Y2HH

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) You can't just blame that on poor people. Rich people take advantage in other areas (i.e., taxes). That's also true.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) My father was a broke ass immigrant, who worked 2 to 3 jobs most of our lives and preached education is the way out of our mess. I remember garbage picking to get a bike because we couldn't afford one. My generations success is based on the back breaking effort of my father and my mother. I appreciate hard work, I appreciate those who can and try and are unemployed due to unfortunate circumstances like your father. I have a huge problem with those who can, and don't because of selfishness or laziness. I don't mind helping out those who need a helping hand in the time of need. I have a huge problem helping those who are lazy, and f***ed off and are not a burden on society. I grew up in a similar fashion -- my father came here from a depression ridden Germany (during the Hitler era) completely broke, and my mother was born in bridgeport, where my father first met her. They still live in bridgeport now, of course, but a lot has changed over the years in terms of that neighborhood. I grew up getting hand me downs from bicycles to cloths, alley picked or otherwise...we took what we could -- and I didn't care, I think it made me a better person, though often, it makes me insensitive and more hard nosed than many as I've had to live through some poor times to get where I am now, and I find excuses to be just that...excuses. There was nothing like wearing prowings when everyone else had nike or reebok -- and having a bike from 1978 when it was 1988 -- but I made do with it, and now I lack sympathy for those who refuse to do the same. And I guarantee some of you here know exactly what this felt like.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) That just kind of sounds like the exception and not the norm. Well it's not expensive to insure younger single people -- it's just the families that are more expensive. Single people, I can almost guarantee, you'd be better off paying your own insurance via a big name insurer than doing so through your employer, especially if you are young. I did it for a few years, and I have a few of my friends on their own private plans -- because they're single and it cost them less for the same insurance.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) 100 a month for buying your own health insurance? That isn't s***, really. It's actually not expensive depending on your age -- older people 40+ will have a problem. Like before I married my wife, and being that I know because I work for Blue Cross, I had her quit her employer insurance because she was paying more for that than if she just went to Blue Cross herself. She ended up paying 155$ a month for full PPO insurance, and this was just 8 months ago (we got married just last year). The thing is, a lot of people don't realize they can do this -- but they can, it's a simple online questionnaire you fill out, and they email you with a quote -- hers was 155$ a month, she was 28 years old and a non smoker. She was paying more than that through her employer at the time.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) I mean, I'm actually with you on what needs to be done probably more than you think. I just keep seeing a lot of irrelevant arguments thrown out there, and people on the anti-public option side have a tendency to mock unemployed or poor people and say overly simplistic things like "it's their fault they're like that." Yea, I'm guilty of this, I know it, and I'll admit it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Well that's great that you did but not everyone is as fortunate as you are with an excess of discretionary income. I wouldn't call it "discretionary", as having that health insurance was a priority. I would have loved to have had that extra 100+ per month in my pocket, but I went without it so I could have the insurance. I would have paid 300$ for it, and found a way to make do without that 300$ if that's what it took. The issue is, a lot of people CAN afford health insurance, but since they aren't "forced" to get it they don't bother trying -- nor will they do without that extra 200$, even if they could, they choose not too.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) But who's making who apologize and for what? That isn't the issue at all. The issue is the current system is inefficient and unavailable to a large segment of the population. It's not a haves vs. have-nots thing. I somewhat agree -- I think we all agree that the system is broken, but I'm not sure the government is the right fix, that's all I'm saying. They aren't the leader in efficiency and low cost...I know the government usually intends to do things like this, but the opposite always seems to happen.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:49 PM) Just to play Devil's advocate here... What if you had gotten very sick during that 6 months? Or some whacko hit you while DUI? If you had only gotten ER treated and streeted, had to live 6 months (or a year or more with a pre-existing condition) while suffering through something and acquiring 10's of thousands in debt, do you think that's a good situation? He said he could have bought his own insurance but just didn't feel like and wouldn't have blamed anyone else. Back when I used to do consulting work in 2002-2004, I opted to buy my own insurance from Blue Cross, I paid a little over 100$ a month and I was fully covered.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:49 PM) Are you saying only people who dick around in HS and come to class high are the ones that end up having trouble staying employed? Cuz that's kind of a massive strawman. I don't think he's saying that at all -- I do, however think he's saying that he doesn't feel the need to apologize for working hard for his future when at any moment he could have died and never gotten to enjoy that future.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) Because its not going to work like that. The minute you give government based health care, and then tax private health care plans to partially pay for it, then you will have business stopping to offer their own plans. Basically this will be a waterfall affect of more people on the government dime. Plus how is this going to solve the illegal alien problem. Its not like its going to change their way of medical care, showing up at the emergency room with the common cold. And that's my biggest problem with it -- the language of the reform is too wishy-washy as to who qualifies and who does not...as it stands, the waterfall effect you speak of is exactly what I see happening. Granted you say it a bit better than I do -- as I'm quite against this for obvious reasons.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:29 PM) Then in that case...let those of us who have nothing have a system of the quality of the V.A...say some sort of public option...and then anyone who wants to pay for more expensive care can feel completely free to do so. Which is what the President's plan happens to call for anyway. I wouldn't be against this if that's what it was in plain English, without 500 pages of fine print and what-if's and lawyer double-talk. What it is, right now, is quite vague as to how they're going to do this, who will be eligible, and why they're elegible, and how they're going to finance it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) Well at least you got to throw in a not-so-subtle racial jab. Good for you. Ok, that made me laugh. And yes, probably shouldn't have done that, as now that I read it again, it does come off as racist, and it wasn't really meant to be. I was using it more in a pop culture-ish way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) The RAND corp study however was not. Just from personal experience, as my father is a Viatnam Vet, those VA hospitals are almost useless to him and he opts for private care.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) I think you're crossing up the military hospital system with the V.A. system. The data out there says otherwise. I'll go to the Rand corp for this study (they're as non-partisan as I can give you) Here's another study saying the same thing. That study was financed by the VA, I'm sure they'd love to give the uncensored opinions of the people on the receiving end of that superior healthcare without any spin! Grant Support: This study was funded by a Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development grant

And let me add, I also have no faith that they can do something for less (cheaper) while maintaining the same quality of care. The saying, 'you get what you pay for' is often not very misleading.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) And there is some validity there, IMO, to saying that. You worked hard to get to where you are, to insure the health of your family. I can respect that. Also, to be fair, I'm pretty biased when it comes to this since I work for Blue Cross -- so you will obviously get extreme opinions from me on this subject. I don't mean to come off as if I'm some outside party without an agenda...I make no bones about being biased when it comes to this subject. But I have absolutely no faith that the government that couldn't/can't get Medicare working right for a small subsection of society can do it for EVERYONE, cheaper to boot.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Sure it does, despite your ridiculous example that no one was claiming (except the straw man you built). Insurance companies decide coverage or not many thousands of times a day, including people with serious illnesses. And if people can't pay the ridiculously large bills themselves, nor can they just switch providers when they are diagnosed with somethign like that... then some are just plain screwed. Now, if you are OK with that, then have the guts to say so. But to say it doesn't work that way is just patently false. Well, I am ok with that and I'll openly say so. I didn't sit on my front porch drinkin' 40z with my boyz when I was younger, I went to the free public school system so I could learn something and get a job, then worked 2 part time jobs when going to college full time so I could build a future I may have never seen -- and now I'm not f***ing apologizing because my family is covered.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Straw man alert. Easier to explain it away that way, isn't it?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) In part it does. Yes, because the streets are littered with dead bodies of the people that insurance companies like Blue Cross refuse to care for... I mean, they couldn't be in a hospital receiving care when on their death beds or anything, because then they'd be in the hospital -- but since they aren't they must be dying on the streets! No, it doesn't work that way, literally or in any other way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Medicare and the Veterans Affairs Health Plan both have DRAMATICALLY lower overhead costs than private insurance. By at least 50%. Maybe more, depending on who's estimates you believe. You'd think via reading those liberal talking points memos you obviously lean on to make a point. People in the VA and on Medicare will tell you a much different story of the "care" they received. But of course, we aren't going to listen to them, they're biased republicans! If the VA and Medicare was so f***ing great, why do veterans and people eligible for medicare refuse to stop working so they won't lose their Blue Cross?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) However, Blue Cross Blue Shield, that's who I want deciding who lives and who dies. Yes, because that's how it works.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) This is EXACTLY the point of a public option and why it's necessary. If you attempt to put cost-controls in without a public option, you wind up with exactly the sort of thing that you're talking about...insurers still spend the same amount of money trying to drive people out of their markets, but then they also realize they can't make as much money on certain procedures so they start favoring all the areas where they can make money, and the price controls wind up screwing everything else. So you wind up with treatments being approved or not approved based on what the cost controls say, and you wind up with all sorts of creative techniques (See; the pharmaceutical industry) coming out of the industry with no benefit to people that do nothing except allow health care providers and insurers to charge more. What we're saying is...a public option is more efficient. Which is why it's necessary. It cuts down on the paperwork and the overhead dramatically because everyone can be insured and because insurers won't be able to increase their profits by only insuring the healthy (as they do now). If an insurer then wants to produce a profit...it has to be profitable by outdoing the public option in efficiency, not by finding creative ways to avoid payment. You truly are delusional, aren't you? You think adding a public option is magically going to cut down on red tape and paperwork -- one of the specialties of our government? When has anything you've done with the government resulted in easier/less wasteful? I mean f***ing honestly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) Really? You actually went there? Our health care system is fine because the poor get killed off by it and that's ok because the rich are better? Actually, what I said in so many words is that it wasn't my place to decide who gets to live or die. And it isn't yours either.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) So, I posed this link to my facebook and got a comment by someone who said socialized medican is evil, then got this response... So, let me try and parse this out. Someone who is less fortunate and cant afford proper healthcare could not get on the list since he cant afford it, so this guys good friend got the surgery because he is more fortunate. Ergo, screw the other people, the better off are more worthy. As they say, the strong survive. Nature implemented this rule for a reason, so naturally, humanity will buck this trend to proove mother nature wrong -- only a thousand years from now, nature will show us why it was right. While the movie Idiocracy was a stretch, it's not going to be far from the truth. While I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm also saying it's my place in the world to say screw the other people, one way or the other.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option Funny, I wasn't asked -- nor was anybody I know. In other words, in response to that "poll", my f***ing ass. I already pay high income taxes, dividend taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, name it taxes -- soon maybe a soda pop tax, too. So they can stick that ridiculous poll straight up their lying candy asses.