Jenksismyhero

So why not do both in 6 months?

Has anyone heard a good reason why the pre-existing/cap exclusion parts of this bill aren't applicable to adults for another 4 years?

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) I tend to disagree that it is apples to oranges. The stated goal of a lot of government programs is to protect the health and wealth being of the population. This includes things such as defense, health care, environmental protection, even education to an extent. Although addressing each of these items requires different expertise, the result should be the most people "covered" as possible. Further, by incorporating as many people as possible into such protections, there should be some buying power involved that helps keep per capita costs at a minimum. By adding 30+ million people to the insured population and putting certain controls in place, we should be lowering a lot of cost and waste in the healthcare industry overall, even if it is accompanied by some inefficiencies and fraud. Inefficiencies and fraud are part of both the public (government) and private (insurance companies) sector. It is just a lot easier to cite the government for such maladies. The truth is that anyone covered right now is paying a voluntary tax in high premiums and such items as $15 aspirin tablets during their hospital stays. So what does this legislation do to solve this problem?

I know right? People are stupid. They shouldn't take responsibility for themselves. Government should provide for all. Then we'd live in Utopia! I'm not advocating that if you get sick and it puts you into bankruptcy that society shouldn't help out. But I challenge you to come up with an actual figure on how many people are in such a position. I'm guessing the number isn't very high (certainly not the 30-40 million uninsured). Do medical issues cause some severe difficulties in life? Absolutely. But so do a lot of things in life.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) They can? Then why are there tens of millions of people not covered? Laziness/failure to prioritize. You can get health insurance coverage, even with a pre-existing condition. Are you going to have to pay more than a perfectly fit, non-smoking 25 year old? Sure. But them's the breaks. Life isn't fair. Some people have to work harder than others.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) Saving money is secondary to providing adequate coverage for the country. It is important to prevent wasteful spending, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is the government's goal on every one of it's programs. We have a lot of waste in defense spending all in the name of protecting American lives. Aren't they protecting a lot of the same freeloaders and loafers that health care is going to prop up? No disagreeing that there's a TON of waste in defense spending, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. Unless we form up private militias and weapon stockpiles, we can't protect ourselves as individuals. People can, on the other hand, get adequate health coverage.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) Makes me wonder why the GOP kept scaring people into think that this bill would take away people's Medicare. Makes me wonder why we think another government program is going to SAVE us money.

Anyone see this? About Medicare fraud. Hundreds of BILLIONS lost. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/amer...1133&page=1

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) I said this a while ago with regards to another bill. The GOP was raising a stink saying "we never had time to read this. You expect me to vote on a bill I havent read?" Those that voted no would STILL have voted no... even IF they had time to read the while thing. Most of the concepts and wording have been around for MONTHS! So any argument saying "We didn't have time to read it" is total grand standing B.S. You had time to know and read the basics. Now, are there things in there that people might not have read? Absolutely. Did they REALLY intend on reading word for word the entire bill? Of course not. That is an awful response lol. "Here's a contract. We've discussed the particulars verbally, so no need to review it!" This form of legislating, be it Repub or Dem, is ridiculous. If you can't read the f'n bill, then it cleary is way too f'n big and complex.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:12 AM) I could respond to all of these, but I'm going to only answer a few of them. First of all...the post office loses $200 billion a year? When did we start mail delivery to Mars? Secondly...there's an infinite number metaphors for how you can save money while adding so many more people. It's all about spending money more efficiently, which this bill does in a number of ways. For example, it's cheaper to have a cavity treated than to wait and wind up having a root canal or a tooth pulled. It's cheaper to get yourself on cholesterol lowering drugs than it is to wait until you've had the heart attack. It's cheaper to use a cheaper treatment if you've done the research to discover whether or not the cheaper treatment works better than the more expensive one. Third...going to the doctor isn't like buying TV's. People typically don't like going to the doctor. People usually hesitate to go to the doctor, and the data suggests, they often hesitate longer than they should for financial reasons. It would actually be, on the whole, cheaper for the country if people went to the doctor when they got the sniffles rather than waiting until they wind up in the ER. Overuse of health care isn't a problem in other countries that cover everyone; in fact, it's quite simply cheaper to do it that way. Health care isn't like a number of other things in the economy. If you get sick, genuinely sick, you can't save yourself money by just putting it off, because it's likely to get worse rather than better. If you get sick, it's likely to wind up impairing your ability to do other things in your life. If you get sick and you can't get treatment, you can't do your job, you can't find a job, you're either in bankruptcy or you're bouncing between ER's that are required to treat you anyway. Little hyperbole on the 200 billion. My point still remains though, the government rarely, if ever, makes something more cost effective. And I just don't like the CBO's estimates anyway. Bipartisan or not, they're wrong on occasions, and to me this program can't be wrong or we're really screwing ourselves here in the long term. Just like social security or medicare, now that this is signed, we're never going to take it away. That's not an argument against reform, but of this particular reform. That argument, however, has been lost in the sea of political discourse. And to me your other arguments are what bothers me most. Does this bill address the ridiculous amounts of money that it costs to see a doctor? Is it going to cut costs beyond just preventative care? To me it seems like all we've done is do the health care industry a huge favor by giving them an extra 40 million people to take money from (even if the money is from all of us instead of the individual recieving the service). I dunno, in general I just feel like this was a wasted opportunity. OK yay, we all feel good because 40 million more people aren't dying on the streets of various diseases. For most Americans, we've now protected them against evil insurance companies that put caps and exclusions on their policies (both things i'm in favor of). But the per-transaction cost of the health care industry is still the major problem, and they didn't even address it.

Since you all read about this stuff more than me, a couple of questions: 1) the ~30 million uninsured - who are these people? Are they people like me, late 20's, employed, but in a small firm with no health insurance, waiting to get married so I can sign onto my future wife's plan. Are they poor people, who are already covered under programs like Medicaid? Are they illegals? Are they going to be denied care if they don't have an insurance card in 4 years? 2) How does the CBO think we're going to SAVE money when we're adding so many people who, i'm assuming, can't/won't pay much of their share for their new insurance, and who are probably going to essentially be covered by the government? Has the federal government EVER had a cost cutting spending program like this? I'm thinking of you know, the post office, which loses 200 billion a year, or defense, whose spending rarely gets cut, etc. Is there a cap on the use of this? What's going to stop people from abusing the hell out of this system? "I have the sniffles, i'm going to the doctor. Since I have no obligation to pay my own share, I can go whenever I want." Are they not concerned about costs going out of control? 3) How does this affect private insurance companies? Do we really believe that they're just going to drop prices for the hell of it? Aren't they going to become more specialized? Offer you a better package (who you can go see, what gets covered, the terms of your policy, etc) for a higher price, knowing that the government option is going to be cheap and force you to go to public (i.e. underfunded/mismanaged) hospitals? I just don't get the goal of this bill. Dems made it out like people die on the streets because they lack insurance. While that may happen, it's no more than the amount of people that die due to any other factor the government could control if it wanted to (dui's for example). The poor are already covered under other programs. I'm all for reforming the industry, I just dunno how adding this many people to the system is going to drive down costs. Makes no sense to me. And does it bother anyone else that the people voting on this bill could not possibly have read the whole thing? Why does the bill need to be 2k pages long? And lastly, watching the coverage last night, I couldn't help but laugh at the way they covered the protests. Yes, there were morons out there that yelled things they shouldn't have yelled. But how were they any different from liberal protests of the past that used violence, destroyed property, AND probably offended a lot of people at the same time. I assume it's because one is the progressive message and the other is not? Is that really valid?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) I don't know about anyone else's library, but ours has computers available to the general public. I would have to believe all public libraries are open to anyone who walks in and gets a library card.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 02:09 PM) These days, it's just silly to pretend that people can get by without a cell phone, or basic things like internet access and a computer. Even search for jobs requires them. You're kidding right? Might as well have the government provide people with cars too since it's such a pain to get around without one. If you want the conveniences of life, learn to work for it. If you're a bum, you don't deserve a cell phone. Go to a public library. Go pick up a newspaper and look in the classified ads.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 07:27 AM) That's pretty disgusting, though I tend to think the majority of people on food stamps are probably not like that guy. It might be the minority, but it's still proof that the system has a loophole that needs to be fixed. I too was a cashier back in high school that used to see this kind of stuff happen all the time. Cart 1 was everything covered under Link/Wic (baby formula, milk, diapers, etc etc), cart 2 was 200 dollars worth of normal groceries. I think the system should be changed so that you have to prove that you need assistance. I'm tired of seeing people in public housing who get the free house, the free food, the free healthcare, but have a cell phone. Screw that. When you're days from filing for bankruptcy, despite not having anything, THEN you can get help.

Since Illinois fans are always whining about officiating, I'm going to whine for another program. Robert Morris got SCREWED against Villanova.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 08:26 PM) I don't think Widmore vs. the Smoke has ever been talked about. It's always been Widmore vs. Ben. I think Sawyer is just trying to start something to get them distracted so he can steal the sub, like he said. Widmore has his own sonar fence on the sub so I'm assuming he and Smoke are not on good terms or he is just protecting himself in case. Yeah I gotta believe that Widmore and the MIB have some sort of history from his time on the island. I still think it's a little too convenient that Widmore spends the 2nd half of his life trying to get back to the island, and then suddenly he appears out of the blue in a sub. What about all that Eloise Hawking stuff when she said the island was hidden and there were specific points in time/space necessary to find it (her explanation to the 6 going back on the Ajira flight)? And where is Desmond? Has he been shown this season at all yet?

Just completed my bracket. I hate when I finish and realize I have very few upsets. I just don't see many this year.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Windows people tend to hate OSX until they use it and realize they can do everything Windows can do but more, since it's UNIX. The only advantage Windows has at this point is games...and that's it. And most of us, not be 14 anymore, don't really care about games...since most of the more popular games these days are coming out for the MAC anyway. Or, you can dual boot if you really care that much. But for general business use, I love my mac... As an avid, 28 year old gamer, I take offense to this.

QUOTE (SnB @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) really? I thought it was quite lame. The bar isn't set really high, but it's a Sawyer episode. To me he's one of the better characters. Unlike Kate or Sayid, for some reason I'm actually rooting for Sawyer. Maybe it's because he's got the balls to the wall, no fear, attitude with not-Locke, or maybe because he's the only one smart enough to manipulate the manipulators. Or maybe because, despite all the bad he's done, he's really gotten screwed over a lot in life. Yeah the sideways stuff was pretty meh (though more Miles, who again is one of the better secondary characters), but the on island stuff was interesting at least. Good not-Locke conversations, the Claire/Kate fight, with Sayid in the back looking as if he didn't care at all, was pretty cool. My fiance made a good point to me last night, since i've been b****ing about how slow/uninteresting this season has been. Basically her point was that the show has always been about the characters - their history, their personalities, their world views, what they do in certain situations, etc. All of the action or island history has been secondary. So as much as we all want to know the deal behind Jacob/not-Locke, or the history of the Dharma Initiative, or whatever, in reality those issues are secondary to the story arc of each character. That seems to be their main focus so far this season. That said, I can't wait to watch next week's episode about Richard.

easily one of the best episodes this season.

Let's hope the episodes start to pick up. This season is nearing season 3 bad.

QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) lol enjoy watching your team in the NIT blah blah blah MSU was missing Allen blah blah blah Purdue was missing Hummell Let's ignore the fact that Minnesota played without their starting point guard for Big 10 play and their two top recruits (FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON). Whatever. That means nothing. Ah, there's the cocky attitude that was missing for a decade in that 0-28 stretch. All i'm saying is that Minnesota gets in over Illinois because of the last two games it played, which aren't as impressive as the numbers would indicate. But whatever, you got in, we didn't, so good luck.

I'm willing to bet that they set a record this year for the team with the most "quality wins" to not make it. But I'm too lazy to look that up

what do people think of online play? i've played 3-4 games at his point. it's pretty choppy at times. in a close game, ill-timed lag will result in a routine out becoming an in the park home run. pitching can also be a pain if the lag hits during your delivery.

Illinois got screwed. Anyone who knows anything about college basketball knows that Illinois is a tourney caliber team. It's a joke that Minnesota got in over them, it's a joke that Utah St., UTEP, Florida, etc got in over them. I dunno how you can fault a team for losing games they're expected to lose. Wow, so Minnesota pulls out a W against Illinois, yet has less quality wins and more bad losses. So now we're deciding that one game means team A is better than team B? Guess Illinois should be in over the FOUR seed Wisconsin, cuz we won 2 out of 3 against them this year. And how does the committee not see that Illinois took OSU to double OT, yet Minnesota gets blasted by 20+? Isn't that some indication of which team is better? Minnesota's only good win in the big ten tournament was against an overrated MSU team without one of its players. Purdue is clearly an average team without Hummel (though it was still an impressive performance). That was just a joke of a decision. Illinois got left out because of money. Illinois, Uconn, UNC and others in the junior tournament in New York. That's the headline. The NCAA knows tickets will sell for the 65 team tourney, they're not so sure of the NIT. This is just to insure that they'll get paid by fanbases that travel well and have a decent TV audience. And the anti-Weber talk is pretty hilarious. Illinois fans are so incredibly delusional (including myself, but I think I have some pretty reasonable expectations). We're a great program, easily one of the top 15-20 in the country. But even in our "golden age" we mustered one f'n Final Four appearance, which was attributable to him. The fire Weber talk should have started 3 years ago when he couldn't pull in a class of three star guys. But they didn't, because he's clearly one of the best coaches in the country, continually taking average talent farther than anyone expected. Look how far SIU has fallen since he left. A once perennial mid-major program is no more. As I've said a thousand times, he relied on three freshman this year. Freshman are erratic and inconsistent. They had no veteran leadership. This was a growing season, much like 2004 when Dee/Deron/Luther/Powell/Augustine, etc sucked at times and were great at times. That's exactly what this team was. Morons in the fan base are going to expect a final four or bust year next year, which is ridiculous. That crap started 2-3 years ago when Richardson and Richmond gave their verbal commitments and everyone else followed. Next year SHOULD be a good year. I expect them to contend for a Big Ten title. I expect them to get a 5+ seed. I expect them to make it past the 1st round of the tournament. Anything after that is just gravy. Any true championship run is still 2-3 years away. EDIT: And I should add that I'm not shocked that Illinois didn't get in. It would be a tough sell for the NCAA to put them in when they had such a horrible RPI. To me though, that just proves that relying on the RPI is a joke. You play nobody, you beat nobody, but you can still have a 40 or below RPI. Something's not right there.