# Awaiting Ruling Healthcare Law



## Blake1970 (Jun 28, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/us/ruling-expected-on-health-care-law.html?_r=1


So I wonder which way this will go.


----------



## Blake1970 (Jun 28, 2012)

Looks like it was upheld.


----------



## Drew (Jun 28, 2012)

I'm REALLY curious what made Roberts side with the majority here. Not that I'm complaining, mind you - it's an imperfect bill, but it's hands down the best thing we've gotten yet.


----------



## Blake1970 (Jun 28, 2012)

A video I found explaining it.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Jun 28, 2012)

I wont be happy until we have universal healthcare.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jun 28, 2012)

I'm a sore loser on this 4sure. I'm not sure if the administration is really a winner either because they wanted it ruled constitutional under the commerce law which it wasn't, it was upheld under the tax provisions, which the current administration clearly said it wasn't.

Never the less, it was much better for Obama to not get it struck down even though this will serve as a rallying call for most conservatives who side against some if not all of Obamacare.

My question is;
If it doesn't get overturned (or at least the individual mandate) after the election, then come 2014 is there a minimum amount of health insurance I will have to buy for myself and what is that minumum coverage? (there goes my gear money lol)

With over 2000 pages I'm still not sure very many peoiple know what this is really all about.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 28, 2012)

I'm kind of happy, I am still perplexed by a system where sick people will have to pay out of their ass (and have debts for the rest of their lives, the Chuldiner family is still paying off the debts to the system that likely killed Chuck) or die for something as random as disease.

Sure, people can go on about "personal responibility", but disease is something we most often can not govern. What the american healthcare system seems to be set up to do is to make poor people more poor through debt, or dead.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 28, 2012)

Indeed, I've never been able to figure out why anybody would be against healthcare at all.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 28, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Indeed, I've never been able to figure out why anybody would be against healthcare at all.



That sounds like deathliberalcommiedruggienazicommieabortionislam-talk to me


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 28, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Indeed, I've never been able to figure out why anybody would be against healthcare at all.



because the GOV says: virtually all Americans will have to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty....

so what is not told is,and this gets a falmewar started every time....
those who cannot afford health insurance,still have to buy or pay penality,
if you cant afford medacaid is supposed to cover,BUT 99% of doctors won`t take medicade..... 
they are still screwed the worse,not helped regardless of what is told by gov.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 28, 2012)

So force doctors to take medicade? 

Or switch over to an actual universal health care system?


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 28, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> With over 2000 pages I'm still not sure very many peoiple know what this is really all about.



They keep changing it every fucking week so who the hell knows. 

I'm waiting until something actually goes into place before I bother learning about it.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 28, 2012)

^THIS.... the political fallout is unbelievable today,every registered dem I know except ONE is changing party affilation.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 28, 2012)

mr_rainmaker said:


> ^THIS.... the political fallout is unbelievable today,every registered dem I know except ONE is changing party affilation.



Really? Pretty much everyone I know (with a few exceptions) regards this as an enormous, important victory for the poor, the uninsured, women, and those with pre-existing conditions.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 28, 2012)

the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states  comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding. Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government cant penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national health-care? Suddenly, its not national, is it?


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 28, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Really? Pretty much everyone I know (with a few exceptions) regards this as an enormous, important victory for the poor, the uninsured, women, and those with pre-existing conditions.



but in theory yes it is, BUT 99% of doctors won`t take medicare/medicade,so the gov has to FORCE them,but heres the CATCH: I can`t find it on the netmy googlefu is weak,but in a vote by the American Medical Association's wil work vigorously to stop the implementation of being forced to take medicare/medicade,many doctors say they will retire,and with an already streched and dangeriously short staffed amount of doctors avaliable,this is a trainwreck just waiting...


----------



## Necris (Jun 28, 2012)

mr_rainmaker said:


> \many doctors say they will retire,and with an already streched and dangeriously short staffed amount of doctors avaliable,this is a trainwreck just waiting...


That right there reeks of fear mongering to me. The word "many" makes your claim _sound_ dire but gives no reasonable sense of scope.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jun 28, 2012)

I'll just throw out there that my PCP doesn't take any insurance, period (and hasn't for the past 5 years he's been my doctor). I foresee many other doctors taking this stance.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 29, 2012)

Necris said:


> That right there reeks of fear mongering to me. The word "many" makes your claim _sound_ dire but gives no reasonable sense of scope.


It sounds exactly like the threat "all of these business owners are gonna go elsewhere if we don't give them all massive tax breaks" to me, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 29, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'll just throw out there that my PCP doesn't take any insurance, period (and hasn't for the past 5 years he's been my doctor). I foresee many other doctors taking this stance.




Wait...your doctor refuses to take any form of Health insurance? He will only take cash or something? 

That is fucking insane.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jun 29, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Wait...your doctor refuses to take any form of Health insurance? He will only take cash or something?
> 
> That is fucking insane.



Yes, his entire practice (2 or 3 doctors) doesn't take insurance. No or something, just cash/credit whatever form of payment you have. If he cannot do a lab in office usually the outsourced lab will bill our insurance, but anything done in-house is paid in cash. 

When we have a routine visit the fee is less than what our copay would be with our insurance, most procedures are cheaper than when I had a PCP that took insurance. We can call anytime and have phone consultations if there's any issues with our health (emergencies, general questions, etc) - it's easily the best medical care I've ever experienced.


----------



## canuck brian (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm still totally floored by fight being put up to implement universal health care in the States. I know i've got delays here in Canada sometimes when I go to the hospital, but when I get injured, my first fear isn't to wonder if i'm about to go into debt against the hospital for the rest of my life.


----------



## Valennic (Jun 29, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> I'm still totally floored by fight being put up to implement universal health care in the States. I know i've got delays here in Canada sometimes when I go to the hospital, but when I get injured, my first fear isn't to wonder if i'm about to go into debt against the hospital for the rest of my life.



Welcome to America.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 29, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I'm kind of happy, I am still perplexed by a system where sick people will have to pay out of their ass (and have debts for the rest of their lives, the Chuldiner family is still paying off the debts to the system that likely killed Chuck) or die for something as random as disease.
> 
> Sure, people can go on about "personal responibility", but disease is something we most often can not govern. What the american healthcare system seems to be set up to do is to make poor people more poor through debt, or dead.



It's not the only system that seems that way. 

I feel like your last sentence is America in a nutshell.


----------



## ZEBOV (Jun 29, 2012)

I haven't been following this healthcare stuff, but I've had one important point and question: 
Some religious nuts are just completely against healthcare and simply pray that injuries/illnesses/*fill in the blank* is taken care of by god. As stupid as I think that is, why force them to buy health insurance? And would forcing them to buy health insurance violate any of their religious rights?


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jun 29, 2012)

well I`m tired of the argument,both sides are dug in,there will be no good end to this so my last post on the subject,





I`m no longer a dem....


----------



## coupe89 (Jun 29, 2012)

canuck brian said:


> I'm still totally floored by fight being put up to implement universal health care in the States. I know i've got delays here in Canada sometimes when I go to the hospital, but when I get injured, my first fear isn't to wonder if i'm about to go into debt against the hospital for the rest of my life.



Delays that cost lives. My wife has been waiting 3 years to find out what is wrong with her and I know alot of people who have died of cancer because they had to wait to long. Try reading about the stuff going on in Newfoundland.


----------



## The Uncreator (Jun 29, 2012)

I believe they are called "Chrisitan Scientists" and I am pretty sure they refuse all medical care, or abstain from it to the point where it could be seen as infringing on there religious freedoms.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 29, 2012)

mr_rainmaker said:


> well I`m tired of the argument,both sides are dug in,there will be no good end to this so my last post on the subject,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well that's graphic. 

I'm glad the Supreme Court met in the middle of the two sides somewhat, even if both of those sides end up being questionable. I also find it strange that that was even possible today until I realize that their job is to look at laws from a rational constitutional perspective and decide what's best for the country; something that actual politicians in Congress haven't done for a long time now. Yay progress through logic! 

I've been trying to explain my stance on this to a few people and it boils down to this:

SCOTUS' job isn't to serve the peoples wishes like elected officials, its to make decisions pertaining to the constitution and the good of the whole country. 

Our system is so perverted that in the face of every other developed country has universal care, the only viable solution in america is to combine the worst parts of each party's solution into one half assed law that penalizes people for not having insurance while still allowing private insurance most of their power to increase rates three times the rate of inflation like under Bush.

The thing about America is that we're the only country that DOESN'T have socialist social spending, but instead spends more on defense than the next 26 countries combined. And no I don't just know that because of The Newsroom.

We haven't cut back on defense since the end of the cold war, partly because the people that grew up during it now in Congress and partly because so many industries thrive off war. We need to get over our obsession with war and transition into a society that values life over death; shared prosperity over current wealth gaps; and global economy stability over short term profits of a few bank monopolies.

Edit: Also mad props to Fox News and CNN for making a mistake last made over fifty years ago.


----------



## Freezing Moon (Jul 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> and have debts for the rest of their lives, the Chuldiner family is still paying off the debts to the system that likely killed Chuck



Well, the "Chuldiner" family gets proceeds from BC Rich, and he got way more publicity than any other single musician from that era and genre would have received. Don't be so melodramatic. I hate the system as much as the next guy, but the Chuck Schuldiner martyrdom is growing stale. Plenty of people suffer worse than he and his family did.


----------



## Murmel (Jul 2, 2012)

^
He used it as a reference, of course there are people who has it many times worse.


----------



## Jakke (Jul 2, 2012)

Freezing Moon said:


> Well, the "Chuldiner" family gets proceeds from BC Rich, and he got way more publicity than any other single musician from that era and genre would have received. Don't be so melodramatic. I hate the system as much as the next guy, but the Chuck Schuldiner martyrdom is growing stale. Plenty of people suffer worse than he and his family did.



Ah yes, the BC stealth... You realize that those proceeds are not particulary big, (I have never, ever seen anyone, in real life or on the internet play one. Well, except for Pat O'Brien when he shows it off for BC Rich) and that the family is still paying off his debts for Chuck's healthcare? The debts are still big enough that when Death released remasters a couple of years ago the proceeds would go to paying off those debts. 
You could of course claim that his mother is lying, but then that is your problem.

Publicity does not automatically transate into money, and Death never earned a lot of money. That is mainly what killed Chuch Schuldiner (oh noes! I did a small mispelling), he couldn't afford to pay for treatment early enough, and when he did it bankrupted him and his family. It has nothing to do with being "melodramatic", it's just that he is a person that is extremely relatable on this board.


To use "there are people who have it worse" as an argument should be a godamm logical fallacy, of course there are always people who have it worse! Saying that is just pointing out the obvious. The thing is that Chuck was famous, he is far more relatable to people than someone else who the system fucked over. We all know who he was, and I can guarantee that no-one will know who I talk about if I pull up some case of someone who was not Chuck. It's harsh, but that's how reality works.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 2, 2012)

I never understood people's logic in being against this. You lose your job because crazy rich people fuck up the economy by treating your hard earned cash like it's monopoly money and making all kinds of shady deals, you get sick, yet you say that you'll just have to suck it up because you don't wanna put the burden on the greedy assholes that put you in this predicament to begin with? 

How about we get free universal healthcare, and then being absent from work due to illness becomes less of an excuse because you were able to afford and receive preventive care and save the richtards some money by not having to hire temps to replace you since you care so much about them? 

Or how about because you care about other people that have it even rougher than you do and you wanna help out? America has a tendency to push the shittiest, most unhealthy food onto people, but we suddenly we get all offended when people start getting sick? Like how dare your body react negatively to all those big macs. Oh they didn't have to eat it you say? Yeah tell that to the family where both parents have to work two jobs and have no time to cook at all because again, richtards make all the rules and decide that the cost of living has to be far higher than it should be. Gotta make that healthy profit. 

If we're gonna be serving nasty greasy food that will cut your life span into a fraction of what's considered "normal", then the least we can do is give a fuck enough to make sure you get to the doctor. 
People get sick, and they don't plan for it. It's rough enough trying to pay the bills, but what happens when your kid ends up with cancer? Oh well before "obamacare", insurance companies would call that a "pre-existing condition" and won't pay for it. Guess what? You get to pay a fuckton for medical bills and hospice, as your kid dies a horrible death, then have to fork out more for funeral expenses. Why? Because that evil obamacare must be stopped at all costs; even if it means the life of your own family.

Good job repubs!


----------



## petereanima (Jul 2, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> And would forcing them to buy health insurance violate any of their religious rights?



Right to live > Religious rights. Those people also tend to push their sick believes on their children, and in that case for example, I say: fuck religious rights.

FWIW: there where court cases over here, exactly those mentioned: parents did not "believe" in medical treatment, but in "god" only. Result of court rule: Kid was taken away from them, treated, parents sued for aggaravated assault. win.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 2, 2012)

As an addendum to my previous post, watch the movie John Q (starring Denzel Washington). It's a crazy reminder of exactly why we need universal healthcare. In fact pretty much most of the last paragraph of my last post is exactly what happens in the movie. And honestly, like denzel washington's character, I fear that it may come down to people having to literally hold a gun to a doctor's head to get any kind of life-saving medical assistance if you can't afford insurance.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> As an addendum to my previous post, watch the movie John Q (starring Denzel Washington). It's a crazy reminder of exactly why we need universal healthcare. In fact pretty much most of the last paragraph of my last post is exactly what happens in the movie. And honestly, like denzel washington's character, I fear that it may come down to people having to literally hold a gun to a doctor's head to get any kind of life-saving medical assistance if you can't afford insurance.


 
Good movie no doubt. I like Denzel and James Woods in most of their movies.

I personally have no confidence that the government can run or administer anything without it turning into an even bigger mess than it was in the first place.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 2, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Good movie no doubt. I like Denzel and James Woods in most of their movies.
> 
> I personally have no confidence that the government can run or administer anything without it turning into an even bigger mess than it was in the first place.



Granted I have little faith in much of the government myself tbh, but they have a deeper pocket than the average family does. Why not lighten that defense budget a bit, bring the troops home, and put that money towards affordable healthcare?
I figure hell, if we're damned either way, why not give the universal care thing a shot. Who knows, maybe the government will surprise us by not actually fucking it up?
So far the whole "can't be denied due to a pre-existing condition" thing is working out pretty well and fire and brimstone hasn't rained down killing us all. Or is it a quiet before the storm? Methinks there are people on the right that want you to believe that.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 2, 2012)

I think insurers not being able to deny based on conditions you already have is bullshit and totally unfair to them.

Which is why there should be universal, free healthcare instead. Its pretty sad when I go on the spinal stenosis forum seeing a lot of people who end up in a wheelchair because they could not afford the $2000 cortisol shot and physio.


----------



## Freezing Moon (Jul 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Ah yes, the BC stealth... You realize that those proceeds are not particulary big




I know what proceeds are >__>



Jakke said:


> and that the family is still paying off his debts for Chuck's healthcare?



And the sky is blue.



Jakke said:


> You could of course claim that his mother is lying, but then that is your problem.



It's not my problem, because I didn't say that.



Jakke said:


> Publicity does not automatically transate into money, and Death never earned a lot of money.



He got more coverage and money than any other death metal musician has received. Was Trey Azagthoth or Larry LaLonde put on that kind of pedestal? No. We all know the answer is "no", so my initial point still stands. You can't play death metal and be famous, but Chuck was certainly getting more than anyone else, to the point where people saw him as being synonymous with Death. All the other bands were and still are treated as a unit, or at most, a collection of guys with an awesome musician or two. Chuck, however, was treated as an icon, and after he died, he turned into some messiah. People (including BC Rich, no doubt for corporate interests) actually call him "The Father of Death Metal". 




Jakke said:


> That is mainly what killed Chuch Schuldiner



We all know what killed him, thanks.



Jakke said:


> (oh noes! I did a small mispelling)



Really? So, I take it the same goes for the following mistake:



Jakke said:


> relatable





Jakke said:


> To use "there are people who have it worse" as an argument should be a godamm logical fallacy



Well, it's not regarded as one, and you just misspelled a goddamn curse word.



Jakke said:


> relatable




LOL. Again, with that "word".



Jakke said:


> We all know who he was, and I can guarantee that no-one will know who I talk about if I pull up some case of someone who was not Chuck. It's harsh, but that's how reality works.



The Chuck martyrdom needs to stop. The fact is that he had it better than any other death metal or black metal musician. I mean, Christ.... No one writes these types of papers about Quorthon/Thomas Forsberg: Chuck Shuldiner: The hero of Death Metal - Metal Storm


All you did was tell me a bunch of shit I already know, as if you have the high ground to be teaching me something. I don't know what you expected to accomplish with that worthless diatribe, other than wasting our time.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 2, 2012)

I can see you lasting a long time here with that attitude.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 2, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> We need to get over our obsession with war and transition into a society that values life over death; shared prosperity over current wealth gaps; and global economy stability over short term profits of a few bank monopolies.





EDIT: Looks like Freezing moon is cruisn' for a frozen account...


----------



## Jakke (Jul 2, 2012)

Wow... I'm just gonna respond to stuff that are not directed at my person or stuff that is just meaningless ad hominem. Apparently my argument is also "worthless". There were at least some stuff that I could adress that were not just nit-picking.

Yes, Chuck got a lot more coverage than most death metal musicians, but since death metal is a so small scene, it really doesn't mean anything. 
You could be on the top of the heap, but if the heap is extremely small, then you don't reach very high anyway. That is also the reason why Quorthon is not very known either, if you are in the black metal community, you will know about him, but that is an extremely small community.

The thing is that people tend to know about people who are popular, and Chuck was popular within the DM community, therefore he is brought up in these discussions. It has nothing to do with "martyrdom", but most people whom it concerns usually know about him. Quorthon is not really a valid example either, he died not die from a lack of healthcare, and his family is not bankrupt as a result of his death.

From your username I certainly hope that this has nothing to do with the pointless feud between death and black metal.


As for "goddamm", see it as creative freedom.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> I haven't been following this healthcare stuff, but I've had one important point and question:
> Some religious nuts are just completely against healthcare and simply pray that injuries/illnesses/*fill in the blank* is taken care of by god. As stupid as I think that is, why force them to buy health insurance? And would forcing them to buy health insurance violate any of their religious rights?



The reason to force them to buy health insurance is because when they inevitably do get sick or injured, they will go to the ER. The ER cannot turn them away for being unable to pay, and the hospital will eat the costs, thus driving up the cost of care for everyone else.

That is the reason the individual mandate exists: you need to have everyone involved (or at least paying in) in order to ensure that there is money available to pay for treatment for those who need it.

Without the individual mandate, people could wait until they are injured or sick to buy health insurance, and would be able to gain a benefit from it. Thus, they would not be paying into the insurance pool, and would instead be simply taking out of it. This would completely de-fund the system.

The tone of discourse in this thread (and indeed on the Internet as a whole) on this topic is shocking, and it's a testament to the power of media that the law is so reviled.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 2, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I think insurers not being able to deny based on conditions you already have is bullshit and totally unfair to them.



So by that logic, if you had to switch insurance carriers because one decided to drop you for w/e reason, then you'd totally be cool with the fact that the new one doesn't have to cover the costs of getting your back taken care of and you having to eat the bill entirely over something you have no control over? I hope not man, because you seem like a cool enough person that I'd feel horrible seeing you be in pain all the time over some crazy administrative bullshit.

Also, more often than not, insurance companies hide behind that "pre-existing condition" thing as an excuse to not have to pay out a claim. You go to the doctor because you had a cold, see the big bill for waiting in the ER and getting essentially a script and a bandaid and decide to get insurance to cover future expenses because you can't fork out that much money again, and then later down the road you end up with pnemonia out of nowhere and have to be hospitalized for a week or face dying. Well despite the fact that you got insurance to cover any future illnesses, the insurance company can just decide that this new pnemonia case was related to when you had a cold, call it a pre-existing condition, and pay nothing. The cost of staying even a single night in the hospital is astronomical. 

Granted this is a hypothetical situation, but this happens more often then not. Good people that are trying to take better care of themselves have to foot the bill on top of paying monthly to an insurance carrier because said carrier is a greedy asshole that cares more about their profit margin.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jul 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> ...have to foot the bill on top of paying monthly to an insurance carrier because said carrier is a greedy asshole that cares more about their profit margin.



...and now insurance companies are going magically care less about their profit margin now that it's mandated everyone has insurance?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> ...and now insurance companies are going magically care less about their profit margin now that it's mandated everyone has insurance?



Well, people will suddenly be very conscious about which providers have the lowest rates. Competition and all that. That's the idea, at least. Most countries that have an individual mandate also have heavily regulated insurance prices.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jul 2, 2012)

Competition, but heavily regulated pricing...that's free-market capitalist thinking for you.


----------



## Freezing Moon (Jul 2, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> Competition, but heavily regulated pricing...that's free-market capitalist thinking for you.



Yeah, which is one of the many reasons why I have concluded that all systems hitherto suck.

As for the healthcare, I think it will be a tad better than what we had, but not by much. Only time will tell. America has a lot of deeply-rooted issues that affect healthcare, but don't necessarily get resolved by tackling healthcare directly. It's complicated...

Here's to hoping for a bit of progress. We've all probably been fucked over at some point to varying degrees, so Satan/Odin/God knows we need a bit of a fucking break.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 2, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> So by that logic, if you had to switch insurance carriers because one decided to drop you for w/e reason, then you'd totally be cool with the fact that the new one doesn't have to cover the costs of getting your back taken care of and you having to eat the bill entirely over something you have no control over? I hope not man, because you seem like a cool enough person that I'd feel horrible seeing you be in pain all the time over some crazy administrative bullshit.
> 
> Also, more often than not, insurance companies hide behind that "pre-existing condition" thing as an excuse to not have to pay out a claim. You go to the doctor because you had a cold, see the big bill for waiting in the ER and getting essentially a script and a bandaid and decide to get insurance to cover future expenses because you can't fork out that much money again, and then later down the road you end up with pnemonia out of nowhere and have to be hospitalized for a week or face dying. Well despite the fact that you got insurance to cover any future illnesses, the insurance company can just decide that this new pnemonia case was related to when you had a cold, call it a pre-existing condition, and pay nothing. The cost of staying even a single night in the hospital is astronomical.
> 
> Granted this is a hypothetical situation, but this happens more often then not. Good people that are trying to take better care of themselves have to foot the bill on top of paying monthly to an insurance carrier because said carrier is a greedy asshole that cares more about their profit margin.



Well ideally they wouldn't be able to drop you either. That's like not living up to your side of a bet. 

But like I said, healthcare is not something private business should not be taking care of, its a recipe for disaster.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 2, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> ...and now insurance companies are going magically care less about their profit margin now that it's mandated everyone has insurance?



Of course not, but they know that by openly breaking the law, they will go under quickly. Much of this reform is aimed at fairer insurance practices, such as the aforementioned not being able to be denied due to a previous condition. 
With this kind of ammo, people have more of a leg to stand on (well for some, figuratively speaking) if something should arise. 

Here's how it stood prior to all of this:
It's like asking a friend to hang onto a part of your check every month as a rainy day fund. You get that $500/week paycheck and each payday you give $50. A few months down the road, you take a random knock to the head and have to see the doctor. You want to pay your medical bill, so you go talk to your friend to get some of that rainy day cash. Your friend says they don't want to give you any of it. You ask why. The response: "it's your own dumbass fault that someone else accidentally hit you in the head because you should've paid better attention. Clearly you're irresponsible."
This money is still yours, and you didn't just give it away. This is money that you've put aside for times of medical problems. You even gave the friend a few extra bucks just for doing an awesome job of holding onto it for you. So naturally you'd be upset and start calling and complaining and doing all you can to get what is rightfully yours. Your friend repeats that it's your own damn fault, refuses to hand over the money, and eventually tells you that they just don't have any of it to give to you right now.

You lose out on the money you paid, AND you still have to pay for the doctor visit. Oh and your friend pocketed that extra money you gave him for a service he did not fulfill his end of the bargain on. You lose all around and all you ever did was just keep paying into a fund that you thought for sure was going to be there for you when you needed it, when really all you did was give away your $50 every payday. 

That's kinda simplistic, but a decent enough model of how American insurance companies have been in the past...


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Jul 2, 2012)

Insurance &#8800; Bank Account, your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

All insurance works on a hedge of odds and isn't (nor will it ever be) a savings account. Giving access to coverage isn't going to change that fact - as a matter of fact premiums are likely going to continue to increase (why wouldn't insurance companies charge more knowing people have to have it).

There is also going to be increase in the cost of medical equipment making the base cost of procedures and overhead increase. Somewhere the providers are going to recoup these increased costs. Healthcare is a commodity, plain and simple - there is a business model in place and we as consumers are/have/will continue to get screwed. I agree it's wrong to deny coverage for some conditions, but to say everyone must buy commodity X is something I disagree with more.


----------



## -42- (Jul 3, 2012)

Freezing Moon said:


> Larry LaLonde


Considering Primus has probably sold more music than any death metal band ever, I don't think we really need to feel sorry for Ler, especially considering that this is his wife.

/thread drift


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm all for healthcare. An ex-girlfriend of mine was diagnosed with Deep Vein Thrombosis as a teen, and actually had to move overseas because she couldn't get coverage, and the odds of her having more clots and possibly another PE were pretty high. After I realized the kind of hell she'd have to live through (even though she was a nasty whore) I decided that insurance companies are the fucking devil. 

For people with preexisting conditions, especially potentially lethal ones, this bill is a miracle. Fuck capitalism if it means you kill people who can't keep up through no fault of their own.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 4, 2012)

I had to try to explain to my korean coworker today why I'm glad I was injured here in South Korea, where I have government health insurance, rather than back in the US, where I was uninsured. 

"But why? You are a US citizen and you pay taxes, so you get health insurance."
"LOLNOPE."


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 4, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I had to try to explain to my korean coworker today why I'm glad I was injured here in South Korea, where I have government health insurance, rather than back in the US, where I was uninsured.
> 
> "But why? You are a US citizen and you pay taxes, so you get health insurance."
> "LOLNOPE."



It kinda brings perspective to how we're still kinda backwards in some ways to other countries, doesn't it?


----------



## petereanima (Jul 4, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> It kinda brings perspective to how we're still kinda backwards in some ways to other countries, doesn't it?



"Kind of"  To be brutally honest - the U.S. healthcare "system" until now (or better the lack-of), is one of the mainreasons why the rest of the world is referring to America as some kind of 3rd world country. OR at least "2nd world".

Not saying that is _my_ view on this - but just for example: a common phrase in healthcare discussions over here is, whenever one politician brings a demand for change in that is kind of stupid, the common reply is "if we do that, we're going down the american road, no one wants that."

For me, personally, it is simply not understandable that one of the richest countries in the world is not able to take care of its ill citizens. "Health" must not, never, and in no way, be related to your income. 

And yes, one may not like it, but OF COURSE the communality has to carry this. And contrary to Fox News, this has nothing to do with "communism".


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 4, 2012)

Also, it is incredible to me that we are so selfish as a country that many Americans are fighting tooth and nail to keep millions of people from healthcare.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 4, 2012)

petereanima said:


> "Kind of"  To be brutally honest - the U.S. healthcare "system" until now (or better the lack-of), is one of the mainreasons why the rest of the world is referring to America as some kind of 3rd world country. OR at least "2nd world".
> 
> Not saying that is _my_ view on this - but just for example: a common phrase in healthcare discussions over here is, whenever one politician brings a demand for change in that is kind of stupid, the common reply is "if we do that, we're going down the american road, no one wants that."
> 
> ...




Grammar nazing the grammar nazi. Nice! 

I figured as much too. We can build the fuck out of a greasy burger, but woe be to you if you get sick because of it. You'll be hemorraging cash in addition to your bowels over a bad case of food poisoning.

I find the "american road" thing to be both hilarious, yet sad. It's like the fat kid that can laugh at himself for being fat, but at the same time he dies a little inside with each time he pokes fun at himself.

Here's to hoping that great leadership will eventually emerge and take us back out of the dark ages again.


----------



## Necris (Jul 4, 2012)

I find it funny that many peoples main objection to this bill boils down to "I don't want to have to pay for (apparently unworthy currently uninsured person)'s hospital bills", when you are paying for the healthcare (hospital visits, etc.) for the uninsured under the current system.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 6, 2012)

Necris said:


> I find it funny that many peoples main objection to this bill boils down to "I don't want to have to pay for (apparently unworthy currently uninsured person)'s hospital bills", when you are paying for the healthcare (hospital visits, etc.) for the uninsured under the current system.



That's exactly why I view the opposition as such a baffling lack of logic.

This bill is just one of many other reasons Romney can't talk about his years as governor. It reminds people how much he is willing to flip on just to pander to the clueless Republican base.


----------



## thatguy87 (Jul 21, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> Yes, his entire practice (2 or 3 doctors) doesn't take insurance. No or something, just cash/credit whatever form of payment you have. If he cannot do a lab in office usually the outsourced lab will bill our insurance, but anything done in-house is paid in cash.
> 
> When we have a routine visit the fee is less than what our copay would be with our insurance, most procedures are cheaper than when I had a PCP that took insurance. We can call anytime and have phone consultations if there's any issues with our health (emergencies, general questions, etc) - it's easily the best medical care I've ever experienced.



THIS. is the way it should be. And where I'm from (East Texas) this is the way it's been going on for some time and it's working so much better than national health care. I know a woman that actually left the UK because the NHS, in her opinion, was worthless as it could not diagnose a simple disease that was easily treated after immigrating to the US.


----------



## JamesM (Jul 21, 2012)

This is such a frustrating topic to discuss. All I have to say is this. 

I don't want to live in a country where we cannot take care of our own. 

I'm out.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jul 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> That's exactly why I view the opposition as such a baffling lack of logic.
> 
> This bill is just one of many other reasons Romney can't talk about his years as governor. It reminds people how much he is willing to flip on just to pander to the clueless Republican base.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

thatguy87 said:


> THIS. is the way it should be. And where I'm from (East Texas) this is the way it's been going on for some time and it's working so much better than national health care. I know a woman that actually left the UK because the NHS, in her opinion, was worthless as it could not diagnose a simple disease that was easily treated after immigrating to the US.



You do realize that Texas has the dubious distinction of having worst healthcare system in the entire US?


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 22, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> You do realize that Texas has the dubious distinction of having worst healthcare system in the entire US?





I don't doubt this, but I'd still like to see some evidence of this. I'm guessing it has something to do with the complete and utter dismantlement of Planned Parenthood.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I don't doubt this, but I'd still like to see some evidence of this. I'm guessing it has something to do with the complete and utter dismantlement of Planned Parenthood.



Part of it is indeed the fact that Perry is removing enormous amounts of funds so as to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving any state money, but the problem is more endemic than that:

Feds rank Texas worst healthcare provider - Houston Chronicle

Texas health care ranked worst in the nation - Houston Tomorrow

Texas Ranks Lowest in Young Adult Health Insurance

And Perry's turning down the extra Medicare funds, and is fighting the application of the ACA tooth and nail. AMURRICA!


----------



## thatguy87 (Jul 22, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> You do realize that Texas has the dubious distinction of having worst healthcare system in the entire US?



I can't speak for the state, but it seems to be working in my neck if the woods... Well, where I'm from. Military hospitals, doctors, etc. suck.
"Sir, I feel like I have a slipped disc."
"Here's some Motrin."
"Yeah, you gave me that The last 3 times I came to you about this.... Maybe you should look into getting me an MRI?"
"Whoa, whoa that costs money. Just take the Motrin and See if that helps.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 29, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Also, more often than not, insurance companies hide behind that "pre-existing condition" thing as an excuse to not have to pay out a claim. You go to the doctor because you had a cold, see the big bill for waiting in the ER and getting essentially a script and a bandaid and decide to get insurance to cover future expenses because you can't fork out that much money again, and then later down the road you end up with pnemonia out of nowhere and have to be hospitalized for a week or face dying. Well despite the fact that you got insurance to cover any future illnesses, the insurance company can just decide that this new pnemonia case was related to when you had a cold, call it a pre-existing condition, and pay nothing. The cost of staying even a single night in the hospital is astronomical.



That is not how pre-existing works and I know this because I have a pre-existing condition. If you get sick and then get sicker they just treat you, but even if you did end up with some other problem unless your coverage lapses (I believe that is like 60 days or something like that) it isn't labeled as such. If I lost coverage then yes on the now old system I would be screwed. The issue with cancer patients and disorders/diseases that won't go away is the cap that used to exist. Also, the people who typically get screwed by insurance are people with very severe illness in which they definitely have taken more from the pot than they put in so the bank analogy doesn't work either.

I fully support a national healthcare system and think as well that health should not be tied to financial wealth, but I had to point out some errors. The problem is our system is trying too hard to meet in the middle. If we are trying to nationalize healthcare, having private insurance as well just won't work. They will have to be phased out as their profits will have to fall eventually. Currently, as our system works, it seems we all get universally screwed more often than not as meeting in the middle usually just means that the bad part of both sides gets put in to a bill.



TemjinStrife said:


> Part of it is indeed the fact that Perry is removing enormous amounts of funds so as to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving any state money, but the problem is more endemic than that:
> 
> Feds rank Texas worst healthcare provider - Houston Chronicle
> 
> ...



Yeah Texas healthcare system is pretty terrible in terms of distribution and access (doctors seem to hate their job way before this bill as well), but Houston has one of THE best medical centers in the US.


----------

