Health Care Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Kreugen

Kreugen

Vyemm Raider
6,599
793
Considering the out of pocket maximum for plans prior to Obamcare could have been "infinity", it was in fact a trick question.

Which makes his predictable bullshit response even funnier.
 
Vaclav

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
B_Mizzle_sl said:
There really are death panels built into the law. Wow guess those republicans weren't just fear mongering. I mean when socialist Time magazine employees are saying it...

Mark Halperin: Obamacare Contains "Death Panels" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...
All insurance has cutoff points where its considered impractical financially to continue care. Except the old ones were motivated by profit, the new ones being added don't. (Note: Old ones are still there though)

Welcome to the real world.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,198
23,369
Yeah, after 3 months they would stop paying for rehabilitative care. They'll only pay for hospice, because hospice's job is to kill you.
 
Grim1

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,903
6,889
Draegan_sl said:
First, it's impossible to know what the average rate of increase, or decrease or any crease in the financial side of things are going to be until 1-2 years from now because that's how you collect data. You can't decry something is a "fuckton" because you read a story on the internet that someone's premium went up 500% because they went from a low end plan to a high end plan.

Maths.
Click to expand...
Well even Obama's own experts concluded years ago that millions of Americans will have substantial increases in out of pocket expenses. ObamaCare is a wealth redistribution racket. That was by design.

The lies Obama and the Democrats told were just to get the bill passed. And they did it because they believed that the end goal of supplying healthcare to the poor was worth the tactic of lying to the American public about the true costs to those effected.

The Democrat's end goal was worthy, it is the means by which they tried to accomplish that goal that is in debate. The next few years will tell whether or not the American public as a whole will forgive the Democrats for their misstatements.
 
1

1987

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
3,574
8,160
Can I start a religion that doesnt believe in paying taxes?

Fucking religious people shitting all over everything while acting like they are the ones being mistreated.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
1987_sl said:
Can I start a religion that doesnt believe in paying taxes?

Fucking religious people shitting all over everything while acting like they are the ones being mistreated.
Click to expand...
Not quite a religion, but these idiots have been stirring up some trouble in Alberta lately:Freemen on the land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're basically a bunch of fucking children. This is from a legal judgement against one, and the judge went to town on him:

The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead's argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual-like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill-informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru's customer.
Click to expand...
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Draegan_sl said:
First, it's impossible to know what the average rate of increase, or decrease or any crease in the financial side of things are going to be until 1-2 years from now because that's how you collect data. You can't decry something is a "fuckton" because you read a story on the internet that someone's premium went up 500% because they went from a low end plan to a high end plan.

Maths.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to go onto the exchange and surf for plans, the majority of plans folks have been able to select have larger deductibles and co-pays than current plans.

Or you could read the

News.

* * *

Back to Maths - as has been discussed ad nauseam, Obamacare requires signing up young healthy people and charging them more so it can subsidize the health costs of middle aged sick people (baby boomers on up). So, necessarily, if you are a young healthy person/family you're paying a fuckton more than before.

However, if you are a middle-aged/older sick person suffering from diabetes, stage four cancer or WTF, you will be paying less or getting thrown into medicare.

Why this simple math (most people have to pay more) is impossible for the majority of people on this board to understand is almost unfathomable given that a lot of you have no problem min/maxing MMOs and other complex games.

I say "almost unfathomable" because of course the reason is too many of you have bought into Socialist ideals without figuring out that socialism requires lots and lots of "Other People's Money" to work. The majority of you who will be forced onto exchanges (and that's a lot more than currently when the various employer mandates that have been illegally delayed to improve Democrat chances in 2014 finally hit) and who are otherwise healthy will discover that, in the case of Obamacare, Other People's Money = Your Money.

As for those of you who work the system and end up on Medicare: good for you!
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Draegan_sl said:
Sufficient enough that the number one reason for bankruptcy in this country is healthcare costs?
Click to expand...
Bullshit statistic made up by national health care supporters at Harvard and then repeated to sell Obamacare. The actual number is more like 29% of all bankruptcies which is not the number one reason.

Here's the study you're citing. As you'll see in Table 2, they basically tried to come up with any reason to blame it on medical bills. Some of the questions don't even make sense. They have multiple questions that seem to refer to the same event.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

* * *

This is a classic Obamacare discussion.

1. Conservative makes a reasonable statement.
2. Liberal responds with histrionic statement usually based on either (a) lie or (b) falsified data
3. Conservative digs up proof that histrionic statement is either (a) lie or (b) falsified data.
4. Liberal will then call Conservative a liar and make YAHS (yet another histrionic statement) based on (a) lie or (b) falsified data.

Rinse, repeat.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
tad10_sl said:
Bullshit statistic made up by national health care supporters at Harvard and then repeated to sell Obamacare. The actual number is more like 29% of all bankruptcies which is not the number one reason.

Here's the study you're citing. As you'll see in Table 2, they basically tried to come up with any reason to blame it on medical bills. Some of the questions don't even make sense. They have multiple questions that seem to refer to the same event.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

* * *

This is a classic Obamacare discussion.

1. Conservative makes a reasonable statement.
2. Liberal responds with histrionic statement usually based on either (a) lie or (b) falsified data
3. Conservative digs up proof that histrionic statement is either (a) lie or (b) falsified data.
4. Liberal will then call Conservative a liar and make YAHS (yet another histrionic statement) based on (a) lie or (b) falsified data.

Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Everyone should read the link tad posted here and then laugh at how stupid he is.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
tad10_sl said:
Bullshit statistic made up by national health care supporters at Harvard and then repeated to sell Obamacare. The actual number is more like 29% of all bankruptcies which is not the number one reason.

Here's the study you're citing. As you'll see in Table 2, they basically tried to come up with any reason to blame it on medical bills. Some of the questions don't even make sense. They have multiple questions that seem to refer to the same event.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

* * *

This is a classic Obamacare discussion.

1. Conservative makes a reasonable statement.
2. Liberal responds with histrionic statement usually based on either (a) lie or (b) falsified data
3. Conservative digs up proof that histrionic statement is either (a) lie or (b) falsified data.
4. Liberal will then call Conservative a liar and make YAHS (yet another histrionic statement) based on (a) lie or (b) falsified data.

Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Dude, did you even read the methodology?

The questionnaires were the basis for our 2001-2007 time trend analysis. For this analysis, we replicated the most conservative definition employed in the 2001 study, which designated as "medically bankrupt" debtors citing illness or medical bills as a specific reason for bankruptcy; OR reporting uncovered medical bills $1000 in the past 2 years; OR who lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury; OR who mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Debtors who gave no answers regarding reasons for their bankruptcy were excluded from analyses. For all other analyses (ie, those not reporting time trends) we adopted a definition of medical bankruptcy that utilizes the more detailed 2007 data. We altered the 2001 criteria to include debtors who had been forced to quit work due to illness or injury. We also reconsidered the question of how large out-of-pocket medical expenses should be before those debts should be considered contributors to the fa- mily's bankruptcy. Although we needed to use the threshold of $1000 in out-of-pocket medical bills for consistency in the time trend analyses, we adopted a more conservative threshold-$5000 or 10% of household income-for all other analyses. Adopting these more conservative criteria reduced the estimate of the proportion of bankruptcies due to illness or medical bills by 7 percentage points
Click to expand...
The only mildly questionable part of the study was where they included anyone who has one thousand dollars worth of unpaid medical bills during bankruptcy. At which point they changed it to five thousand or 10% of the person's income. Are you saying if you owed 10% of your income during the time you declared bankruptcy that it would not be one of the largest factors? (I suppose you could find anamolous cases where someone owed 100k to a bookie and then got cancer, meh, but you'd really be stretching it man.)

Because that's the only argument you have.

The rest of the study, which is a majority of the people counted, just flat out said medical problems were the main cause of bankruptcy.

I'm not sure what you have a problem with. Do you find the five thousand dollar figure too small? If you do, do you even realize the current mean wage in the U.S.?

I'm by no means a fan of the ACA, but lets not be dumb here, Tad. Point to the clear flaws in the program if you want, but lets not make pretend the old system wasn't a horrible shit pile that was letting the rest of the world rape the U.S. for research, allowing the insurance companies to rape everyone to pay for free emergency care for the poor, suffocating our businesses while they were trying to compete globally and fucking the average person if anything more than routine goes wrong with him. The reason for those things, you might say, is debatable, the solution might be debatable (Social or more free market), but the fact they were there? It's reallynotdebatable.
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,744
30,379
tad10_sl said:
Bullshit statistic made up by national health care supporters at Harvard and then repeated to sell Obamacare. The actual number is more like 29% of all bankruptcies which is not the number one reason.

Here's the study you're citing. As you'll see in Table 2, they basically tried to come up with any reason to blame it on medical bills. Some of the questions don't even make sense. They have multiple questions that seem to refer to the same event.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

* * *

This is a classic Obamacare discussion.

1. Conservative makes a reasonable statement.
2. Liberal responds with histrionic statement usually based on either (a) lie or (b) falsified data
3. Conservative digs up proof that histrionic statement is either (a) lie or (b) falsified data.
4. Liberal will then call Conservative a liar and make YAHS (yet another histrionic statement) based on (a) lie or (b) falsified data.

Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Table 2
Medical Causes of Bankruptcy, 2007* Percent of All Bankruptcies

Debtor said medical bills were reason for
bankruptcy 29.0%

Medical bills $5000 or 10% of annual family income 34.7%

Mortgaged home to pay medical bills 5.7%

Medical bill problems (any of above 3) 57.1%

Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income due
to illness or became completely disabled 38.2%

Debtor or spouse lost 2 weeks of income to
care for ill family member 6.8%

Income loss due to illness (either of above 2) 40.3%

Debtor said medical problem of self or spouse
was reason for bankruptcy 32.1%

Debtor said medical problem of other family
member was reason for bankruptcy 10.8%

Any of above 62.1%



Either you didn't expect anyone to actually read your link or you are just flat out dumb. There is nothing difficult or made up in that table, it clearly shows that 62% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medically related. It was published in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in medicine. If it was unclear or ambiguous in any way, shape, or form, it wouldn't have made it to publication. You are an absolute idiot with zero credibility. Go back to your bunker.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Lithose_sl said:
Dude, did you even read the methodology?



The only mildly questionable part of the study was where they included anyone who has one thousand dollars worth of unpaid medical bills during bankruptcy. At which point they changed it to five thousand or 10% of the person's income. Are you saying if you owed 10% of your income during the time you declared bankruptcy that it would not be one of the largest factors? (I suppose you could find anamolous cases where someone owed 100k to a bookie and then got cancer, meh, but you'd really be stretching it man.)

Because that's the only argument you have.

The rest of the study, which is a majority of the people counted, just flat out said medical problems were the main cause of bankruptcy.

I'm not sure what you have a problem with. Do you find the five thousand dollar figure too small? If you do, do you even realize the current mean wage in the U.S.?

I'm by no means a fan of the ACA, but lets not be dumb here, Tad. Point to the clear flaws in the program if you want, but lets not make pretend the old system wasn't a horrible shit pile that was letting the rest of the world rape the U.S. for research, allowing the insurance companies to rape everyone to pay for free emergency care for the poor, suffocating our businesses while they were trying to compete globally and fucking the average person if anything more than routine goes wrong with him. The reason for those things, you might say, is debatable, the solution might be debatable (Social or more free market), but the fact they were there? It's reallynotdebatable.
Click to expand...
I dont think you understand why people like Tad disagree with this (and numerous others) study. Its not that Tad disagrees with the data because the collection of the data was flawed. Its not that Tad disagrees with the choice of the test statistics or the statistical distributions that the test statistics were drawn from. Its not that Tad disagrees with the inference drawn from the tests run using the aforementioned test statistics. Its just that the result of the study disagrees with his pre established world view and therefore it must be wrong. Any and all evidence that contradicts what Tad and the rest of the garglechimps believe MUST be wrong. Atleast it must be so in their simple little minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.