So, this is what passes for leadership, now?

[The Derp]

You completely missed the point and you did it deliberately. A catastrophic plan is all you need, eliminate insurance for doctor visits and bargain hunt.

Do you even know what a catastrophic plan is? How does that plan address chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma or mental health issues like bipolar, depression, schizophrenia. A catastrophic plan works if you are hit by a bus. But if you develop chronic heart disease, diabetes, or any other long-term permanent condition, you're saying that patients should pay cash? So what happens if they work for Walmart, get $10/hr, and end up getting heart disease or diabetes? Should they just die?

I just sent you tons of links to verify something you claim never happens

No, what you sent me was a bunch of bullshit and "tips", but nothing about the actual practice. And it doesn't address the chronic and pre-existing conditions that are the reason why health insurance is necessary. You didn't prove me wrong because I said I didn't believe your story.

he cost is the issue, single payer doesn't hold the costs down, it eliminates the free market that cash is currently driving down.

OMFG, you just said that private insurance administration is why your $4,800 surgery would have cost $20,000. Medicare spends under 1% of its budget on administration. With one single payer, wouldn't that mean there wouldn't be all this need for administration because the provider doesn't have to deal with dozens of insurance plans anymore? They just use Medicare, which they already use, and which has overhead of less than 1%, according to HHS' budget for 2017.

This is why I can't believe you when you make claims about yourself. The arguments you make don't make any sense, and contradict each other. Explain to me how Medicare causes 200% administrative fees. You can't because it doesn't. So this is a private insurance issue and even you are admitting it's private insurance administration that is causing these high costs. Now why on earth would there need to be such high administrative costs? Because of insurance company profits. There is no other reason.

 

[Papageorgio]

You completely missed the point and you did it deliberately. A catastrophic plan is all you need, eliminate insurance for doctor visits and bargain hunt.

Do you even know what a catastrophic plan is? How does that plan address chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma or mental health issues like bipolar, depression, schizophrenia. A catastrophic plan works if you are hit by a bus. But if you develop chronic heart disease, diabetes, or any other long-term permanent condition, you're saying that patients should pay cash? So what happens if they work for Walmart, get $10/hr, and end up getting heart disease or diabetes? Should they just die?

I just sent you tons of links to verify something you claim never happens

No, what you sent me was a bunch of bullshit and "tips", but nothing about the actual practice. And it doesn't address the chronic and pre-existing conditions that are the reason why health insurance is necessary. You didn't prove me wrong because I said I didn't believe your story.

he cost is the issue, single payer doesn't hold the costs down, it eliminates the free market that cash is currently driving down.

OMFG, you just said that private insurance administration is why your $4,800 surgery would have cost $20,000. Medicare spends under 1% of its budget on administration. With one single payer, wouldn't that mean there wouldn't be all this need for administration because the provider doesn't have to deal with dozens of insurance plans anymore? They just use Medicare, which they already use, and which has overhead of less than 1%, according to HHS' budget for 2017.

This is why I can't believe you when you make claims about yourself. The arguments you make don't make any sense, and contradict each other. Explain to me how Medicare causes 200% administrative fees. You can't because it doesn't. So this is a private insurance issue and even you are admitting it's private insurance administration that is causing these high costs. Now why on earth would there need to be such high administrative costs? Because of insurance company profits. There is no other reason.

Okay, take care. I am not going to convince you because it goes against your beliefs, you keep twisting what I say.
It has become a pointless argument and you can't even admit that you were wrong about doctors taking huge discounts instead of billing insurance. I gave you several links to show you it does happen and you can't even man up to that.

Unless you got something new, I see no point in continuing to try to convince you of something you won't believe no matter what I say or even links I provide.

 

[The Derp]

I didn't lie

As far as I'm concerned, any personal anecdote you make about yourself is a lie intended to bolster a weak argument. You do that specifically because you know what you're saying about yourself cannot be verified one way or another. So your hope is that what you claim about yourself is taken with the same level of credibility as facts we can all research and see.

you don't get insurance for 90 days after you start and it can be longer depending on the start date.

Depends on what company you work for, I suppose. So you claim you changed jobs in late 2013, and that change of jobs left you without insurance for 3 months until, presumably, when? I'm trying to get a sense for the timeline because open enrollment on the Obamacare exchanges begins in mid-October and runs through February. See, this is what I mean when I say you are bullshitting us. So much vaguer and a lack of specifics and detail. Very lazy.

I never blamed Obamacare, I said it was before Obamacare and I could no longer do what I did in the winter of 2013, however now with the research I did to prove you wrong, which did prove you wrong, I found out I need to tell doctors I have no insurance.

SMH.

I didn't need the exchanges, the exchanges didn't start until the fall of 2013, not the winter of 2013.

LOL! Notice how the goalposts moved in his argument. So you said the "winter of 2013", but you didn't specify if that was January or December. I think you did that deliberately so you could jury-rig your argument to fit within the parameters in order to avoid admitting you're full of shit. This is why using personal anecdotes is a dead-end.

I tried to go to links to prove what happened to me now happens all the time

How what happens to you? A coverage gap or paying with cash? And no, this doesn't happen all the time. Just because some right-wing operatives post shit on the internet doesn't mean it's conducive to what's actually happening. Right-wingers lie all the time, you even lied about what Nancy Pelosi said when she said "we have to pass it so you know what's in it, outside of the fog of controversy". You deliberately leave that part after the comma out. The reason is because you are inherently dishonest, and that's why I can't accept any of the shit you claim about yourself. And it's not just you, it's all Conservatives. So don't get the impression I am picking on you and singling you out. I always inevitably have to have these debates with right-wingers because they are just so damn insistent on substituting unverifiable personal anecdotes as facts. Gee, I wonder why.

you are making a choice not to believe me, and it's all good, If you don't believe, then read the links as to what is happening to others and they are through legit sources.

Hardly. Why the fuck should I believe you? Those sources of yours are bullshit, BTW. A couple of them are fucking blogs! BLOGS! Seriously, get the fuck off this thread. This is embarrassing.

 

[The Derp]

Okay, take care. I am not going to convince you because it goes against your beliefs, you keep twisting what I say.

This isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of truth. You are trying to convince me of your position by using your own personal experience as the basis of your argument. I challenge that basis, and you have not been able to address those challenges. Your story keeps changing, and I think that's a deliberate effort to obfuscate the truth, which is that you don't really know enough about this subject to even have an informed opinion, choosing instead to make up things that just so happen to validate what you say, while ignoring all the subsequent questions and doubt that arise from making those unsolicited personal claims.

Grow up and get the fuck over yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Listen, this is a reality, just because you are an uneducated lefty, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. How to Cut Your Health-Care Bill: Pay Cash.

Again, I don't know about you, but I don't have half a million dollars lying around in case I get lung cancer. Nor does this help anyone with a pre-existing condition. And the WSJ can go fuck itself.

 

[The Derp]

Eliminate the insurance altogether and pay cash.

So then what about people with pre-existing conditions, or those whose employers pay them so little, they can't afford to? What happens to those people? Have you even thought about that? No. Because you only think of yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Just get catastrophic insurance and pay cash for the rest. Keeps the government out of our health care and let's the free markets move.

MORON! Catastrophic insurance does not benefit anyone with a chronic, pre-existing condition.

Fuck, you're ignorant.

 

[The Derp]

So instead of contemplating people with pre-existing, chronic conditions in his "eliminate insurance altogether and pay cash" argument, Papadouche just pretends they don't exist. And that is the extent of the thought he has put into his position, which is really emblematic of a larger trend in Conservatism; to spout bullshit, obfuscate, and deceive to fucking save face on an anonymous message board.

I mean, fuck, these Conservatives are such egomaniacs.

 

[The Derp]

Papdouche assumes everyone is the same pinnacle of health as he is, that no one has chronic conditions, and that catastrophic plans benefit those suffering from chronic conditions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No one stopped any of them from acquiring their own insurance. It's about priorities and personal responsibility. Are the rest of us supposed to be their mother? I don't remember that part in the constitution.

The thing stopping them was the price tag. People couldn't afford it, hence 48 million uninsured prior to Obamacare, in the system into which you want to regress. Why? You don't even know. Well, I think you do know subconsciously...it's all about "winning" and Obamacare represents the pinacle of Conservative losing. The fact that you shitheads screamed for repeal for 7 fucking years, and couldn't even produce a viable plan in all that time lets everyone know how intellectually dishonest and devoid you are. Fuck off.

Then you fix the problem that makes it cost-prohibitive. Making it more expensive through added gov overhead does not fix the problem.

Actually that's not the problem. We actually had a method built into the ACA to help with the added expense to the insurance companies - they were rick corridors. Unfortunately, Marco Rubio recognised that this function was the most useful, and beneficial feature of the ACA. So, of course, one of the first things he did, was ram through a law that completely broke it. That is what led to most of what is currently wrong with the ACA. Fix that, and you would be surprised how much of a difference it would make.

Who is Rick Corridors?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most don't do that anymore, I paid him less money for not billing the insurance, I paid cash, he didn't have to bill an insurance company and you are right it doesn't happen anymore, it was a major city and it was a doctor who was a stand alone, not many of them anymore. Lots of doctors used to do that. It was three years ago, and I don't give a shit if you believe it or not, you are from third world hell hole.

Uh...I'm from Arizona. I wasn't aware that the US was a "third world hell hole"...

Earlier in post 15 of this thread, you said you were glad you didn't live here, so which is it?

I'm so glad I don't live there. The fact is "the way things were" wasn't "getting by".

So you lying now or then?

I meant I was glad I didn't live in your delusional world where 48 million uninsured Americans is "getting by", you fucktard. I was pointing out that you are delusional, and do not live in the same reality as most rational people.

Where did I say 48 million people without insurance is getting by?

Okay...for those in the cheap seats, you said we were getting by just fine before Obamacare. Now, before Obamacare we had 48 million people uninsured. Hence, you were saying that 48 million uninsured is "getting by just fine". For fuck's sake! Can you fucktards not even remember the things that you posted yourselves?!?!?

Who exactly were those 48 million uninsured?

Illegals?

Healthy youngsters who didn't want insurance because of the cost?

People who didn't know they could get Medicaid?

Start taking those out and the number gets very small.

 

[Czernobog]

Free market competition and anti-trust enforcement brings costs down without having to apply counterproductive, expensive gov control.

First of all, who do you think enforces anti-trust laws? THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID! Secondly, there is no free market for health care because insurance companies prevent you from choosing any doctor you want. In order to see a doctor you have to first buy insurance, and then you get to pick your doctor from those in your insurance network. So how is that free market? That's the system you want, by the way, which is not free market at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to pick your doctor first and have a single entity handle the reimbursement for everyone? Why does it matter to you that a private company does that administration? Don't understand what your obsession with that is. How does government reimbursing your doctor instead of Aetna doing it change anything about how your health care is delivered? It doesn't. It's just administration.

The gov's job is to protect the people, not provide for or direct.

"...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

It seems that, according to the Constitution it is the government's job to provide for...

 

[Czernobog]

No one stopped any of them from acquiring their own insurance. It's about priorities and personal responsibility. Are the rest of us supposed to be their mother? I don't remember that part in the constitution.

The thing stopping them was the price tag. People couldn't afford it, hence 48 million uninsured prior to Obamacare, in the system into which you want to regress. Why? You don't even know. Well, I think you do know subconsciously...it's all about "winning" and Obamacare represents the pinacle of Conservative losing. The fact that you shitheads screamed for repeal for 7 fucking years, and couldn't even produce a viable plan in all that time lets everyone know how intellectually dishonest and devoid you are. Fuck off.

Then you fix the problem that makes it cost-prohibitive. Making it more expensive through added gov overhead does not fix the problem.

Actually that's not the problem. We actually had a method built into the ACA to help with the added expense to the insurance companies - they were rick corridors. Unfortunately, Marco Rubio recognised that this function was the most useful, and beneficial feature of the ACA. So, of course, one of the first things he did, was ram through a law that completely broke it. That is what led to most of what is currently wrong with the ACA. Fix that, and you would be surprised how much of a difference it would make.

You're conditioned. You seem to believe gov involvement is inevitable. The gov needs to be removed from health insurance entirely.

You do know that history demonstrates that every time we leave an industry completely unregulated, it, invariably, ends up not ending well for the common people, right? Here's the thing. History demonstrates you cannot have a government-free economy. It is simply not possible. Either the government regulates the economy such that it assists, and strengthens common people, or industrialists, and business owners manipulate the government in order to assist them in making their profits on the backs of consumers, and employees.

To suggest that government should "stay out of the insurance industry" is just unrealistic. The government is going to be involved; the only question is whether it will be there to protect people, or corporations. I would prefer the former.

 

[The Derp]

Who exactly were those 48 million uninsured?
Illegals?
Healthy youngsters who didn't want insurance because of the cost?
People who didn't know they could get Medicaid?
Start taking those out and the number gets very small.

Doesn't include illegal immigrants, and yes it would include the other two groups you mentioned.

 

[Czernobog]

That's rich, coming from you...

Dishonest coming from you.

Says the guy who just got caught calling someone a liar, for posting a true statement...well...an honest opinion, anyway. I mean I have no proof that you are delusional. After all, you might not actually believe the bullshit you're spewing. In which case you wouldn't be delusional, you'd just be a liar.

You didn't post a true statement, you posted a misleading statement based off of some stupid random thought of your. I expect it from you.

So, you didn't say that we were getting by just fine before Obamacare? Because I'll be happy to like to the post where you did.

So you didn't say "I'm glad it don't live there"?

How was anyone to know the context you dishonest nutjob? And when I asked for clarification, you didn't clarify yourself again! You are a dumb dishonest person. Now, do you have anything new to really add?

By employing reading comprehension, which you apparently are incapable of. My comment was made after pointing out that you live in a delusional world, based on your claim that a period of time when 48 million Americans were uninsured was getting by just fine.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of understanding the words that you read.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Free market competition and anti-trust enforcement brings costs down without having to apply counterproductive, expensive gov control.

First of all, who do you think enforces anti-trust laws? THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID! Secondly, there is no free market for health care because insurance companies prevent you from choosing any doctor you want. In order to see a doctor you have to first buy insurance, and then you get to pick your doctor from those in your insurance network. So how is that free market? That's the system you want, by the way, which is not free market at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to pick your doctor first and have a single entity handle the reimbursement for everyone? Why does it matter to you that a private company does that administration? Don't understand what your obsession with that is. How does government reimbursing your doctor instead of Aetna doing it change anything about how your health care is delivered? It doesn't. It's just administration.

The gov's job is to protect the people, not provide for or direct.

"...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

It seems that, according to the Constitution it is the government's job to provide for...

There! I fixed your error. Insurance is not defense.

 

[The Derp]

There! I fixed your error. Insurance is not defense.

So health insurance isn't a defense against illnesses, diseases, and accidents? What about "general welfare", wouldn't it fall into that.

BTW - you fucking assholes took Medicare to court in the 1960's, claiming it was unconstitutional. SCOTUS smacked that down. Hence, why we have Medicare today. Never mind the fact that all the Conservative predictions made of Medicare in the 60's all turned out to be wrong. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right today?

 

[Papageorgio]

Okay, take care. I am not going to convince you because it goes against your beliefs, you keep twisting what I say.

This isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of truth. You are trying to convince me of your position by using your own personal experience as the basis of your argument. I challenge that basis, and you have not been able to address those challenges. Your story keeps changing, and I think that's a deliberate effort to obfuscate the truth, which is that you don't really know enough about this subject to even have an informed opinion, choosing instead to make up things that just so happen to validate what you say, while ignoring all the subsequent questions and doubt that arise from making those unsolicited personal claims.

Grow up and get the fuck over yourself.

It is your belief, you have an opinion based on your knowledge, which is proven to pretty fucking bad, hell you don't even know you can pay cash to a doctor. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I shared an experience. You are an asshole.

 

[Papageorgio]

Papdouche assumes everyone is the same pinnacle of health as he is, that no one has chronic conditions, and that catastrophic plans benefit those suffering from chronic conditions.

Insult after insult, you are a true intolerant asshole lefty. Fuck off you little bitch! I have chronic kidney stones for over 30 years so piss off!

 

[The Derp]

It is your belief

I'm going to stop you right there. This isn't a question of beliefs, it is a question of truth. The "truth" in your argument is something that cannot be validated on an anonymous message board. I think you know that, and are pretending as if it is and can be. Secondly, all follow-up questions on what you're saying go unanswered. Such as the question of how you expect people with chronic conditions to afford health care in catastrophic plans, particularly if they are low-wage workers like those who work at Walmart or McDonald's. You've bounced around two competing positions; that there shouldn't be any insurance at all and everyone should pay with cash, or that there should only be catastrophic plans and everything else is paid with cash. But in both scenarios, you fail to address the elephant in the room; what about the hundreds of millions of people in this country with pre-existing and/or chronic conditions? You've remained entirely silent on those people, assuming that their chronic conditions can be paid out of pocket, which is fucking stupid.

you have an opinion based on your knowledge

It isn't my opinion that catastrophic plans don't help those with pre-existing conditions, it's fact. So once again, we have an instance of a Conservative (you) being unable to distinguish between a fact and an opinion. That's because you don't even know what you think, which is why your posts contradict each other, have holes bigger than the Grand Canyon, and are completely unverifiable.

which is proven to pretty fucking bad, hell you don't even know you can pay cash to a doctor. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I shared an experience. You are an asshole.

So, you are being stupid on purpose because that's just who you are as a person. So again, how would someone afford to pay for a chronic condition with cash, knowing how expensive treating chronic illnesses are? You haven't even done the hard work of figuring that out. Which is why I call you lazy, uninformed, stupid, etc.