didn't get to play, I said that if candidates are going out there and saying bigoted things, then they shouldn't be surprised that the people they're bigoted against overwhelmingly vote against them.
If somebody like KKK leader David Duke wants to run for president, he can go right ahead, and anybody who agrees with him is allowed to vote for him. But if the Duke campaign is sitting around wondering why he's not getting more votes from African-Americans, then they're a bunch of complete idiots.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:35PM
If somebody like KKK leader David Duke wants to run for president, he can go right ahead, and anybody who agrees with him is allowed to vote for him. But if the Duke campaign is sitting around wondering why he's not getting more votes from African-Americans, then they're a bunch of complete idiots.
If he really cared, he could just do a public about face like Senator Robert Byrd did. Very few people care about racism when the racists are on their side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:31PM
Could you please explicitly point out the part of the quoted sentence that implies bigotry? Because I'm not seeing it. Unless you're claiming that anyone who thinks that minorities shouldn't be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight WASPs is a bigot, or that stating facts makes one a bigot.
Believing and preaching false stereotypes over the truth is bigotry. Speaking the truth is not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:31PM
Believing and preaching false stereotypes over the truth is bigotry.
Exactly. Note the first of the quote: "Republican candidates and office-holders". And the accusation is moderately over-the-top with a list of people (every group mentioned overlapping with the Republican party membership, I might add) "should be subservient to the wishes of well-off straight white Christian men". This is a typical false stereotype. I don't consider the accusation any more serious than someone stating that the Oakland Raiders (an America football team based in Oakland, California) eats babies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:25AM
Oh, now I understand, it "suggests bigotry" because its a strawman - you're twisting the poster's words to say something they're not.
You intentionally left out the words " have repeatedly made statements", which change the entire meaning of the sentence. If you remove those words then the statement might convey bigotry, but they're there, so it doesn't.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:51AM
Because stating observed facts is bigotry, right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 02 2014, @05:27AM
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday October 31 2014, @06:30PM
To illustrate your point, take the uproar about the poor getting free cell phones. This has turned into a conservative war cry. Even though it has died down, it is still prevalent. This is exacerbated because rural areas have horrible cell phone coverage, and it still remains ridiculously expensive in some areas (where I live you have one option, and it will cost you nearly $100/mo for an average plan that I could get in a city for $65/mo). But the reality is that poor people have been getting free phone service for years. It was just recently that it became more logical and economical to do it with cell phones than land lines. It is also lost on the rural folks that if it were not for big government they would have never had a phone line in the first place.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday October 31 2014, @01:08PM
that is because "right" wing politics is all about "simple" solutions...no detail. "Abortion bad. God good."...
"left"wing politics is all about filling the cracks, so by definition it is more complex and hence less easy to capture.
The problem with modern politics is that it is neither "left" or "right" but the messages that have been paid for by the biggest donors...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:16PM
I vote green most of the time, what little good it does
Please keep doing so! I really wish that the Libertarians and the Greens would supplant the existing Republicrats and Dempublicans so that we might have some actual debates [freeandequal.org] about shit that matters.
I was almost thinking about wonking out next Tuesday because honestly nothing on my state's ballot matters to me at all. I think I'll still go if only to cast a straight Libertarian ticket. All that the Libertarians and Greens need is 5% of the vote (each) to really get things moving. Let's try to make this happen!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @02:01PM
I think of myself as libertarian, but on my ballot this year they are almost all religious whackjobs. So I'm voting for all the independents, who look a lot more like the libertarians did 20 years ago.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:23PM
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -- Will Rogers
It was true in the 1930's, and still true today. If nothing else, we stick to our roots. And we need more like Will Rogers today - the closest we have are Colbert and Stewart and Oliver and I'm sure each would say they're very pale imitations of the man.
Here are a few more of his more notable quotes for your enjoyment:
That is all.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday October 31 2014, @04:42PM
You're a communist??? As the prominent Windows user on this forum, you'd have a very good claim against being a communist.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:37PM
What does one's choice in OS have to do with their political views? What one does in private, like use on their computer, has nothing to do with how they'd like to see society function.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 31 2014, @09:43PM
One CAN support actually buying products and believing that every person has the right to a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their backs, and medical treatment. those two views aren't mutually exclusive.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:13AM
You're describing a champagne socialist. A communist believes that surplus labor should go to the commons.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:35AM
It is called "cognitive dissonance". There are other, less sophisticated words one might use.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @10:50AM
I notice there was no mention of how the insurance rates have gone up drastically as a direct result of the ACA. When even the bastion of Obama lovin that is the huffington post [huffingtonpost.com] admits there's a problem, there's a fucking problem.
There also was no mention of how jobs for anyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground in the medical field have all but completely disappeared. Before Obamacare, a well qualified RN or PT could expect 3-5 calls a week offering them a job. After Obamacare, zero calls and the same two people are unlikely to be able to find a job even actively looking. Yet the statistics all say Obamacare is creating jobs in healthcare? Yeah, it's creating beancounter jobs, lawyer jobs, and inexperienced, entry-level jobs while causing layoffs of people who actually know what they're doing. Makes you feel a warm, safe feeling about the quality of care you're going to receive, don't it?
Thankfully, this is not my problem. I remain uninsured and immune to Obamacare by way of my feather not dot, wagon burner heritage where capitalism still controls the quality of my healthcare. While everyone else is laying off experienced staff and cutting corners at the patients' expense, my tribe just built a spankin new hospital paid for through free market principles. Suck it, palefaces. Enjoy your death panels. Enjoy your 30+ millions of looming coverage losses. Enjoy your wet behind the ears- doctors, nurses, and therapists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday October 31 2014, @01:13PM
well, someone had to pay for all the un-insured people?
I have never, ever met a poor doctor so I call BS on the medical professional decline..
What has probably happened is that since there are 10,000,000 more people on the rolls, facilities are needing to expand...
We are only at the beginning of this process....
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @01:32PM
You have never, ever met a doctor in their first ten years of practice then. They're ALL poor then from the extreme amount of loans they had to take out. And poor or not has nothing to do with there not being jobs available.
If facilities were needing to expand, there would be jobs for experienced healthcare workers. There are not. Check for yourself, there are plenty of jobs search sites. The only ones you'll find are paying half or less what experienced healthcare workers were being offered only a few short years ago.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday October 31 2014, @02:00PM
Those ten years are graduate school...I don't expect students to be wealthy, but to be anything other than GP requires 10 years. I have never met a qualified medical professional who is not well off, that is why the debt is "sort of" justified, although one could argue it drives up the cost of healthcare....
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday October 31 2014, @02:19PM
There are three trends about this that are simultaneously true:
1. Doctors, on the whole, make far more than the average person (a low-paid doctor in the US typically makes something like $150K a year). Part of this is just a supply/demand issue.
2. Doctors are making less than they once did.
3. Younger doctors (under age 35 or so) are not particularly wealthy, in part because much of what they make is going to student loans, and in part because what they make is significantly less than their more experienced counterparts.
So where's all the money for health care going if not to the doctors, you ask? Pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, hospital facilities, and hospital upper management.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:33PM
Umm, that's because rates were not limited by PPACA. They had been going up for years and will continue to do so. If you didn't notice, they didn't go up as much this year (overall) as in recent years past.
If you wanted to really save money, we could stop paying the insurers' 15% bribe off the top. Having national insurance as a government-managed risk pool would be the right way to go for efficiency. But we had to bow to the disciples of the free market and make sure the current players got their bribes.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @02:37PM
> When even the bastion of Obama lovin that is the huffington post admits there's a problem, there's a fucking problem.
Did you even read what is on the other end of the link that you posted? It sure doesn't fucking say what you claim it fucking says.
Only one of the articles there is less than 2 years old and the point of that article is the opposite of what you are claiming - "Right now, there is too little information about too few carriers to make any conclusions on the ACA's impact on premiums."
As with nearly all of your posts, you are just doing the peacock dance of delusional disconnect from the real world. Stick to simple matters of programming and stay away from the hard stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @03:19PM
Lay off the fire water dude! Seriously.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 31 2014, @05:57PM
There also was no mention of how jobs for anyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground in the medical field have all but completely disappeared
Except, it addresses exactly that question:
Wall Street analysts and health care experts say, the industry appears to be largely flourishing, in part because of the additional business the law created.
But hey, don't let reality affect your already-made mind.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:21PM
Wall-street analysts don't give two shits about the quality of care, only the bottom line. You sure those are the people you want to listen to?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dublet on Friday October 31 2014, @11:29AM
As someone who's lived on the European continent for their entire life, it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could be against everyone in society having access to healthcare, free at the point of access.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @11:41AM
Mostly because nothing's free. Everything you get WILL be paid for. There are a lot of people over here who just are not interested in paying for what others get.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:31PM
That's attitude is totally understandable when you see a mother with eight undisciplined kids in tow, no father(s) in sight, paying for her groceries using food stamps, while bitching to her friends on her brand new iPhone 6 about how she can't buy those new shoes and get a manicure because the "gubmint ain't gibin me nuff well fares".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @12:52PM
Nah, I don't need a strawman, thanks. I'm perfectly content with the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him someone else's fish and he'll vote for you." I don't want my metaphorical or actual fish, big or small, going to anyone else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:56PM
That wasn't a strawman. I witnessed that a couple of weeks ago.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Friday October 31 2014, @01:15PM
"No father(s) in sight" I like the way you inferred that she is unmarried and the kids have multiple fathers without knowing anything about her. My wife goes to the grocery store with my kids once or twice a week while I am at work. This statement has more data behind it than yours does --> You are a stereotyping POS.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @05:04PM
And why do you think there are stereotypes exist? My wife and I run a charity in our city and we see every stereotype you can name and the people just seem happy to try to fit it, regardless of race.
Have you seen the new show "Blackish"? A family with a father that can't have their kids acting to "white".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:03PM
A rich man, a republican and a democrat are sitting in a room with 10 twinkies. The rich man takes 8, and warns the republican that the democrat wants to take his.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:11PM
And what's to say the warning isn't valid, the overall inequality of the situation aside? What if the Democrat actually does want to take some of the Republican's twinky, to redistribute it to the "didadvantaged"?
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:55PM
The only issue is that we're kicking the poor person when we should both be kicking the Republican to get him to give up one or two more of the Twinkies. And that it's not just the Republicans doing that these days. Face it - we're an oligarchy now. This will be solved within about fifty years by another revolution. I hope I'm dead before it happens. It won't be pretty.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @03:00PM
And I note that when it comes to wealth redistribution, it is much easier to steal a twinky from the poor guy than it is from the rich guy. So many of these wealth redistribution schemes go horribly wrong.
Finally, it's worth noting that the world is experiencing a time of unprecedented global growth and prosperity. If your society is not sharing in that, then you should be asking why. My view is that wealth redistribution is one of the reasons why. Power shifts from those who make twinkies to those who can steal twinkies.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @05:42PM
No, power shifts to those who hoard Twinkies, for eventually they shall have the only Twinkies.
Power accretes until it is dispersed. It seems as universal as a law of nature. You can choose to get rid of these accretions when they're small and tractable or you can wait until there's going to be a bunch of collateral damage when it finally gets taken down. The bigger the accretion, the bigger the explosion. And you, my friend, are sitting on a powder-keg of power accretion previously unimagined in the world, holding the match of improved access to information extremely close to the fuse of unmet needs. I wish you the best in our mutual upcoming skyward journey.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:53PM
No, power shifts to those who hoard Twinkies, for eventually they shall have the only Twinkies.
It didn't work that way in the early part of the 20th Century in the US. What happened over the past few decades is simple. The balance of power between developed world labor and developed world capital shifted in favor of the latter. This is solely due to economic globalization and stiff competition with developing world labor. It stop when most of the world's labor gets employed and elevated to near developed world standards. I see that happening in about thirty years for the world outside of Africa.
Rather than steal "twinkies" from each other, which concentrates power in the hands of those who control the theft, the developed world should be thinking a lot harder about how to make its labor and other assets more valuable and less costly. There is no reason that the developed world shouldn't have very high employment rates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:08AM
Twinkie@ is a registered trademark. If you make your own Twinkies, you will be arrested. That is why it is better to kick the Republican and take some of his: he has a license!!
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:50PM
Gosh! I've actually never heard anyone talking like that in a grocery store.
You don't need anything else than the parent post to show that classist rhetoric also hurts our society. Note the use of vernacular to tag the victim of this verbal abuse with traits of stupidity and laziness, even though we all know there are people who are poor through little or no fault of their own. I like the "eight kids" thing, too, reinforcing the meme that the lower classes are breeding too much (even if you check average birth rates, the differentials are minor - besides, if the benefits of marriage accrue mainly to the well-off, why bother with it if your not?). And I especially like the "daddy not around" part - maybe he's working at one of his three part-time minimum-wage jobs, huh? But, no, we see a poor person and assume that they're in that position because they want to maintain this state because "it's so easy" - lets see you survive on what a welfare mom gets, if you think it's so easy. We judge them and find their "effort" or "morals" wanting, even if we don't actually know what they are. We actively fight to keep them in that position by limiting help to the bare minimum allowed for survival and assume that our munificent "charity" will somehow help this person escape what their life has become. Attitudes like the parent post show fuel that hatred. Because once we make the poor sub-human, we can do what this always boils down to for all of you Scrooges out there - reducing the "surplus population".
I'd call the poster of the parent post a troll, but I really think he believes this.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday October 31 2014, @06:33PM
...I'd call the poster of the parent post a troll, but I really think he believes this.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a massive logical disconnect from reality among conservatives, particularly poorer conservatives. There appears to be a belief that their taxes would disappear if they could just get rid of those minorities living it up on welfare and food stamps. Those fears are happily fed by the Republican Party leaders. They also fan, for the same reasons, the flames of social controversies like gay marriage and abortion, despite the fact it affects no one but the participants. Add that to the massive right wing propaganda campaigns against the ACA, the IRS, unions, government regulation (particularly the EPA) and Federal ownership of land and you pretty much have the Republican platform.
The goal of course is to eliminate the costs and risks of benefiting from living in our society for the wealthy, despite the fact they already benefit the most from that society. Almost every one of the items attacked by the Republicans benefit the poor and rural whites the most. Maps of food stamp use and increases of the insured under the ACA tend to show red states with the highest benefits. Those Federal lands, aside from the benefit to wildlife and biological diversity, are where millions of Americans hunt, fish, camp, hike or just enjoy the scenery. They don't seem to realize that turning it over to private ownership will result not in increased opportunities for those activities, but in increased "no trespassing" signs and/or massive environmental degradation. Unions are pretty much why workers have any benefits at all, union or not. People also forget why, but you don't have to search too hard to find the reasons the EPA was created in the first place. Do people really want to go back to the days of smog, rivers catching fire, rivers and bays too polluted to support fisheries, gas clouds descending on cities, etc? Most government regulations have not been created for the hell of it, they have been created to address issues caused by various abuses. They don't always get it right, but we could be working to make the faulty regulations work instead of eliminating all restraints on abuses.
The Democrats are moral cowards, they are too afraid of being attacked for their beliefs to stand up for them, so I can understand the lack of enthusiasm voters have for them. They should be attacking the Republicans for rolling back the liberal capitalism that helped the nation reach its greatest prosperity. Instead, they try to weasel into the vacuum in the middle caused by the Republican shift to the further right.
The Republicans however, are absolutely despicable, rolling back the modest social, environmental and economic gains that created the middle class, trying to drag us back to the decades preceding the Great Depression, wiping out the middle class and leaving the vast majority of people at the whims and mercy of the wealthy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @10:42PM
Just because you haven't personally experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Maybe there aren't many people like that in your wealthy white suburban environment, but in other areas it's very common to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:28AM
Just because you see it doesn't mean its common. People see rare things all the time.
(Score: 1) by boris on Friday October 31 2014, @01:03PM
Nothing is free, but in a single payer system you have a few less middle men to pay such as the insurance company. How can having more middle men be more inexpensive? Also, US healthcare is absurdly expensive compared to Europe. What fixes that? The Free Market?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @01:12PM
In a single payer system you also have no choice but to pay and no say in how much you pay. You allow the government, notorious for not being able to do anything with money but waste it, to administer a huge chunk of the economy. I'll still pass, thanks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:55PM
In the current system, the cost of services is completely made up. The cost of an MRI doesn't depend upon how much it costs to run the machine, it is priced upon the highest value that an insurance company will pay for a scan. Tell me the labor cost of the tech and running the machine costs the $5k/person they charge, so if they run 20 people through the machine in a day, you gonna tell me it costs $100k/day to run the machine??? You'd be off by two orders of magnitude. Since they can't charge different rates to different people, the uninsured are on the hook for the full $5k.
Other than cries of socialism from people who apparently don't know what the word means, I have a very hard time seeing why health service costs are not regulated like electricity rates, water, rates, etc. Many of the same arguments for classifying ISPs as common carriers applies to health care services, but you don't hear too many people around here call that socialism, largely because they feel that in their own pockets as opposed to caring about some ficticious "welfare queen".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:26PM
I've no problem regulating healthcare. I've damned sure no problem regulating insurance agencies. I have a big problem with moving us to pay for it or go to prison, because that's what's effectively being said.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dublet on Friday October 31 2014, @04:25PM
Yet the evidence indicates that the UK government is doing a better job that the US private sector.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html [independent.co.uk]
The UK NHS costs $3,405 per capita and the US system $8,508. For worse care. The relevant table: http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9542817.ece/alternates/w1024/Davis_Mirror_2014_ES1_for_web.jpg [independent.co.uk]
(Note that this was before the Affortable Care Act.)
According to the study, the UK “outperforms all countries” in the management of chronic illness. “The widespread and effective use of health information technology (HIT) in the UK plays a large role in the country’s high score on the chronic care management indicators, as well as its performance on system aspects of preventive care delivery.”
Britain also apparently leads the way in stellar levels of patient communication, alongside Germany. This relates to whether patients reported that they always or often got a clear, understandable and timely response from their doctor.
Customer feedback was also something that the UK excelled in, with 84 per cent of physicians receiving patient satisfaction data, compared with 60 per cent in the US which ranked third in that category.
[...]
Contrary to popular opinion, the report claimed that it is a "common mistake" to associate universal health coverage with long waiting times for specialised care.
“The UK has short waiting times for basic medical care and nonemergency access to services after hours,” it says.
“The UK also has improved waiting times to see a specialist and now rates fourth on this dimension with the US ranking third.”
Overall, it was said that the UK provides “universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:29PM
Good for them. It makes me happy they're doing well. They don't apparently have a government that trips over itself to see who can sell their vote the fastest when they're not horribly mismanaging the 2-3% they actually try to spend on what it should be spent on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 31 2014, @06:47PM
if they're not interested in being a part of society, then they need to GTFO. they sure as shit like taking what others have paid for, such as driving on society's roads, etc, but scoff when it comes their turn to contribute.
the whole point of society is that everyone pitches in (pays taxes) to provide the things that are essential for society to flourish (roads, education, internet, etc). it can be debated what specifically is essential for society to flourish (ie, does everyone need food? shelter? healthcare? roads? running water? etc? are the benefits of providing it worth the cost?), but it is still a requirement that everyone who wants to take part in society must pay their fair share.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:20PM
There's been society where you get to keep most of what you earn for most of this nation's history. It's only recently that you lot have decided that you can spend my money better than I can on everything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 31 2014, @11:50PM
"its always been that way" doesn't mean its the best way, or even a good way. if you want to be a selfish prick and keep everything to yourself, saying fuck everyone else, then nobody is stopping you from moving away from everyone and living off in the wilderness by yourself, but if you want to participate in society then you have to follow society's rules, which includes following the laws and pitching in your fair share; if you won't pitch in your fair share then you're just a mooch, suckling off society's teats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:26AM
OK, I'll bite.
How much, precisely, is to be extracted from me, now and forevermore?
Go on, name your price.
Because I have found that however much people promise me, with their hands on their hearts and tears in their baby blue eyes, is all they want to take, it turns into a bigger number with more government debt which turns into more interest payments which I then have to pay for ....
In case you're having a hard time getting the hint: this is exactly why I, and many others, are getting sick of the ever-ratcheting government-sponsored level of financial strip-mining.
So give me a final, guaranteed figure or hunker down for implacable resistance.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:17AM
thats between you and the people in your area. as things like "inflation", "privatization", and "corruption" exist, and as everyone's needs and cost:benefit analyses are different, its impossible to give a single figure that will be valid for everyone, everywhere, forevermore.
the rest of your post reads like a strawman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02 2014, @03:26AM
OK. Great. It's a flexible number with no foreseeable cap. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Implacable resistance to rising budgets shall therefore be the approach of choice.
Want something done? Find room in the budget, or learn to do without.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:19AM
I never said it's always been that way. I said it's been that way successfully in society for a long time; witness a society without taking money for charity at gunpoint. What we currently have is a small minority that through mass stupidity gained power and did something that society did not, and still does not, want.
Now YOU have a choice: to listen to the dictates of your collective society and vote for someone who is in favor of repealing the ACA or state plainly that you do value your own rights above those of society and vote for someone in favor of keeping it. You can't have it both ways.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 01 2014, @05:37PM
no, thats not my responsibility, thats the responsibility of society's representatives, the responsibility of the government. its also the responsibility of government to provide the things which society needs to be prosperous regardless of that society's wishes. there's a lot of people who don't want their money going to pay for roads, but modern society can't function without them. there's a lot of people who don't want their money going to support the army, but a society has to be able to defend itself otherwise it will simply be conquered.
every other first-world country in the world and lots of 3rd-world countries have proven that universal healthcare is well worth the benefits and is significantly cheaper than the US "healthcare system" scam. when people who can't pay for it go to the ER, it comes out of the public's pocket at a significantly higher cost; i can't understand why people want to continue paying so much more for so little benefit when its possible to pay significantly less for a hell of a lot more benefit.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:04AM
End of discussion, tyrant wannabe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:47AM
end of discussion, since abusive ad hominem strawmen are the only things you seem able to use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:15AM
Hmm, do history much? Heard of "tithing"? Non-optional! Even when below subsistence level!
(Oh, and, "We're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!")
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Friday October 31 2014, @07:40PM
an enemy soldier in a prison camp has more comfort than the average citizen... =)
dude, have you noticed lately, that the complexity of things kind of increase?
for the moment, I am without job, but am not uneducated... what I know have been elite stuff just some decades ago...
since the low hanging fruit has been taken, there is nothing simple I can found a bizniz on...
I ask you this:
When my savings run out, you wish me to commit suicide?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:18PM
If you're relying on low-hanging fruit to start a business, you've no business in business. You, my friend, are a wage slave. Live with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Saturday November 01 2014, @05:35AM
The main question was this: when I become unemployed, and run out of money, should I commit suicide?
Generally, the high hanging fruit takes lots of manyears to pick... A new compiler, some specific signal processing library, replacement for some component that is in use today, say, X windows - you are a dev, yes? You know these take many years to make...
Then, there are some other things around, but everyone can't be an android dev or java consultant...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:11AM
You seem hung up on suicide. Seek help. What you should do is the same thing the rest of the world does when they aren't fit for one reason or another to be a business owner, get a job.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Saturday November 01 2014, @10:50PM
yes, yes, but if I can't get a job, and funds have run out?
why not answer? what should I do then?
are u willing to contribute "walfare" and medication for me until my situation improves?
face it, otherwise, i have to become criminal, or perish.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:03AM
Nope. And I'd never interfere with your right to choose to end your life, if that's what you really feel is necessary either. Having gone through plenty of that particular sort of mental badness myself, I know exactly where someone in that situation is coming from. Do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:36AM
My experience is not relevant here, on the other hand your words are:
"Mostly because nothing's free. Everything you get WILL be paid for. There are a lot of people over here who just are not interested in paying for what others get."
---
"Nah, I don't need a strawman, thanks. I'm perfectly content with the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him someone else's fish and he'll vote for you." I don't want my metaphorical or actual fish, big or small, going to anyone else."
If someone does not have, than that person have reached the end of the line, and these options exist:
1: someone contributes with some fish, maybe, so that the other can get back on the feet...
2: prostitution, criminality
3: emigration
4: death
So, do you or do you not want to contribute with some fish?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @01:02PM
Not at gunpoint, no, and that's exactly what taxes are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Sunday November 02 2014, @08:05PM
"Not at gunpoint, no, and that's exactly what taxes are."
My intention is not to troll you, but here is the point:
- the meek, nice, sensitive or those incapable of violence and killing (there is more to it) will die
- those who are insensitive or are to afraid of death will become prostitutes
- the rest are going to take to arms...
And at some point, we realize, that evolution did not only eliminate the incompetent - as certain groups wish to put it.
Evolution also eliminates the kind of people that you would rather more like to look in the eyes, then yourself.
And at the end, you will end up at gunpoint anyway.
As I said, I do not intend to troll, but you strike me as someone who is not stupid, but rather hard for the wrong reasons and about the wrong things.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 03 2014, @12:33AM
That's their call. I will not pay someone to not rob me. They're welcome to try though. The difference between them and me is I am on the side of liberty while they are on the side of give me your shit.
Personally, I'm with Patrick Henry; give me liberty or give me death. I flatly refuse to live as anything but a free man. You're right that people are going to start dying sooner or later but it won't be the outcome you're looking for. There will be no Bolshevik revolution in the US. Look to the history of this nation if you want to see where we'll come down on overly burdensome taxation. Enough of us haven't changed that the result will be identical to that of two hundred years and change ago.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:24PM
Your opinion could very well change if you were ever to be taxed at only 25%, rather than the 70% or more taxation rate you've only ever experienced. You'd soon come to like having greater control over how the money you've earned is spent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:35PM
This always seems to be the argument for people who haven't looked at the numbers.
The American tax payers pay £3700 per person per year for health care, plus insurance on top of that. In the UK for example universal healthcare cost the tax payer $3200 per person per year.
So you're not controlling what you spend your money on, you're spending more money to get less because you're paying for the inefficiencies of having hundreds of insurance companies doing administration, and thousands of hospital and doctors all doing the same, plus lining the pockets of share holders and executives in all those miriad companies.
Your argument would work if you were paying less, but each and every person in the US is paying more for private healthcare than they would under a public healthcare system. And the worst thing is that the republican's and the insurance companies have got you all convinced that saving money and having better access to healthcare is against your best interests.
How many turkey's have to get eaten before you all stop voting for Christmas?
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday October 31 2014, @02:30PM
The extra money which the U.S. puts forward means that we don't have to have pages describing our health care such as:
http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx [www.nhs.uk]
Says something that the top search result for: http://www.google.com/search?q=us+health+care+wait+for+MRI [google.com] is for Canada, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @02:45PM
> The extra money which the U.S. puts forward means that we don't have to have pages describing our health care such as:
No, the reason we don't have pages like that is because for a lot of people the wait list is infinite. Everybody on the highway can drive fast when it isn't rush hour.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 31 2014, @12:49PM
The fear among people who have private health care is that under a public system, the quality of care would go down for them. I do not necessarily believe that but I can see how others would. It also makes it very easy for moneyed interests to create resistance to change by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
It's not that the public are generally against giving people access to health care. A few years ago there was a strong push to expand Medicare benefits (the health care program for the elderly). It's that the public is against massive change to a system they're highly dependent on, yet is working well enough for a plurality (say 40%) of the population.
There is also fear that the overall cost to society would go up, and that the cost to individuals who are benefiting from the current system would go up disproportionately. Again, I am not sure I believe that, but it is mighty hard to prove what would or wouldn't happen.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:57PM
"Obmamacare" is not free healthcare. It is insurance. You pay for insurance.
It is not even 'cheap' healthcare. As 'insurance' covers everything. So even if you didnt want to use insurance it is in your best interest to use it. Now it is 'must carry' even if you do not really need it. To put it in perspective I probably will start really needed healthcare in my 60s. I am in my 40s. My employer pays about 12k a year as they are in a decent group. I have heard of plans costing as much as 3k a month. If I just saved the money and put it into a simple market matched fund I would probably have 1.1 million in that 20 years. Easy enough to pay for most procedures. Instead I have to give money to pay for others who need it now because we have jacked the price so high they can not afford it anymore.
What used to cost maybe 100 bucks now costs 10k. Far outstripping inflation.
We do not have the healthcare system you have. We have an insurance system. Having recently had to pick another dentist (old guy wanted to retire at 70 weird...). I can tell you the quality vs cost you get is wildly different depending on what group insurance plan you are in. Went into one place and it was 'omg you have the worst teeth I have ever seen I cant help you' (in plan). Next dude 'oh you just need a little work but it will cost you 10k' (in plan). Next guy it was 150 for the exact same procedure (out of plan). I paid cash. Because I got better quality than want offered by my insurance.
We have picked a path where we are on our way to extremely higher costs. None of the providers want to deal with the insurance companies. Many will give you a substantial discount if you pay cash up front. Most nurses I get the reaction of 'oh thank god I do not have to call them want 20% off?'. All you have to do is ask. Involve the insurance company though? Oh they charge the max rate they can.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @02:45PM
As someone who's lived on the European continent for their entire life, it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could be against everyone in society having access to healthcare, free at the point of access.
First, let me whine about the use of the term, "access". Everyone has "free access" to health care in the US. You don't have to pay to schedule an appointment with a doctor or walk into a hospital. They just don't have "free consumption". I think the language games surrounding the health care debate are rather silly.
Second, who is paying for this? Free "access" isn't free. Health care isn't like food. There is no real limit to how much health care you can consume except what your funding source can afford. And I've never heard of a sensible public health care scheme to limit consumption of health care. The usual games for limiting health care consumption are to delay demand via waiting lines or bureaucracy. There isn't an obvious point at which to set health care consumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @05:04PM
I'd prefer to live in a free society where you can choose whether to pay for health insurance or not. In the UK you're forced to pay, even when you don't want to.
I'd rather take a risk and not pay for health insurance. I keep myself healthy and in good shape, don't engage in any dangerous activities and never vis the doctor.
If I get into an accident, get cancer or something else...well shit happens. I'd rather concentrate on living instead of worrying about dying, so I'd rather spend my money enjoying myself rather than waste it on "free" healthcare.
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Friday October 31 2014, @07:24PM
well *that* would be fine, but what we HAVE, is a health insurance entrenchment and profitability law...
in effect, PUTTING THE FOXES IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE...
(let's not ponder the IDIOTIC 'legal basis' on which this MANDATORY FINE/TAX is levied upon us, NOR how it opens up the door to fucking kongresskritters requiring virtually ANY EXPENDITURE they damn well please to saddle us with...)
i am 100% for single-payer, universal healthcare type plan, THIS IS NOT IT...
i am NOT buying this shit for the simple reason it is shit: the SHITTIEST 'bronze' plan will cost me 1/4 my take home pay, WITH A $6250 deductible... short of lopping off an appendage or getting the "Big C", i will NEVER receive any benefits from paying ONE QUARTER OF MY TAKE HOME PAY... NEVER...
FUCK.
THAT.
SHIT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @04:46AM
In Oz, we pay around 2% of our income as the "medicare levy" (which is really a tax).
10% of this funds the administration of the system, the rest pays for medical services.
Someone I know quite well who has no other insurance was recently injured (minor but painful).
First visit to emergency : free
Follow up visit to GP next day : $30 (Medicare paid the rest)
Daily visits to have the bandages changed and wound inspected : free
Total cost of bandages and medication : approx $50
Total medical expenses for an injury that put him off work for a week were less than four hours at minimum wage.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday October 31 2014, @01:56PM
Remember this law is forcing people to buy worthless catastrophic insurance policies with insanely high deductibles. Sure, people now have insurance who didn't in the past, but lower-income people are being forced to buy catastrophic policies that don't really help them because they don't have the money to meet the deductibles in the first place. What I see is that a push to get people to buy worthless high-deductible policies in the 2000s with the HSA scam was wholly rejected by the public (who finally saw that HSAs were a laughably loser deal compared to real insurance), who demanded traditional insurance or just didn't buy it, and then the insurance companies got the government to require people to buy worthless insurance. But then no one listen to me because I'm some grumpy old guy.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:26PM
I have an HSA and catastrophic medical insurance. I could buy (and could pay for) top tier insurance with a low deductible. I choose not to because I think that is a sucker bet.
Even for the working poor, I would recommend one of these policies, because the negotiated rates for medical insurance are so much lower than the amount charged to those paying directly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 31 2014, @03:18PM
Reading the threads here and on the other site is like listening to creationists try to justify a 6,000 year old world.
Here is a though. Maybe don't work backwards from the unassailable fact that Obamacare is bad.
There are finally some actual stats coming out of this thing. How about we evaluate the stats and use that to determine whether it is good or not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @05:10PM
Stats can be manipulated. They will leave out all the small business put out of business or people that lost their old policies and had to get that crap they are pushing.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 31 2014, @05:48PM
Good job proving my point. Da
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 31 2014, @07:39PM
You are absolutely correct. Never trust measurements and data! What we need is truthiness [wikipedia.org]!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday November 01 2014, @02:54AM
Right, the small businesses with less than 50 people which were exempt from the employer mandate and the people who lost their policies which didn't meet minimum requirements but got better policies in exchanges. Somehow I doubt any stats matter to you.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 31 2014, @07:24PM
Actually, it is bad. That's a reasonable place to start. But the reason that it's bad is that it left the insurance companies in the loop. The only conceivable place for insurance companies in the system would be to cover major medical. Insurance is a bad model to use for a service that everyone is going to use, and it's bad because it increases the expense, slows the process, etc. If the doctors could cut their paperwork in half, they could do a much better job.
OTOH, you could look at it as a rather expensive jobs program. So it does have some benefits.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:36AM
i agree, it is bad. there's a lot of room for improvement. what we had before though was much, much worse. usually when somebody starts with "obamacare is terrible" they're advocating for its repeal, to go back to even worse, rather than advocating for improvements.
rather than talking about how much obamacare sucks and about all its flaws, how about we discuss how it can be improved?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @11:37PM
Yes, sir. Obamacare is great. Absolutely fantastic.
See all these people with the subsidies for their premiums? The ones who couldn't afford health care? Now, thanks to the magic of Obamacare they have insurance they can't afford to use because of the massive copays. But they have insurance! Great plan!
What would you pay? Don't answer yet! Because now you discover that the law was in fact carefully jiggered to show a minimum of effect on the budget by the rules Congress follows at the time it was signed, but they just discover now (to their eternal shock and horror) that it shows every sign of slamming the budget with a gigantic sledgehammer.
But there's more! Lots of people still have no insurance, nor are they covered under the native single payer systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, VA and so on. How can that be? Turns out the universal mandate isn't that darned universal, and even if it were that there's a limit to the crap the federal government can force down the throats of the states if the states just don't want to play ball. Thus spake SCOTUS.
But of course, it's all the fault of all those people in rural areas who are just too durned stupid to realise that the democrats bulled it through Congress as some of the most partisan legislation in living memory, even using reconciliation just to get it passed, did it for them. And now those ignorant muddy redneck hicks are ungrateful! Shame on them. Fortunately, all you super-clever urban voters who have more money and more brains clearly figured it out for the benefit of your poor rural cousins.
Of course, the democrats are delighted to point out to the idiots who live in the sticks that the rate of inflation in medical care has dropped (a little), which is good news! Except of course that owing to one after another legislative and regulatory decision, the cost was already so sky-high that only people like the millionaires who pushed it through Congress can afford medical care without insurance anyhow. So it's getting more expensive more slowly. I guess that's worth a slow clap from the flyover states. Of course, there's no real evidence that Obamacare passing had nearly as much influence on the health care industry inflation rate as the overall economic slowdown. It certainly did nothing significant to fight, say, the way the AMA restricts medical training. Because rent-seeking on the part of urban professionals is fine, but just let some clodhopping meth freak dream of selling whole, unpasteurised milk to a soccer mom, and it's time for the big guns.
But Pelosicare (because, let's face it, Obama didn't write it any more than Romney wrote Romneycare - and both of those guys were presiding over firmly blue legislatures at the time of signing) is great stuff! It'll show immeasurable benefits any day now! Like, literally immeasurable. Those pigheaded rural inbred throwbacks are just too stupid to actually grasp the value of something they can't measure. That's the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:38AM
Protip: Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02 2014, @03:35AM
Protip: Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing.
Actually, there are a few salient differences. Such as for instance the authority under which they were brought in (police power vs taxation power) the precise rules on the insurance companies, the scope (state vs federal), the degree of cooperation and consent achieved in the legislative systems, the entire mechanic of interaction with medicaid expansion, the source and disposition of subsidies, the regulation of medical devices ...
In fact, there's a whole bunch different. And yet, even if they were totally identical except for the name and jurisdiction (which they obviously are not) it would still be putting the federal law under the justification that what's good for Massachusetts is good for Wyoming. The evidence at hand strongly suggest that it's not.
I actually helped people research and set up their PPACA insurance choices. I dealt with them crying when they realised that they were being forced to buy something they couldn't afford to buy, and couldn't afford to use. All I could do was shrug and apologise. I'm sure the numbers sounded good in a mahogany and plush rug conference room on the east coast, but where people have rough hands and deep tans, they're sheer financial murder.
A lot of folks I dealt with walked out, planning to pay a tax penalty and hoping not to get sick.
Your tax dollars at work, folks.