bmags

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) So, if the Republicans get the Congress and the WH back in 2012, do they just repeal the whole damn thing before most of the provisions have even gone into effect? My guess is this: "not bloody likely" Seriously, it's really hot right now, but in 2 years, they would be repealing really popular things.

yglesias.thinkprogress.org So, what do you think of this: "The End of Big Government Liberalism For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. The size of the US public sector is still going to look low by international standards, but this will be a bit misleading since the way the structure of the Affordable Care Act works is to use public money and public regulation to leverage a lot of formally private money. In practice, the United States will still be a small government country compared to Sweden or Denmark or France (which combines Danish-style taxes with a below-the-waterline iceberg of hidden state-directed economic activity), but not compared to the United Kingdom or Spain. Due to the bill’s almost comically delayed implementation, for several years we’re still going to have a lot of political tussling over it. And even once it’s in place, the system will continue to be debated and tweaked for years to come. But over time, I think American politics will come to look quite different and we’ll look back on this day as a turning point. The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors." After reading the comments, I think it's easy to misunderstand what he's saying. It's over, in the sense that, yes, government is going to be in health care. So yeah, I say in 20 years...it's basically done. Most every liberal program I wanted will have been implemented in some way or another.

no, i was asking jesus.

Oh. Well, I say if the denver mayor wins the Colo. gov race, then that's who you look at for the next dem pres. Ha, wouldn't it be funny if petraeus ran as a democrat. haha.ahhhh

Um, I think Obama realizes you don't want to tap any more people out of the senate. I really don't think it matters to replace Biden. I guess he could look for a southern personality, but f*** the south. They've had overrepresentation in the exec branch for too many years.

jesus, how old is he?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:34 PM) Didn't think my statement warranted this, but whatever. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe any slight health ailment deserves/warrants a trip to the doctor, lest it become something serious. No, it didn't. But going back 2 pages you would've seen how incorrect that statement was. Sorry you feel so intimidated here, but here's a pro-tip, don't jump into something you haven't been following closely than make a B.S. statement like "you believe all of the doctors/pharmaceutical commercials" because it makes your argument easier. Does a group of people go to the doctor too much? yes. Does a whole bunch of people not go to the doctor at all because of intimidation/money? Yes, a huge portion. Specifically a portion called "men." It's one of the reasons we die earlier.

your dick, huh.

Um, it pays for itself in like 5 years. My uncle's had his on insurance...i assumed it was more widespread. That said, once i have $1000 to spend i'm going to take a lazer to both my eyes and then fly planes to save peoples lives. wolverines. edit: to clarify to ahb, my response would be that they would be saving money after 5 years by not shelling out for contacts/glasses/eye exams.

It's a british label with like 15 acts that are pretty popular. I've never listened because my internet sucked.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) You and I have completely different views on the role of health care. You assume that whatever hospitals/doctors/drug ads tell you, that you have a problem that can be easily fixed with treatment. No I don't. Take bulls*** statements to the republican thread please, where they belong.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) I'm not sure that I share your optimism, but who knows? I do know that young and healthy people tend to feel invincible. So, there needs to be an incentive there for them to buy into it. Considering other costs they have to pay, like for their education, insurance may go on the chopping block. Well, for one the push to 26 helps this. BUT, also there are many things you need to pay for constantly now. Eyes for one. I have contacts, and having to pay about $150 for a years subscription with an eye exam *WITH INSURANCE. If it was out of pocket i have no idea how expensive that would be per year. And with health insurance then Lasik becomes much more affordable. Could I have lived three to four years without health insurance? Yeah, and for the most part I would've been fine. BUt it's always in the back of your mind. And again, to be paying 750 for NOTHING is a big deal.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) Yeah its not like were in a recession and every dollar counts or something. What's a few hundred bucks a year. Yeah. I'm going to give you two options. You can pay me $750 for nothing. or You can pay me $1200 for health care coverage.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) I'm actually in the group that you want to get insurance. I'm healthy, young, and single. So, I would definitely take a closer look to see if I actually do need it. You are probably right that I would go ahead and get it. However, there are plenty of people in just this same situation who won't. I now have a choice here that I can make a pretty significant case for both sides. Before this, it was always the case that you made sure that you had insurance if possible at all because of the pre-existing conditions issue. Now, that is not clear cut at all. If you are young and healthy, your risk has just dropped a ton with not getting insurance and you can save money too. I'm not sure that there is a strong enough push to get and keep the young and healthy in the insurance pool. You know how they are estimating that only 32 million will get insurance instead of that full number excluding non-citizens? It's because they already planned for a number of people like that. but 750 is a lot of money...and I just have a hard time believing that many people will look at not getting health insurance as saving money when they are paying that. And even being young and healthy, like me, i still had to visit the hospital twice in college for freak accidents. I think people are well aware of how scary it is to live without it.

you listen to any of the ed banger stuff BS

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:41 PM) If anyone said insurance companies don't profit, they're misinformed or lying. They do profit...they just don't profit that much. You know who has higher profits? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the like...which will continue to have the same (or higher) profits than they have right now. And I see people spouting these percentages of administrative overhead when it comes to insurance companies, with no evidence to back these claims. From what company? I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I assure you our administrative overhead is nowhere near 30%. That reeks of cherry picking inflated statistics from what is probably the worst run health insurer in the country and using it as a blanket fact applied to all. Blue Cross/Blue Shield also has the lowest administrative costs from every measurement I've read. There is more than one company. vandy, let me get this right. You would rather pay 750 dollars a year than pay hundreds more to get an actual product in return? And so you will go to the doctors office uninsured after years of (likely) putting off the costs and not taking your symptoms seriously because you'd have to pay out of pocket for the health care costs, and now pay for all the diagnosis equipment they'd need to find out it's cancer, and now, instead of the months or years you could have used to fight the cancer early you waited until it was noticeably affecting you. But now you can jump in easier to get insurance! And you saved a few hundred bucks! You realize cancer kills right? And it's not something you want to play chicken with?

not only that, NSS, but many pro-choicers feel that this bill will be a huge step back, and was a big victory for pro-lifers. Even though they can buy the abortion provision out of pocket, it's one that most people probably will not think to get, and you will see abortion coverage likely dramatically decrease.

Yeah, I don't know where that came from but I think he was talking about this: "An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis." but, that said, basically every thing i've seen shows many at about 12% adm. costs, which is still very high, and can clearly be depressed in some of these exchanges. And again, they are getting customers ushered into their system. And many healthy.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:42 AM) As a college student...YES. Not like it will affect me much since I've already taken out most of my loans for undergrad. It'll probably help me for law school, though. Here's a full write-up. http://www.quickanded.com/2010/03/one-step...k+and+the+Ed%29 i like:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 02:35 AM) Sure, all of the expensive ones that have been supposedly been excluded until now. Yes, it's 30 million cancer patients.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:25 AM) Turns out, the reconciliation rules wound up in some fashion requiring them to put it in, because they needed additional deficit reduction beyond what the Health care bill was providing, and there was a nice, easy, $50 billion. That's great, surprised it wasn't a bigger story. This would be the "major" legislation in almost any other congress.

they are getting new customers...remember.

that really is exciting because that was a hugely popular measure in the house that got railroaded in the Lobby, i mean Senate. Apparently they have the votes in reconciliation to put it through. VERY exciting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 03:11 AM) Basically, if you don't like your insurance you need to find a new job. MEHHHHH, perhaps RIGHT NOW, I'm optimistic this bill will create a much more favorable individual market.

It should be noting that student loans was a privatization program that was way more wasteful than doing it themselves.