Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) I'd absolutely be in favor of some sort of tax on high-fat fast food. I think Bloomberg's "size limit" on beverages is poorly done...but I would like to see a similar tax on products that include large amounts of sugar or hfcs. Hell, the taxpayer already pays a ridiculous fraction of the cost of producing corn syrup and hamburger meet anyway. If we're going to have farm subsidies, I think those subsidies should overwhelmingly go towards the healthiest foods, which is exactly the opposite of the system we have right now. The issue with this, is once again, you end up punishing the very people you're trying to help. Fast food, as sucky/bad as it is, is more affordable than healthy alternatives (by a lot)...so this tax you're charging, you're merely charing to the poor people you're trying to help in the first place. People with means often eat healthier than those without. If they want to truly change this trend, they have to bring the costs of healthy foods down. The average person eating at McDonalds cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, and if they could, they most likely would.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) This is 100% true - that's where those savings are being put. But the end result is 25 million people getting extra coverage thanks to those savings. And I really don't have an issue with this. Most of us here that have better jobs probably have no issue paying a bit more for insurance to help others, I know mine went up, but I don't care. I'm happy to help in this regard. I don't have an issue with the ACA in it's intent. I have an issue that I feel they stopped short by NOT going after cost controls. Someone asked how foreign governments do this, and that's exactly how they do it...they actually set costs based on a number of factors. We also do this, but ONLY for Medicare/Medicaid patients. The rest are left to fend for themselves...which sucks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) Then where do you come up with the claim that the Medicare cost decreases aren't significant? Because that's where the money is coming from to pay for those extra people. I'm not claiming that. Medicare cost decreases ARE significant. But these cost decreases are simply getting shifted elsewhere... If word got out that a trillion dollars was being lopped off of the medical industry, their stock prices wouldn't be skyrocketing. The money is still flowing in, it's just not coming from Medicare patents anymore. But, it IS coming from somewhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:23 AM) Is the actual plan pricing different, or is the portion covered by your employer different? I was taking Jenks' proposal and what he said about his plan to mean that the plan cost itself would change based on your income, not the benefits package you receive from your employer. Portion covered by the employer. For example, those making less than 35,000$ at my company would pay 87$ a month for the HMO family coverage, where as I pay more than 400. It's broken into tiers. 35,001-50,000 50,001-75,000 etc... The higher the tier you are in, the more you pay. This isn't unlike subsidizing insurance in the ACA, I subsidize employees at my company that make less than me. And I'm ok with doing that. If more companies did this, they'd be able to give employees better care. But if your company is charging the same price for insurance for the CEO as the janitor...well...that's why we need the ACA in the first place, to basically force this system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) And again...if "The same amount of money is going into that sector" and 25 million additional people get basic health insurance...then the results are spectacular because we've taken the wasted money going in and turned it into productive health care outcomes....productive enough that the spending on the program which covers everyone in the country when they reach a certain age is already seeing big cost improvements. No. The same amount of money is flowing into it WITHOUT those added 25 million. They will increase the amount going into it, by a lot. Which is why insurance and health care companies stock prices have all skyrocketed, along with their revenues. If the opposite was actually true, their stocks would be tanking right now. But that isn't happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) How do other countries keep their costs drastically lower than ours? Why shouldn't I believe the CBO reports that cost growth has slowed? The CBO report isn't a lie, per-say, but it's cherry picked. Are you on Medicare? No. So that report means f*** all to you. Yes, less money is flowing into that Health and Services sector from Medicare, HOWEVER, the same amount of GDP is still flowing into that sector, it's just coming from other areas now...like you and I.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) I work for one of the largest employers in the world. Our group health plan does not depend on how much you make. I've honestly never heard of that anywhere. You are, oddly, arguing in favor of socialism here. You're arguing for progressive pricing for the same service based on your income level. I work for BCBS, as you probably know...and it works like that for us. There are 5 tiers of costs for the same exact plans, all based on how much you make. The more you make, the larger share you pay per month.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) -Congressional Budget office in August explaining why the 20-year Medicaid cost estimates were reduced by about a trillion dollars. And merely shifted elsewhere. These reports are smoke and mirrors. The same amount of money is going into that sector, whether less is coming from Medicare and more is coming from elsewhere, it doesn't matter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:14 AM) Well, I believe that healthcare is probably the worst possible place to rely on a pure consumer market precisely because it's a vital good (in the literal sense!) that often can't be delayed at all to shop around. The ACA did contain some cost-control provisions, and they appear to be having at least somewhat of an effect already. Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices could help, but short of strict price controls, I'm not sure what you'd like to see in order to reduce costs from doctors/hospitals/clinics. Part of the cost built-in is the ridiculous cost for medical school. One of my friends it finishing up his dentistry program and then wants to go into oral surgery. By the time he's done, he'll have over half a million in debt, and he's going to public schools. These cost controls are only benefiting those on Medicare, which while good, doesn't help anyone else, as they simply shift the cost down. If Medicare patients pay less for Drug X, you and I make up the difference by paying that much more for Drug X. These cost savings haven't materialized like people keep saying.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:14 AM) Who cares if the reform isn't "Comprehensive" enough when we've already seen some slowdown in cost growth and tens of millions of people will get access to better/cheaper care? Ohhh darn, we have more work to do to make a better system...that was apparent from the start...in no small part a consequence of the rules of the Congress. We haven't seen a slowdown in cost growth. People keep claiming this, but it hasn't happened.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) So in other words...we can either keep the status quo where you pay the bills for those people, we can try to give them an option where they can actually have preventative care thus opening up both potential improvements in the health of the nation and cost savings, or we can stop covering them entirely and hope that their deaths are the appropriate lecture on personal responsibility. I think his basic point is, is that if they're being heavily subsidized to buy this insurance, we're still paying for their bills anyway. Perhaps this is a better method of doing so, but in the end, it's still being paid by the taxpayer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) He's very used to expecting the entire economy to turn on the behavior of a very small group of individuals and treating them as the only ones who matter at all. (/rimshot). I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a good thing to cover more people. The issue was, and IS, that nothing was done to curb costs at the source. All we did was shift the burden around more evenly...but the bills are the same (or higher), and will continue to be the same or higher. They needed to do both. They want to call this "comprehensive", but it's not. It's quite focused on insurance, and nothing more than insurance. It did nothing to curb the rising costs of care, and it did nothing to curb the rising costs of drugs. IF and only if all of that was done, it would be fair to call this comprehensive reform.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) What will the boost to the economy be when millions of people have access to affordable health care services? You keep calling it affordable and for most people, it's not affordable. Because AGAIN, they did nothing to control the cost sourcing. Doctors/Hospitals/Clinics can STILL charge whatever they want, whenever they want, because there is no ability to shop around or refuse an in-hospital 20 second doctor "visit" that tacks on another 200-400$ to your bill. Prices will rise at the same rate they were rising BEFORE the law went into effect because nothing was done to control costs at the source.

Knew this was coming eventually, was hoping major reforms were in place before it would come to this... Rockstar (Microsoft/Apple/Sony/RIM/Ericsson) launch nuclear patent attack on Google/Android using the dangerous LTE/4G/Search patent portfolio they bought as a consortium off of Nortel for almost 5 billion dollars. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10...ar-sues-google/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:45 PM) ok well based on his years of posting history here I think he'd take being called a right-winger as a compliment I only pay attention to a handful if posters here, which you happen to be one of. So consider yourself awesome. Cknolls has never annoyed me, whereas you have...which is probably why!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:40 PM) Now I'm more confused, are you saying cknolls actually does reject the idea of the "liberal media"? I don't know cknolls, so I wouldn't know.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:35 PM) What? Cknolls is a pretty conservative guy, he's not going to be defending the idea that the media isn't liberal You're doing that now, so he doesn't have too. And I was responding to a comment, not sarcasm, nor do I know his political affiliations or beliefs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:29 PM) yes, more importantly, I'm not sure why Y2HH took that comment from you literally. Don't think twice. It's understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:28 PM) No, they aren't, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. The claim that the media is, overall, biased one way or the other is separate from the claim that they are like Fox News. To whatever extent the rest of the mainstream media organizations skew liberal (they all pro-corporate, largely pro-status quo and pro-neoliberal economics, e.g. all the media debt/deficit/"entitlements just have to be cut" discussions for the last few years), they are not at all like Fox News. For what it's worth, the Sunday Morning political talkshows are pretty heavily skewed towards Republican guests, and most of the media loves to play the "both sides" lazy journalism game. Whatever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:20 PM) No, 'every other' American news organization is not a mirror image of Fox News. Yea they are, which is why I'm forced to read BBCWORLD and AJ for news. Because mainstream American media is ALL slanted, and the vast majority of it is slanted democrat/liberal. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't journalists caught in between, but it's pretty overwhelming what's going on, which is why I don't even bother with news here. ...and you probably don't either. So please, let's not defend them, and that includes Fox who will tell you they are "fair and balanced". The ratings alone will tell you Fox is the sole republican news slant, as it's the only undivided audience.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:17 PM) nah Uh, yea.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:07 PM) When did the media become Liberal? Other than Fox, this is absolutely lol worthy. Only down and out I'm so liberal I don't know wtf liberal is liberals think the media outside of Fox isn't liberal/democrat slanted. Just f***ing stop with this bulls*** cherade already. Fox is, for the most part, republican slanted, and every other mainstream American "news" organization is, again, for the most part, the exact opposite. Please, for the love of whatever, stop pretending otherwise.

This may be fruitless, but I would like to stop and take a moment to say that while I may disagree with some of your opinions or observations, I do value the thought. Believe it or not, many of you are often able to make me think about what you said long after I've responded, and there have been times my view has actually been swayed. So while I do know that I can often come across as a biligerant ass, I do mean well.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:59 PM) Can you not pay the extra $100 and upgrade to a 5S instead? No, that's insurance from breakage, Verizon isn't going to re-subsidize a new 5S under that plan.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:58 PM) Verizon-> Asurion Ah ok, I have AppleCare+ on my 5, was wondering ... last time I had a discontinued model and had it replaced, they replaced it with the same model, despite it being discontinued. I'd actually consider breaking my 5 on purpose if I knew I could get a 5c...I got my wife one, and aside from it being colorful, I really like how it feels. I'm waiting for the 6 to upgrade my 5, though.