bmags

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.

Yeah. I was essentially starving for two months, had lost 35 lbs when i wasn't fat before i left, and with my visa coming up i decided to check out. Looking at some jobs, maybe even a salary position (shock!). but we'll see how it goes.

So i kept seeing these off-hand comments about student loans, and was like, what happened? I thought the loan thing was dead in the water. Apparently, in the sidecar going through reconciliation, that student loan reform to make the gov't directly give loans to student is in it. If that passes, that's huge! It saves so much money that frankly, I hope they just put right back into loans for students, lots more pell grants, etc. I'm really pleased with this. I'm really pleased right now with the House, I'm going to help my local congressman for 2010.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:30 AM) Purely hypothetical question: Under this new system, can my family drop employer insurance and join an exchange? You know, I don't think so. You'd have to see if you'd be up for a subsidy. The hope is that this creates a more affordable individual insurance market, which could benefit you. Another point, there was a study showing that premiums would rise, a cbo story, but it showed that it rose because people would get better insurance. So you might find that you could get a better policy for the same price. Also, remember that shopping for insurance will be more open.

f*** google.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) I keep seeing people say this, the bolded especially, that it does nothing to control costs. It does. It might not be as aggressively as some people wanted, but one of the long-term goals was to end the quantity-based system which does affect costs. And I'll also say, it initially DID have a lot more provider-side cost controls, but again, that hurts doctors...and people like doctors.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:19 PM) I hate that Grayson is made out to be the equivalent of Bachmann by lazy Beltway journalists. There is no equivalent of Bachmann on the left among elected officials. There just isn't. I kind of feel like Grayson is what I thought Franken would be. He's funny and biting but also hyperbolic. But since his initial appearance I've really enjoyed a lot of his interviews. I remember they took him on CNN and mustache man was trying to be like "you are saying i want to kill americans" and grayson didn't even bother taking the bait and just kept pushing forward what the bill would do. He's got conviction, I like him. I think he should stay in the house. When he first burst onto the scene with "get sick die quickly", I remember a lot of comments were like "The democrats finally have a republican!"

I know that I get health insurance until 26 now, which is huge. I was terrified when I had a tooth ache.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:50 PM) So 40% of people wanted less federal action on health care than they got. Not any kind of majority. But these polls also fail to take into account the undoubtedly significant % of people who wanted something DIFFERENT - not something less, or more. Right, this has been the explanation for a while. People on the left were furious after the PO was taken out in early December. But the poll questions were straight up, do you agree with the bill blah blah etc. And i imagine it was a case of when i worked the phones and had to ask "how many jobs have you had" for a job recruitment company, and they would go in depth about all their jobs and what they did, and i couldn't cut them off to tell them i just needed a number, and after 20 minutes of hearing their life story I would follow up with "So five, then?" They probably got the explanation, it doesn't go far enough, but the numbers than say 40 approve, 49 percent oppose. Also, I would like to reiterate. The dems WILL lose seats in november, this was going to be the case, i mean, pretty much even if unemployment dropped. They gained so many seats in 2006 and 2008, they have so much ground to cover in republican leaning districts. It's very rare to be able to keep those. But, I don't think the house flips anymore, but who knows, 7 mos. is a while.

we're on the same posting schedule at the moment, balta.