Meanwhile, at the Capital...

PHeller wrote: ...How do we know, and how do we compare our health care costs against the average? If our health care is too expensive, how can it be made cheaper without sacrificing the level of care and quality? Lastly, what do we do about people who no matter how cheap health care is made, they still won't be able to pay their health care bills? Do we spend tax payer dollars putting them in jail?

You mean the world? I think it is pretty well known they are a lot higher. I am sure a quick search would tell you some numbers.

Cheaper, good question? I suspect there are a lot of ways. I also suspect there are a lot of reason / people that will make any of those changes difficult. My general thought is just make is simpler, even with waste, it will probably be a lot cheaper.

There is no such thing as debtors prisons anymore. Anything that goes unpaid by those that cannot pay essentially has to be absorbed by the state / people.

Cone_Junky wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: lolerskates, you sound silly. troll bait: avoided. Heres some crayons and coloring book, have fun, but stay quiet (*pats head*) ...the grown ups are talking for the rest of the adults in the room, the big boys and girls table is over here. Triage the symptoms to stabilize the situation, then correct the problems. All ACA does is put the dirty laundry behind a closet door. It does nothing to clean up the mess except make it look prettier. The problem is that health care is artificially expensive. Lower the costs, make it affordable for everyone. Subsidizing it does nothing...NOTHING to correct the problem. I dont doubt that there are politicians interested in helping others. But helping some at the expense of others isnt helping anyone.

"Helping" is always at the expense of others. Whether it's someone else donating money or giving their personal time for the benefit of others. When a church gives away free meals or shelters for the needy, where does that money/time come from? What about the food bank? Businesses giving away food (at their expense) and volunteers (at their expense) distributing this food. Do we know as a society that it betters our community? Of course. Why is this concept lost on you? Maybe it's the people you surround yourself with. Personally I like to be around others that appreciate humanity. Obviously not your cup of tea. So where is the legislation to correct all these obvious problems with the ACA? Repealing it or delaying it does nothing to repair or fix anything. Throwing a tantrum because they lost on all the proper ways to change it is childish. So maybe the R's should go back to their crayons and rounded off scissors so they stop hurting themselves and others.

there is a clear difference between voluntary donation and uncle sam shaking you by your ankles to get the loose change out.

So I will ask this plainly: What makes legislated subsidies like the ACA a better option than correcting the problem of overwhelming health care costs through federal regulation?

Boom:

PHeller wrote: If our health care is too expensive, how can it be made cheaper without sacrificing the level of care and quality?

4cylndrfury wrote: If the costs for medical care were driven sky high because medical providers had to carry stupid high insurance against malpractice suits, and they needed to carry this because it had become easy to bring a case against a provider for almost nothing, then why didnt uncle sam go after the lawyers/legal system that makes this possible? Dropping the cost of care makes it easy(er) to pay for. More bills paid means more taxes collected. Everybody wins. If the cost of insurance is high because the system limited who you could purchase coverage from by forming a sort of localized monopoly, or because the insurance providers were gouging their customers by charging ludicrous amounts of money for coverage (or both), and were restricting a "free market" system for purchasing coverage, why didnt uncle sam go after the state line restrictions for purchasing insurance or regulate the providers so they cannot gouge their customers...or both? It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong? kick em all out.

4cylndrfury wrote: It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong, because it is not a free market. It is your LIFE on the line. There is no cost vs demand, the demand is there and will be until the person gives up the ghost.

It's like mandatory vehicle insurance. Except in this case, its your life on the line if you aren't covered.

Josh wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Josh wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Seriously, the personal attacks are getting old.

Then berkeleying stop making them.

Where? Please.... I'd like to know.

Where you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll and call for them to be banned. This is of course a long established tactic of yours. I am going to give you a little credit and assume you know exactly what you're doing. If on the other hand you are saying that you genuinely don't understand what's wrong with that sort of behavior, disregard this as it's difficult to reason with someone who has abandoned it. I would suggest that if you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you can't abide any expression of an opinion alternative to your own, then maybe it might be time to reexamine those beliefs.

I called him a troll because he's acting like a troll. He's not offering a differing point of view, he's calling people idiots/heartless/etc. That's not conducting a discussion, that's being a troll. Don't like it don't do it.

If you will look back, it is after several very nasty posts by the same person that I mention the fact he needs to chill, and only gets worse. If that is a personal attack by me, you should probably look up what a personal attack IS.

HiTempguy wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong, because it is not a free market. It is your LIFE on the line. There is no cost vs demand, the demand is there and will be until the person gives up the ghost. It's like mandatory vehicle insurance. Except in this case, its your life on the line if you aren't covered.

no. Most people use insurance to get their teeth cleaned and their blood sugars checked twice a year. Some use it to keep their health in check. A few use it OCCASIONALLY to keep themselves alive in a serious medical emergency.

The actual demand is not "health units", its coverage policies - copays and cost/emergency room visit etc. Im buying coverage, not actual health each week when my insurance premium is deducted from my check.

If I could buy coverage from company A who offers me similar terms as Company B and Company C, but A is cheaper, Im of course going to go with A. The problem is I am only allowed to choose from B or C because A is outside of my state. If B and C have some competition, their likely going to lower their costs, at the expense of their profits to compete. The system now is designed to protect the Ins companies profits, not my health.

4cylndrfury wrote: ....So I will ask this plainly: What makes legislated subsidies like the ACA a better option than correcting the problem of overwhelming health care costs through federal regulation?

First of all, good question.

I would say, that the subsidies are essentially "simpler" to deal with.

It's not entirely clear if there is truly an answer to the costs that is both effective and practical (politically).

aircooled wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: ....So I will ask this plainly: What makes legislated subsidies like the ACA a better option than correcting the problem of overwhelming health care costs through federal regulation?

First of all, good question. I would say, that the subsidies are essentially "simpler" to deal with. It's not entirely clear if there is truly an answer to the costs that is both effective and practical (politically).

BOOM!!! Thank you...therein lies my point. There are solutions available that would effectively reduce the COST of health care. But no one in Washington is interested in them. Politicians politicize everything. We elected our legislators to represent OUR interests, not theirs. The means in which they are conducting their business furthers no ones interests but their own. I understand that you can make some of the people happy all of the time, and all of the people happy some of the time, but seems like the politicians today seem interested in" berk them, I want to be happy all of the time...AT ALL COSTS". Its ludicrous.

Because the condescension is totally one-sided.

Again, if they agree with you, it's just calling out the trolls. If I reply...I must be banned.

4cyl- It's the only thing that has been DONE. There are no other options for the American people. Please demand that (your?) GOP party do SOMETHING. ANYTHING! Except in MA, but an R put that one up, so it's legit.

I'm really surprised you even mentioned the word "Regulation". That has been made an evil idea by the the R's and especially the Tea Party. Of course, that's what the ACA is, regulation. Regulating the profits of the medical industry, regulating what benefits need to be part of the insurance, regulating what costs the consumer must pay, regulating the pre-existing conditions,etc.

What exactly do you want from the medical industry/insurance? So far both sides love all the benefits of the ACA, but the other side hates the necessary taxes and regulations that make the benefits possible.

The D's put up their idea, ran it through the House, through the Senate, even made a detour through the Supreme Court. The American people even had a choice to throw the bum out last election, but they didn't. So a whole lot of chances to fix this horrible legislation, but here we are pinning it to a non related bill. All the while holding the American people hostage while the R's hold their breath waiting for mommy to just give in and let them have their cookie.

Our economy has enough trouble as is, why sink it further?

aircooled wrote: There is no such thing as debtors prisons anymore. Anything that goes unpaid by those that cannot pay essentially has to be absorbed by the state / people.

This is really the heart of the issue, that for all the demonization of the poor, as long as we adhere to modern standards of human rights, blaming them for economic problems is pure scapegoating. Anyone who refuses to understand this (or understands, but keeps doing it) is never going to make anything better. You can blame the poor to the ends of the earth for the unpaid debts that they incur, but EVEN IF YOU'RE 100% CORRECT and every economic problem in this country is caused by the evil, mooching, lazy, dirty poor, and even if they ABSOLUTELY DESERVE your wrath (Which I happen to disagree with, but let's grant this extreme position), then they can never be truly held accountable for their debts until we trade the bankruptcy courts in for state sanctioned indentured servitude. Necessary services (those that we can't reasonably refuse to people for humane reasons) will in the end always be a collective responsibilty in a society with modern standards of rights.

So how about just bringing the debate into the real world and focusing on how we can make our collective services work better and more equitably for the people who use them, instead of holding hostage the services that a massive proportion of productive members of society depend on, in a horribly misguided attempt to "punish" the very few people who don't "deserve" them. It's pathetic.

Cone_Junky wrote: I know this is a crazy concept, but bear with me here- There are people (even politicians...gasp!) that actually care about the well being of fellow humans. They even think that helping others will improve society as a whole. I know this is completely outside the realm of Conservatives, especially because they have been told (repeatedly) otherwise from the propaganda machines. Sometimes social welfare is NOT a tit for them to suckle all their life. There are good people despite the neighborhoods they were born in that will take advantage of the hands up approach and make a better life for themselves and those that surround them. Maybe even one day these Conservatives will follow that magical book that is used to make their laws and actually learn from Jebus's teachings. Not likely, but maybe.

There is truth to this. The fact that it's making some many people mad indicates it has some validity.

If Republicans really care about people over profits why aren't they working towards making healthcare more accessible instead of less?

If Christianity really is the guiding factor behind Conservative action why aren't they asking themselves "Would Jesus turn away people who need healthcare?"

More on the Christianity side, is it very Christian to blame the poor for the environment they find themselves in which seems to be the current idea within the Conservative, what used to be called the Religious Right, movement.

Don't shout the man down. Answer him. He has a good point.

ronholm wrote: The difference is conservatives DO give more of their own money and their own time in very large percentages greater than those who would call them uncaring or greedy And This as those liberals seek to take someone else's money for their own use.

This is your opinion and unproven until you post unbiased data proving your point. Biased websites don't count so avoid Fox news or Huffington Post to back your argument.

Cone_Junky wrote: What exactly do you want from the medical industry/insurance? So far both sides love all the benefits of the ACA, but the other side hates the necessary taxes and regulations that make the benefits possible.

Im pretty sure I made it relatively clear what I thought should be done. I agree with you - ACA is all thats been done. But it wasnt done for you or me, or even the starving babies. ACA was done to further the hold the politicians have on their voters.

In the time it took to write, edit, vote on, and legalize the ACA, there couldve been several other smaller measures taken to create a free market for health care, or reform malpractice law, or both. Both of which wouldve helped create a more equitable marketplace for lower income citizens to secure health care coverage should they seek it.

The current legislation GUARANTEES it...from my tax dollars, without my consent. It also changes the landscape in which I purchase my own coverage, in a way Im not very happy about. I had no trouble getting coverage, or getting a job by which to afford it. I have not many more opportunities than Joe Ghetto in life, I just chose to utilize them to my benefit, rather than wait for them to be handed to me at the beginning of each month.

All the "R's fault". No one else is to blame. At all. Nope. No one. None. Nada.

I think the adherence to this philosphy is mostly what the problem in DC is. It's ALWAYS "their" fault.

I really really really wish we had a 3rd option of people that didn't suck as bad.

Just thought I'd do a quick scoreboard of posts in this thread:

aircooled - post count: 29

Bobzilla - post count: 27

4cylndrfury - post count: 18

93EXCivic - post count: 17

yamaha - post count: 16

Cone_Junky - post count: 14

Flight Service - post count: 12

Giant Purple Snorklewacker - post count: 12

Fueled by Caffeine - post count: 11

oldsaw - post count: 11

slefain - post count: 11

fritzsch - post count: 8

Ian F - post count: 8

Xceler8x - post count: 8

mtn - post count: 6

914Driver - post count: 5

DukeOfUndersteer - post count: 5

GameboyRMH - post count: 5

N Sperlo - post count: 5

alfadriver - post count: 4

AngryCorvair - post count: 4

PHeller - post count: 4

aircooled - post count: 3

Dr. Hess - post count: 3

HiTempguy - post count: 3

I am the Yeti. - post count: 3

Javelin - post count: 3

JoeyM - post count: 3

JtspellS - post count: 3

RossD - post count: 3

The_Jed - post count: 3

tuna55 - post count: 3

wbjones - post count: 3

clownkiller - post count: 2

cwh - post count: 2

Donebrokeit - post count: 2

Gearheadotaku - post count: 2

Joe Gearin - post count: 2

Josh - post count: 2

Mr_Estrotica - post count: 2

RX Reven' - post count: 2

Sine_Qua_Non - post count: 2

Swank Force One - post count: 2

Toyman01 - post count: 2

Xceler8x - post count: 2

yamaha - post count: 2

Appleseed - post count: 1

Ashyukun - post count: 1

aussiesmg - post count: 1

bastomatic - post count: 1

Beer Baron - post count: 1

Billy_Bottle_Caps - post count: 1

BoxheadTim - post count: 1

bravenrace - post count: 1

Catatafish - post count: 1

chrispy - post count: 1

Datsun1500 - post count: 1

dean1484 - post count: 1

DoctorBlade - post count: 1

DustoffDave - post count: 1

Fletch1 - post count: 1

HappyAndy - post count: 1

iceracer - post count: 1

Johnboyjjb - post count: 1

Josh SuperDork - post count: 1

mazdeuce - post count: 1

Mitchell - post count: 1

moparman76_69 - post count: 1

nocones - post count: 1

NOHOME - post count: 1

nothing - post count: 1

oldeskewltoy - post count: 1

Reader - post count: 1

ronholm - post count: 1

ronholm - post count: 1

rotard - post count: 1

RX Reven' - post count: 1

slantvaliant - post count: 1

Strizzo - post count: 1

Wow. Lotta effort into that post above.

Bobzilla wrote: All the "R's fault". No one else is to blame. At all. Nope. No one. None. Nada. I think the adherence to this philosphy is mostly what the problem in DC is. It's ALWAYS "their" fault. I really really really wish we had a 3rd option of people that didn't suck as bad.

Right now, this Gov't shutdown is exactly the R's fault. Even the conservative pundits realize this. They're gambling on it benefiting them in the next election. It's like this "pussification of america/children" discussion that comes up here often. Should the D's just give in to the extortion to end this? What will they ask (excuse me, demand) next when they realize this method works? Do the R's get a trophy just for participating so they feel better?

The D's get plenty of things wrong and screw up a lot of E36 M3 too. But this discussion is specifically on this current shutdown. Completely designed and executed by the R's.

Pseudonym wrote: Wow. Lotta effort into that post above.

Nah, just some text sorting and CountIf functions in Excel. The hard part is collecting the text. Bulk content handling is my specialty and Excel is the master tool for the job.

In reply to slefain:

you listed me twice. Therefore, my opinion is twice as important.

4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to slefain: you listed me twice. Therefore, my opinion is twice as important.

Hehe, there I fixed your count. If i was a real programmer I could probably do a live scoreboard based on polling the thread text on a timed basis.

In reply to slefain:

Yes, but how many of those 12 I posted made a lick of sense. I put to you sir, that I'm still at zero. Maybe 1 when weighted for content.

slefain wrote: Just thought I'd do a quick scoreboard of posts in this thread: aircooled - post count: 29

Win!

You all must now agree with me... quantity over quality baby!!

Hey, I would like to think there have been some good information / questions brought up here (and some not so good of course). That is why I participate, to learn.

There is soooo much semi and miss-information out there and so many unknowns in the "reality" of the situation there is unlikely to be a true answer, but knowing the whole question is always useful.

Completely the R's fault. No one else involved. Nope, none at all.

Again, it's this bullE36 M3 that has gotten tiring for the rest of us. They're both playing this game for their OWN benefit, and to hell with the country. The D's know that shutting down all the NP's will inconvienence the public to the point of keeping it on the news. As long as that happens they have a foothold. The instant they give, the American public goes back to no longer giving a crap. They know it and are holding the NP's hostage for their gain. Those evil R's haev proposed smaller portions of budgets to get things moving but that evil D HR won't let that go to a vote.

So once again, they BOTH are holding the country "hostage" to benefit themselves and could give 2 E36 M3s about the country.

The longer we point fingers and cry "FOUL!" instead of doing somethign to fix the problems, the longer this E36 M3 goes on. The sooner we realize we have let ourselves become hijacked by a bunch of power hungry egotists the sooner we can start correcting the issue.

And I didnt even get listed. I demand a recount! I am from florida:-p

4cylndrfury wrote: Im pretty sure I made it relatively clear what I thought should be done. I agree with you - ACA is all thats been done. But it wasnt done for you or me, or even the starving babies. ACA was done to further the hold the politicians have on their voters.

This is a very cynical view. It may be possible that the ACA was put in place because:

1. People were being kicked off of their insurance when they most needed it.
2. People were being denied care they needed for ridiculous reasons to ensure ins companies made their profit targets.
3. Ins companies were paying their CEO's vast amounts of money that should've gone to care for their customers who were paying them for insurance.
4. Etc, etc.

Saying it was "All for the votez!" leaves out a lot of real reasons to reform healthcare. This post doesn't even touch on the economic reasons facing the nation as healthcare costs rise and quality of care drops.

4cylndrfury wrote: In the time it took to write, edit, vote on, and legalize the ACA, there couldve been several other smaller measures taken to create a free market for health care, or reform malpractice law, or both. Both of which wouldve helped create a more equitable marketplace for lower income citizens to secure health care coverage should they seek it.

A comprehensive bill was needed to address all the various loopholes and profit making schemes that currently existed. The proper way to handle this would've been by letting the nation as a whole negotiate care but that idea was nixed by more conservative elements of our government who were afraid "that be socialism!". This is called The Single Payer option. The current administration then implemented the Republican option created in Mass. by Romney utilizing public health exchanges to allow insurance companies to compete in the open for healthcare dollars. This is a free market in that people are able to take advantage of competition between insurance companies to lower costs. These healthcare plans came in under the price targets projected. This subsequently passed the Congress, the Senate, the guy who implemented it was re-elected to a second term, and it survived a Supreme Court challenge.

4cylndrfury wrote: The current legislation GUARANTEES it...from my tax dollars, without my consent. It also changes the landscape in which I purchase my own coverage, in a way Im not very happy about. I had no trouble getting coverage, or getting a job by which to afford it. I have not many more opportunities than Joe Ghetto in life, I just chose to utilize them to my benefit, rather than wait for them to be handed to me at the beginning of each month.

You state you didn't have trouble getting coverage for yourself so what's the problem? Why hassle you since you got yours? Is this what you you're trying to say? If not, please help me to understand.

Bobzilla wrote: I really really really wish we had a 3rd option of people that didn't suck as bad.

I completely agree with you here. I'd love to vote for a party that didn't trample my civil rights or advocate for a police state. Neither R's or D's are good at this currently.