Quote :

"Was this the guy holding the "time to water the tree of liberty" sign? fucking whackjobs."

I always liked this quote from T.E. Lawrence, referring to the Arab uprising during WWI:
There was among the tribes in the fighting zones a nervous enthusiasm common, I suppose, to all national risings, but strangely disquieting to one from a land so long delivered that national freedom had become like water in our mouths, tasteless.


There is no good reason to take our current form of government or even the still relatively high level of prosperity for granted.

8/19/2009 1:09:42 PM

All I'm saying is the gun-toting patriot rhetoric bullshit has lead to needless violence in the past and it will again.

Maybe you'll have a neat quote from Sam Adams or some shit when another daycare gets destroyed for some idiot's delusions about the tyrannical US government.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 1:14:49 PM

Quote :

"perhaps the groups weren't as organized then...? Because, you know, things don't actually change over time. And are you suggesting that there isn't a big astroturfing campaign being organized by established conservative forces?"

moron

Dude, stop being a stooge. If certain groups weren't as organized in '08, WTF suddenly changed that they couldn't manage to do in years of campaigning and election preparation?

First, I wish some of you would get off the "astroturf" shit--it's annoying. Second, there is much more of a grass-roots effort going on here than any leftist will acknowledge--it conflicts with their normative vision statements. And third, what's wrong with conservative organizing? I guess it's only cool if you're a left-wing community organizer.

8/19/2009 1:18:56 PM

^ youre a blind idiot if you don't think there is a lot of "astroturfing" going on with these town hall meetings. There's nothing wrong with political groups organizing, except when they organize around trying to project the idea that our gov. is run by Nazis who want to kill old and sick people.

8/19/2009 1:22:03 PM

^^^ Indeed, gun-toting patriotic bullshit on the part of the government has led to far more violence than gun-toting patriotic bullshit on the part of individual citizens. I wouldn't worry about this guy.

8/19/2009 1:22:11 PM

I can't believe people are rushing out of the woodwork to defend the insurance companies lol

8/19/2009 1:23:28 PM

Personally, I'm not defending the insurance companies. I'm simply less than enthusiastic about a massively complex, relatively little understood, largely manufactured crisis being used to railroad a hastily crafted, still relatively little understood, piece of legislation through congress.

The insurance companies aren't the issue here. They're tied to the debate, but the debate is over a specific piece of legislation and whether or not it will actually accomplish anything.

The attempt to divert this to "evil corporations" "astroturfing" an opposition movement does nothing to address what the bill is, what it will accomplish, and if it will be worth it.

8/19/2009 1:29:32 PM

^^^^ The mistruth should be easy to dispel then, right? And why don't all the pro-ObamaCare "forces" simply turn out to all these meetings and show us all how popular it is?

And left-wing groups organized and raised funds for years on the very premise that Bush was a Nazi. I didn't hear you objecting then.

But, but Bush really was a Nazi!

STFU, you doofus.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ^]

8/19/2009 1:32:03 PM

hooksaw you're an unfathomably large piece of shit

Evidence of deep injustice in the world is basically that you'll never gain the self-awareness to realize it

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 2:02:11 PM

Quote :

"largely manufactured crisis"

lol

8/19/2009 2:12:30 PM

McOwnerton

8/19/2009 2:13:05 PM

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : whoa, my first ever double post]

8/19/2009 2:13:05 PM

^^^^ Thanks for sharing, McDouche (aka Captain Logic). Can you prove any of that bullshit you just posted? No? Then STFU.

Can you just try using your supposedly massively powerful brain to simply address the points in my post? No?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ^]

8/19/2009 2:13:23 PM

While im not completely against government involvement in healthcare, I am against the current plan. I think it'll probably go the way of medicare and get abused and run way over budget resulting in the need for strict rationing or other nasty stuff.

I mean there are parts of medicare (for example part D for perscriptions) that at the root are good ideas, but have terrible terrible execution. The idea of a government plan where people can use the governments massive purchasing power to get discounts on drugs is a good idea. Normal people can pay 100% of the government purchase price and then lower income families pay less of the total cost based on income or something. But instead, medicare part D (which iirc was written by the industry) prevents the fed from negotiating prices. And now you look at the current process and the people with the most pull in creating this new legislation are the healthcare companies. Its the same god damned thing all over again and both sides are shitting bricks about bullshit while ignoring the very real threat of tampering by the industry.

The existing insurance model is unsustainable because its not insurance. The idea that we'll manage healthcare with insurance is absolutely retarded. Healthcare costs are a given. Insurance is for handling infrequent possibilities (read: accidents NOT LONG TERM/PRE-EXISTING PROBLEMS). When I see the current plan I dont see anything designed to control costs. I see a plan designed to get the uninsured into a government insurance plan. Which will be just as costly and unsustainable as the current insurance system.

If we actually want to control costs there are two ways we can do it. The govenment can put hard limits on the costs for certain items (like in the french system). I think that this could work for us, but just like in the french system it would mean lower doctor salaries and probably less money for medical research. The biggest problem I think it would face here is that the care industry (large practices and hospitals) would have enough influence to inflate the costs above where they should be.

The other way would be to get rid of the retarded idea that insurance should pay for everything and switch to an out of pocket system + accident insurance. And to be clear when i say accident insurance i mean accidents. Unexpected events. Like getting hit by a bus. Pre existing conditions are by definition not unexpected. Doctors would have to compete with each other on price for the majority of patients which would mean lower prices for all. The fed would cover the costs for low income families and would be able to take advantage of the lower rates set by the markets instead of by the industry. In addition donations to charities that help pay for low income healthcare or chronic conditions should get 100% tax deductions.

What really really pisses me off is that one side is just completely bat shit making up stuff about the plan. This causes people with legit concerns to get lumped into that group and labeled as anti-poor people or pro-evil insurance or some bullshit. At the same time on the otherside you have people screaming that we must pass this now regardless of whats in it because atleast its different from what we have now.

The other thing that really pisses me off is that while this issue has exploded, the more important underlying issues of energy and education are ignored. Lower energy costs + better education for low income areas + cheap/free re-educaiton for laid off/obsolete workers = more people contributing and increased purchase power.

8/19/2009 2:41:19 PM

Quote :

"What really really pisses me off is that one side is just completely bat shit making up stuff about the plan. This causes people with legit concerns to get lumped into that group and labeled as anti-poor people or pro-evil insurance or some bullshit. At the same time on the otherside you have people screaming that we must pass this now regardless of whats in it because atleast its different from what we have now. The other thing that really pisses me off is that while this issue has exploded, the more important underlying issues of energy and education are ignored. Lower energy costs + better education for low income areas + cheap/free re-educaiton for laid off/obsolete workers = more people contributing and increased purchase power. "

Very good points. While healthcare is not in a good place right now, there needs to be time to sit down and hash out the legitimate concerns and separate the truth from the lies. Because there have been lies on both sides, and general ignorance of the Bill (which changes so much and has so many versions, how can anyone know what they are arguing for or against).

8/19/2009 2:48:18 PM

^^I agree with most of what you said. However, I don't understand why you would treat "accidents" and "pre-existing conditions" differently. Is bipolar disorder or multiple sclerosis any less of an accident than getting hit by a bus? They're not any cheaper to fix.

8/19/2009 3:18:49 PM

absolutely. Those are both chronic conditions that require long term care. Insurance is not designed to handle that. Insurance functions on the same principle as casinos. The odds are in favor of the house, but sometimes the gambler wins. You're betting you're going to get in an accident, and your insurer is betting you wont. This works really well for car insurance. And when competition was opened over state lines prices dropped significantly. Also, these companies can increase premiums based on their increased risk. Drivers with more points = higher premiums. Why shouldn't people who are overweight or smoke pay more for insurance against heart attacks?

Chronic conditions would be handled between you and your physician (with costs handled by either federal price controls or market forces or both) and if you need help paying, the governement would step in. Theres also a difference between bad luck genetics and things like adult onset diabeetus or other lifestyle related conditions. For those that are overwieght, you encourage them to fix their eating habits and exercise through higher costs instead of shelling out for a bypass so they can go right back to what they were doing.

There are also areas for cost savings with things like disease management (gonna plug this cause my company does it). This would be where a patient has regular calls with a healthcare professional (most times a nurse) to make sure they're taking care of themself and properly medicating if required. This prevents their condition from getting seriously worse and is long term cheaper than them having to eventually hit up the ER.

By no means am I saying we should leave people with chronic conditions out in the cold, im just saying insurance isn't designed to handle it so we should do so elsewhere.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : a]

8/19/2009 3:32:35 PM

I had to go to court today over a traffic ticket. Let me just say, if the death panels operate with the same brutal efficiency as Wake County District Court, the elderly and retarded have nothing to fear.

8/19/2009 3:47:48 PM

Quote :

"However, I don't understand why you would treat "accidents" and "pre-existing conditions" differently. Is bipolar disorder or multiple sclerosis any less of an accident than getting hit by a bus? They're not any cheaper to fix."

It's the difference between calling up State Farm before your house is on fire and after. They'll only insure one of those, because only of those falls under the actual definition of "insurance."

8/19/2009 4:33:54 PM

So insurance shoudn't cover the following care needs:

-cheap enough to pay out-of-pocket
-chronic condition
-result of a conscious desicion

What's left to cover? Why even have insurance?

8/19/2009 4:43:58 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for sharing, McDouche (aka Captain Logic). Can you prove any of that bullshit you just posted? No? Then STFU. Can you just try using your supposedly massively powerful brain to simply address the points in my post? No?"

I'm not going to waste my time on somebody with roughly Glen Beck levels of mental delusion and shortcomings. What I will do though: point and mock. You'll die long before me (along with a bunch of other bigoted conservative douche bags) and then we can start making this country into something worthwhile (the sooner the better! ).

Quote :

"I think that this could work for us, but just like in the french system it would mean lower doctor salaries and probably less money for medical research."

This is not necessarily a bad thing -- it depends on what the research is going towards. I doubt we'll suffer as a society if the large, large amount of money dumped into hair regrowth and boner pills dried up.

Quote :

"Doctors would have to compete with each other on price for the majority of patients which would mean lower prices for all."

The problem with analyzing health care this way is the erroneous assumption that people can shop around for health care like they can for other goods, and the assumption that if things don't work out they can just avoid that service the next time around.

Quote :

"What really really pisses me off is that one side is just completely bat shit making up stuff about the plan. This causes people with legit concerns to get lumped into that group and labeled as anti-poor people or pro-evil insurance or some bullshit. At the same time on the otherside you have people screaming that we must pass this now regardless of whats in it because atleast its different from what we have now."

Agreed -- this plan needs more scrutiny, but this is where political discourse in America is right now.

Quote :

"The other thing that really pisses me off is that while this issue has exploded, the more important underlying issues of energy and education are ignored. Lower energy costs + better education for low income areas + cheap/free re-educaiton for laid off/obsolete workers = more people contributing and increased purchase power."

Also a great point, although I think healthcare is right up there in importance. If we also cut our imperialism budget we'd have more buying power as well.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't people who are overweight or smoke pay more for insurance against heart attacks?"

Because some people who are overweight can't help it. People should pay more if their conditions are behaviorally related (demonstrably so, as with smoking) ... but honestly, this is the problem with health insurance being a for-profit venture. It IS betting versus somebody else... and their entire goal is to win that bet even if it means re-adjusting the rules after the fact. Would you like to try and police a bet versus somebody with a million times your wealth?

8/19/2009 4:48:48 PM

Question Related to Recission:

Alot of Democrats these days (such as Paul Krugman) complain about insurance companies dumping people after they become sick. Has anyone done any studies on how often this actually happens? Or are there any numbers available?

I mean, members of my family have gotten very expensive surgeries in the past and never been dropped by their insurance provider. Also, I'm willing to bet that Paul Krugman and other Dems have health insurance. Yet their policies have apparently never been dropped either (or they have failed to mention it).

So can we estimate how often this actually happens so we can determine whether this actually a big problem with private health insurance.

8/19/2009 5:04:40 PM

Quote :

"What's left to cover? Why even have insurance?"

Insurance is for unforseen events. You get insurance against a chronic condition before you end up with a chronic condition. Before you're in the emergency room. It is a policy to insure against a calculated risk. Which is why they employ all those expensive actuaries and such.

Look, do you call up your auto insurer every time you get an oil change? What do you suppose auto insurance would look like if you did?

8/19/2009 5:04:57 PM

You're missing the point Steve-o. We're talking about what insurance shouldn't cover under any circumstance.

8/19/2009 5:28:03 PM

I think the answer is far simpler than you make it out to be. Look at how we do things in insurance markets that do function (i.e., not health care).

We don't cover:

-Things you do yourself intentionally (e.g., arson, suicide)
-Gross acts of negligence (not to be confused with lesser acts; although this question inevitably goes to the lawyers)
-Events and conditions ex post facto (i.e., insuring your house after it catches fire).

Insurance covers unforeseen events one would not normally be able to cough up the funds to pay for out of pocket. It's a calculated hedge. Actuaries exist to calculate what statistical risks are, and therefore what rates to charge. Of course, when we start telling insurance companies that they can no longer price on risk, they just charge everybody more, regardless of their behavior or relative risk. Whoopee.

None of this is to say insurance against a chronic condition is invalid - clearly, that's something people do want to insure against. The problem is, like your house, insurance only works when you do it before it happens.

As far as out-of-pocket expenses go, one of the things advocates of reform frequently point to is the high administrative costs of insurance - a fair point. But this if anything is more evidence of a system in which one relies on an HSA for day-to-day "maintenance" expenses (doctor's visits) and then has a catastrophic policy kick in at a few thousand dollars. The savings difference can be rolled into that HSA; assuming one does not completely exhaust the fund every year, one could roll the savings into this account and draw upon it when the unforseen does occur - you lose your job and need to pay premiums, an accident occurs and you need to pay the deductible on your policy, etc.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 5:37:56 PM

I don't disagree with any of that. It's not what Shaggy was talking about.

8/19/2009 5:55:17 PM

thank you, Mr. Frank for showing how much of a professional you are. Thank you for showing that you are above partisan bickering and general douchebaggery.

8/19/2009 8:01:21 PM

the people standing in front of him with Obama/Hitler pictures don't deserve any better. He put that girl in her place. She deserved it, as does anybody shouting or spreading known falsehoods and lies

8/19/2009 8:12:18 PM

bullshit. I expect my elected officials to act with dignity. To cut a woman down like that is fucking childish. You only "support" what he did because he is a liberal douchbag Democrat. Yeah, he made a couple great jokes. Still, it was unprofessional and hardly befitting of a statesman.

8/19/2009 8:14:02 PM

no, i mostly got tired of our statesmen standing up there and acting like giant pussies and trying not to offend anyone, no matter what kind of bullshit they were spewing.

8/19/2009 8:15:43 PM

that's all fine and dandy. But they don't have to change by acting like a douchebag teenager with no fucking class.

8/19/2009 8:19:34 PM

well, everyone's got a breaking point i guess. I'm surprised none of the other representatives have broken and spoken their real minds, instead of standing up there like jerkoffs being yelled down by ignorant fools

8/19/2009 8:28:06 PM

Quote :

"I don't disagree with any of that. It's not what Shaggy was talking about."

I don't mean to put words into his mouth (so he is perfectly free to correct my interpretation), but I believe what he was driving at was insurance of chronic conditions ex post facto. That is, I don't have insurance, I develop a chronic condition. Insurance clearly wasn't designed to handle that.

But insurance does already insure against chronic, unforeseen conditions. Disability insurance is one very clear example of such. It's not that you can't insure against such conditions, it's that you can't really expect to sign up for insurance and have them just pay out after the fact. Hence, the problem of pre-existing conditions - this is no longer an "insurance" problem, this is a "how do I pay for the cost of care" problem.

In other words, it'd be the same if I took out insurance after I got hit by the bus, to use his example. You're correct: functionally, they are equivalent. But they are also functionally equivalent in that there's a time-dependence here, too; you insure against a future bus accident or chronic condition, when the probability is unknown but less than 1. No insurer will insure you when the probability reaches 1. (This of course raises serious issues of how we will insure when genetic testing becomes more widespread and reliable - alas, this is a separate debate.)

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 8:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 8:31:07 PM

Anyhow, does it provide for a soothing balm to anyone to find out that the protester at Barney Frank's meeting was... a LaRoucher!

http://washingtonindependent.com/55566/was-barney-franks-nazi-questioner-a-larouchie

Epic lolz.

8/19/2009 8:59:27 PM

Kind of a douche move for Frank to berate that retard. The proper response would have been "next question".

8/19/2009 9:18:09 PM

^ i disagree.

The "retards" have been getting a lot of media play, which has helped to spread their retard-ery. Media play denouncing their idiocy is good for all of us, both proponents and opponents of current health care reform.

8/19/2009 9:25:05 PM

yep, "next question" and he would just be accused of avoiding the subject or confirming by omission that they are correct in their accusations

8/19/2009 9:27:00 PM

he could have gotten the same message across by saying something to the effect of "should I really take you seriously when you have a picture of Obama depicted as Hitler?" It's the same message, but it's so much more professional than middle school cut-downs.

8/19/2009 9:29:35 PM

Quote :

"You'll die long before me (along with a bunch of other bigoted conservative douche bags) and then we can start making this country into something worthwhile"

Hooksaw may be wrong (in my opinion & clearly in yours too) about how much astroturfing is going on here, & may have not invited a cordial response with names like McDouche, but I think he is probably open minded enough to be worth trying to persuade rather than to wait out.

Likewise I would like to think conservatives would try to have a conversation with me when they feel they are right about an issue rather than writing me off for my left leanings.


Also, I'm not seeing much discussion of the co-op idea. Aside from the issue of whether or not a public option is needed to create competition & provide for the public welfare, is the co-op idea valid?

Could the co-op be accepted by both sides as a compromise? I hear a lot of republicans (on tv anyways) saying no compromise, we want Obama to have a failure on record. So would republicans support the co-op idea, and could they support it as a bipartisan effort at health care reform without trying to paint it as a major defeat for the president?

8/19/2009 9:29:44 PM

I don't see how a co-op is any different than an insurance model. The health-insurance system and how it is organized and run is the problem. Simply adding more of it won't help.

8/19/2009 9:37:10 PM

Yeah, health care in the United States is really bad--except it's not.

U.S. Life Expectancy Hits a New High of 78
August 19, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. life expectancy is the highest it has ever been at 77.9 years, according to government statistics released on Wednesday. Both men and women gained, but women still live on average more than five years longer than men, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Death rates also fell, with the age-adjusted death rate dropping to 760.3 deaths per 100,000 people. 'The 2007 increase in life expectancy, up from 77.7 in 2006, represents a continuation of a trend,' the CDC said in a statement. 'Over a decade, life expectancy has increased 1.4 years from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007.' [Thanks, President Bush! The credit or the blame, am I right?] Newborn baby boys can expect to live to be 75 on average and girls can expect to be 80. 'For the first time, life expectancy for black males reached 70 years,' the CDC said. Overall, 2,423,995 people died in the United States in 2007, 2,269 fewer than in 2006. Most Americans die of heart disease or cancer -- they accounted for 48.5 percent of all deaths in 2007. Death rates fell slightly for influenza and pneumonia, murder and accidents. But the death rate for the fourth-leading cause of death, chronic lower respiratory diseases such as emphysema, increased by 1.7 percent. An estimated 11,061 people died from AIDS in 2007. [This is down, too.] Infant mortality rates were statistically unchanged at 6.77 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, the study found. The United States has lower life expectancies overall than comparable developed countries. [Bullshit.] Life expectancy for babies born in Japan and Singapore has reached 82. French babies will live to be 80.9 on average, while those born in Sweden, Italy, Australia and Canada can expect to live to be more than 80. Newborn Tunisians can expect to live on average to be 75, and Guatemalans to 70. AIDS-ravaged Zimbabwe has an average life expectancy of only 39.7."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=8367827

8/19/2009 9:55:37 PM

US Healthcare not as good as other, more socialized, countries

Quote :

"Life expectancy for babies born in Japan and Singapore has reached 82. French babies will live to be 80.9 on average, while those born in Sweden, Italy, Australia and Canada can expect to live to be more than 80. "

- http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=8367827

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 10:01:33 PM

merely looking at life-expectancy is a bullshit measure of a healthcare system. It's been debunked in several ways. Why do we keep looking at a shitty metric for this?

8/19/2009 10:03:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how a co-op is any different than an insurance model. The health-insurance system and how it is organized and run is the problem. Simply adding more of it won't help."

I concur. The co-op option has the benefit of not being market-distorting (the chief complaint about the public option), but it also doesn't do anything to change the fundamental structural problems underlying how we pay for healthcare. In as much, it's a wash: it doesn't have the negatives of the public option, but it doesn't really solve the problem either.

8/19/2009 10:20:09 PM

this won't get anywhere. but frankly, it wasn't net good or bad. It just depends on what side of the fence you're on weather you support it or not.

8/19/2009 10:21:45 PM

^^ the market-distorting effects expected from the public option was the point of a public option. Running a not-for-profit insurance company with a massive risk pool was expected to competitively drive down prices for the private plans. It was designed as a cost-reducing instrument (wether it would actually work this way is up for debate).

I haven't read too much about the particulars of the co-op plan, but it seems they are aiming for better regulated not-for-profit insurance companies to work as the same mechanism as the public option was supposed to.

It seems like they are positioning it as a public option in "sheeps clothing."

8/19/2009 10:25:51 PM

Quote :

"the market-distorting effects expected from the public option was the point of a public option. Running a not-for-profit insurance company with a massive risk pool was expected to competitively drive down prices for the private plans. It was designed as a cost-reducing instrument (wether it would actually work this way is up for debate)."

I am referring more to the inherent advantages such as whether or not a public plan would draw directly from the public treasury, operate at a loss, etc. It's impossible to compete with a player that literally can operate at a loss indefinitely - this is not really "competition" anymore.

Having a massive risk pool is how larger insurers currently make a profit. So it's not really anything "new" - nor is that inherently different from a "co-op." It's just not going to draw down prices on its own as much as you'd like to think.

8/19/2009 10:31:15 PM

it was expected to "competitively drive down prices?" It's not "competition" when one group has a massive advantage via gov't resources.

8/19/2009 10:31:59 PM

^ not really true. It would, worst case i think, force the private companies to develop niches. If BCBS threw in good vision/dental or comprehensive cancer treatment, or worked it out with hospitals to get private rooms, etc., for not much more than a gov. plan, people would pay more. The insurance companies are far too big, wealthy, and clever to just roll over and die. The public option was establishing a base-line of health coverage, but there weren't really provisions in it to expand to all the areas that current health insurance can expand to.

Insurance companies make MASSIVE profits, they don't need aaronburro looking out for them, they pretty much have that covered.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason : i just realized i made a pun...]

8/19/2009 10:38:42 PM

here's a question: how many people here have insurance through BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina?

8/19/2009 10:47:01 PM