October 6, 2013

"If the federal government has the power to shut down roadways and parks and your disability check, why would you give them power over your health care?"

Asked Jane.

67 comments:

Deirdre Mundy said...

Because you're one of the GOOD people who does what your rulers tell you. As long as you keep working your hardest, they won't turn against you. You just have to work harder and they'll appreciate you and take care of you.

If the government uses its powers to harm, it will only use them against BAD people. You know, Saboteurs. The sort of people who run off in the night and only return to destroy windmills.

Some people read Orwell as a Utopia instead of a dystopia--- because they assume they'll be pigs.

pm317 said...

This comment should go viral. Use the damn Tweeter thingy, OK?

Larry J said...

Yes, you can expect that during the a budget showdown in the near future, the ObamaCare folks will make what the NPS is doing look like nothing.

Carnifex said...

From the people that brought you then Ben Ghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, etc. Why wouldn't you trust these people to do the right thing?

My only conclusion is that you would have to be seriously deranged to vote for this crap. And so that's how I treat all Liberals. As lunatics.

bbkingfish said...

"Jane" either is a brilliant parodist, or a drooling simpleton. I can't tell which from this quote.

Michael K said...

The NHS should be a warning not a model.

I wonder if that will occur to many before this is over.

cubanbob said...

"Jane" either is a brilliant parodist, or a drooling simpleton. I can't tell which from this quote."

Neither. Just simply stating the obvious. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

EDH said...

Note, the government has the power to deny you even that which it doesn't own or provide.

pm317 said...

Byron York is tweeting a similar question
"Does the punishing way the Obama administration has run aspects of the shutdown reveal anything about how it will run national health care?"

Paddy O said...

Hey! I asked that a few days ago... and said it's the question that should be trumpeted.

You want to turn this against Democrats? Every shut down they do becomes a testimony to what can happen with health care. The more public this stuff is the more it can be used against them.

Maybe Republicans know this and are gathering examples for Nov 2014.

somefeller said...

You tell 'em, Jane. Next thing you know, the damn government will try to get its hands on Medicare.

Plus, did you know that government law enforcement officials can use deadly force in certain circumstances? It's like 1984, people!

Paco Wové said...

"Game theory says that skillful negotiators should offer their opponents a relatively painless way to back down. Obama should look for a way to help moderate Republicans save face."

Broomhandle said...

Republicans should look for a way to help a weak and petulant Obama save face. Obama's been spanked so many times since being re-elected that there's simply no way he can cave on this.

Broomhandle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

why would you give them power over your health care?

I didn't. They have lots of men with guns, so they took power over my health care.

pm317 said...

Game theory is a bit too much for the petty and the irrational Obama.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Somefeller, that reminds me of all those elderly Tea Partiers with signs reading "Take your government hands off my Medicare!". :)

So, next they can paint signs saying "Take your government hands off my private health insurance exchanges!" or "Don't touch my ObamaCare!"

somefeller said...

So, next they can paint signs saying "Take your government hands off my private health insurance exchanges!" or "Don't touch my ObamaCare!"

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the GOP convention in 2040 when they have commentators saying that if Barack Obama was around today, he'd be a Republican. Sort of like how JFK is often cited now by many Republicans as a tax-cutting proto-Reaganite and the Strange New Respect Bill Clinton has in some GOP quarters (though that will evaporate if and when Hillary announces for 2016).

cubanbob said...

somefeller said...
You tell 'em, Jane. Next thing you know, the damn government will try to get its hands on Medicare.

Plus, did you know that government law enforcement officials can use deadly force in certain circumstances? It's like 1984, people!

10/6/13, 11:36 AM

Considering that ZeroCare is being funded in part by taking $500bn from Medicare you would be right about the government getting it's hands on Medicare.
Better to privatize Social Security and Medicare for those under thirty five. At least they won't have to come with cap in hand when they get old.

cubanbob said...

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the GOP convention in 2040 when they have commentators saying that if Barack Obama was around today, he'd be a Republican. Sort of like how JFK is often cited now by many Republicans as a tax-cutting proto-Reaganite and the Strange New Respect Bill Clinton has in some GOP quarters (though that will evaporate if and when Hillary announces for 2016)."

Yes indeed. In 2040 Ole Barry will be remembered as Barack Hoover Obama.

Illuninati said...

Inga said
"..that reminds me of all those elderly Tea Partiers with signs reading "Take your government hands off my Medicare!". :)

So, next they can paint signs saying "Take your government hands off my private health insurance exchanges!" or "Don't touch my ObamaCare!"

Well put Inga. You are right. It is inevitable that the same government which promised the seniors that their social security was in a "lock box" before they stole much of the money from the "lock box" will default on their promises made through Obamacare.

samefeller said:

"Yeah, I'm looking forward to the GOP convention in 2040 when they have commentators saying that if Barack Obama was around today, he'd be a Republican."

Heaven help us if this nation drifts so far to the left towards Marxism that Obama seems conservative by comparison!

Birkel said...

Because: Racist!

Rusty said...

somefeller said...
You tell 'em, Jane. Next thing you know, the damn government will try to get its hands on Medicare.

Plus, did you know that government law enforcement officials can use deadly force in certain circumstances? It's like 1984, people!

Considering how well government largess has managed the healthcare of our native american citizens you might want to rethink your snark.

Jerry Pack said...

Why? Because that is the only way I can afford any kind of health care AT ALL.

Some people really just have no freaking clue what people are going through.







colleen cafferty said...

Last Night's SNL Parody of Boehner's shutdown to the tune of Miley's "We Can['t] Stop":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMc0IuG-Ko


Just about.

AF said...

Excellent. This is up there with "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

EDH said...

Inga said...
Somefeller, that reminds me of all those elderly Tea Partiers with signs reading "Take your government hands off my Medicare!". :)

Actually, it's rather routine for people to sue the government for benefits under US law.

For example:

Lesbian veteran sues government for benefits

AF said...

I see I wasn't the first to make that observation about hands off Medicare. But actually, this is even more brilliant. And I couldn't agree more. Down with the government's despotic power to shut down government functions when Congress doesn't pass a budget! Keep 'em open!

Birkel said...

AF,
Given that it costs more money to close the parks, rather than post signs that say "Enter at own Risk" your comment could not make less sense.

Further, since the ACA specifically reduced Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions your other snark is illogical.

Finally, the point is that government may -- when it has leverage over your healthcare payments -- refuse to fund things you NEED. Those things won't be open air parks. They won't be monuments. They'll be things you need to avoid death and you will have less chance of recourse than the WWII veterans trying to see a memorial.

Birkel said...

Jerry Pack,

I'm truly sorry you have difficulty with medical care.

Please explain how you believe a law that provided zero additional doctors, nurses, midwives, shamans or any other providers of medical care will somehow make it possible for you -- and all like you -- to receive health 'care'.

I know you might have insurance. But from where will this care come? And how will it be financed in the future given the current fiscal condition of the United States in light of the CBOs projections?

hahahaha

I ask challenging questions of concern trolls because "I care".

Deirdre Mundy said...

Jerry: Why? Because that is the only way I can afford any kind of health care AT ALL.

***
Really? You can't afford a $50 urgent care visit for your strep throat? Or a $25 flu shot?

You can't afford $100 once a year for a check-up?

You can't afford generic Zyrtec and Claritin from Walmart?


You can't afford to pay back the hospital for an ER visit on a $100 a month payment plan?

Then you're probably indigent, and should have qualified for help or charity PRE-Obamacare!

Or are you making the mistake of confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE?

They're really two different things, and insurance is much less necessary than basic medical care. Especially at Obamacare rates, where it amounts to a government ordered prepayment plan unless you get heavy subsidies.

Paddy O said...

"Some people really just have no freaking clue what people are going through."

Indeed. Everyone just has their own story, and then thinks everyone else must be hateful. They don't see these other people have a story too. So, in making your claims, you dismiss the experiences of others.

That's the key problem here. It's not that there shouldn't have been reform and help, it's that in making a transformation of the process it undermined those who were managing. We don't have employee supplied health care. We were with a broker. Our policy has been cancelled, the appropriate replacement is $300+ more a month. That's a margin we can't afford.

Your story doesn't trump other people's stories. That's the tool politicians use to cause divisiveness. My story doesn't trump your story. The way forward is to listen to each side, and for each side to respect each other enough not to demonize the other.

Because there will be a time in which bureaucrats decide who has care or doesn't based on how we grovel. That's what history has shown us again and again.

cubanbob said...

Jerry Pack said...
Why? Because that is the only way I can afford any kind of health care AT ALL.

Some people really just have no freaking clue what people are going through. "

And? Why is this my problem and my obligation? If I have to subsidize your health insurance you should compensate me by cutting my lawn. I'm not your indentured servant.

Jerry Pack said...

@Birkel

I have recently been diagnosed with cancer. I cannot get covered outside of Obamacare or CoveredCA.

I was a lifelong member of Kaiser until I lost my job in the downturn. Would Kaiser take that into account? Hell no. Now I'm just a schmo with a pre-existing condition.


I will die without treatment and treatment is no longer affordable or even available for me without Covered CA.

I have been counting down the days and the blood tests for 4 months now while exploring every option. I am not alone.

Price is the front line rationing mechanism of our system, so excuse me for not being too sad that someone (you?) might experience a more gentle form of rationing and have to wait a little longer to see a doc when the choice is a huge percentage of people being rationed out of care or life, altogether, you smug POS.


Birkel said...

Jerry Pack:

Once again I ask who will provide the extra medical care you claim you will be getting when there are no new medical care providers in the system.

I believe slightly less than none of what I read online in comments sections. For example, I don't believe Inga is as stupid as she pretends. I think it's worse than that.

machine said...

"Senator, isn’t there something wrong when you say I won’t fund the government unless i can attach my personal wish list to the legislation every time we vote?"

Birkel said...

Oh, and not to be too much of a downer but there is no doubt that you and everybody else ever born will die. That's hardly an outlier.

Should I retard the greatest system ever built for extending human lives for short-term gains by some sympathetic number? It's an open question and I don't harbor ill will against you for believing your answer best.

But I think it is shortsighted in the extreme to believe any one situation overwhelms the advantages that society at-large has and will enjoy. The system designed by centralized government will disincentivize creativity.

Woe unto you -- and everybody else -- if the system you now advocate had existed 40 years ago. The medical procedures you now clamor to receive would not even exist, I maintain.

somefeller said...

Oh, and not to be too much of a downer but there is no doubt that you and everybody else ever born will die. That's hardly an outlier.

The subtle and brilliant insights on this comment thread continue! I tell you, if Jane, Birkel and Deirdre got together in the same room, the candlepower would be blinding.

Birkel said...

somefeller,

Am I to understand you think that's not an important insight? After all, we're not talking about anything but extending lives toward the inevitable end. That's a relatively utilitarian calculus.

Oh, now I see. You were incapable of thinking through why it's important. I forgot how incompetent you are.

somefeller said...

We sure are lucky to have guys like you around to enlighten us on such important insights, Birkel. I bet your pearls of wisdom are the most sought after ones in your cubicle farm.

damikesc said...

I will die without treatment and treatment is no longer affordable or even available for me without Covered CA.

And while that is quite the sad story, how is it my business? How are you going to help my kids when your benefits bankrupt the government and they are stuck paying for it?

We are watching the government intentionally causing harm in while pitching a hissy fit. They won't POSSIBLY limit access to health insurance in similar situations?

Can you say, FOR SURE, that they won't?

All this is showing is that giving the government more power is the worst possible move.

MCD said...

Repeat after me: The government is not your friend.

Deirdre Mundy said...

The other issue is-- Was Obamacare really the best or only way to help people facing catastrophic health expenses? Or could we have done the same thing w/o screwing up everyone else's plan?

Before Obamacare, insurance for my 6 year old son was really cheap. Now, since his policy has to cover things like maternity coverage, it's unaffordable. So... why was it important to get rid of community rating and have mandatory coverage amounts to help uninsured people with cancer?

Wouldn't a "National uninsured people with cancer' fund, sort of like the national vaccine injury fund, have been 1. more popular 2. more efficient and 3. less costly overall?

No one wants cancer patients dying in the streets... but the Dems used that one issue to pass through all these unrelated changes to how US health insurance works.

somefeller said...

The other issue is-- Was Obamacare really the best or only way to help people facing catastrophic health expenses?

Er, no and no one has suggested it was the only way. In fact, other methods like single-payer or the public option were suggested by progressives, but they were politically unacheivable because they were too socialist Alinsky liberal fascist, et al. Politics is the art of the possible, after all.

Birkel said...

All who come to read here can see what somefeller has on offer.

In its world the utilitarian calculus is easy because it doesn't consider costs.

Q.E.D.

phx said...

Right. Like Blue Cross Blue Shield is going to be more compassionate towards me than the government.

somefeller said...

In its world the utilitarian calculus is easy because it doesn't consider costs.

Wrong again, sparky. Costs are considered and weighed along with benefits, and the calculus is rarely easy. But congratulations on mentioning utilitarianism more than once. That last visit to Half Price Books was a great one, wasn't it?

damikesc said...

Nice: The failure of the Obamacare site wasn't due to high volume.

The site basically did a DDOS attack ON ITSELF.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/06/reuters-it-experts-decidely-not-impressed-with-healthcare-govs-architecture/

So, this service --- 3 years in the making --- failed itself.

Right. Like Blue Cross Blue Shield is going to be more compassionate towards me than the government.

Well, given that BCBS can do, literally, nothing without their government's OK (states DO regulate them), yeah, they will be more compassionate than the government since somebody else is watching them.

gk1 said...

Well lets just check out the score card on the first day of the obamacare enrollment. Oh, it was a complete and utter fuck up? Not even the planted shills who work for OFA could sign up? Do tell. Three years to get this set up and they step on their dicks on opening day. Yeah, I am sure they will get it fixed. I mean, they are super competent being the federal govt. and all. I'll bet you dollars to donuts the web engineers responsible were selected on the basis of political clout and connections and not merit.

damikesc said...

As the article I link noted, they might not be able to do much of anything. Just adding servers might not help much if the software is poorly designed --- which, mind you, it is.

Birkel said...

Somefeller,
You are the 'it' in my comment above. Not knowing or caring what your gender is, you are a gender-neutral it.

Meanwhile, you still don't understand what I am saying because you are ignorant. But do tell how I am a dullard. i enjoy the lick spittle terribly.

somefeller said...

But do tell how I am a dullard.

No need for me to do so. You're doing a great job of demonstrating that without any need of input from me. And I suspect that's something you have a lot of practice with.

i enjoy the lick spittle terribly.

Please keep your fetishes to yourself.

Kirk Parker said...

phx,

It's quite possible that Blue Cross will be no more compassionate toward you than the government would be; very possible indeed.

What's not remotely possible is that the government might be more compassionate than Blue Cross.

Robert Cook said...

"'Does the punishing way the Obama administration has run aspects of the shutdown reveal anything about how it will run national health care?'"

Does Byron York not realize we do not have national health care? (Except for the elderly, who do, and by all accounts it is well run and most of those who receive it are quite happy with it.)

I take it for granted he is feigning ignorance that the Republicans are responsible for the shutdown...and for all the ills that will follow. (And why should the Republicans pretend that's not so? They're always bragging about wanting to drown government in a bathtub...now that it's being held under the water and is running out of breath, why don't they relish the almost-realization of this greatest of their aspirations?)

Robert Cook said...

"And while that is quite the sad story, how is it my business? How are you going to help my kids when your benefits bankrupt the government and they are stuck paying for it?"

"Your" benefits? Access to affordable medical care is an issue that affects all of us. You may have health coverage presently, possibly even excellent health insurance, (as I am very fortunate to have through my job), but you have no guarantee you will have such coverage forever, or even by this time next year. Any one of us can lose our jobs, and with them any health insurance we may be fortunate to have as part of our compensation. I do not in the least take for granted my great good fortune, and neither do I assume it cannot change at any time.

To return to your barbaric response to another's very serious plight: even if you haven't the least bit of concern or care for any fellow humans who are not your blood relations, you should be concerned for your own sake, and for your children's sake. If you won't advocate for access to affordable health care, or for government assistance to it for those with no other options, if you will let others die simply because they are unlucky enough not to have a job that provides health insurance, then you are simply asking for the same fate to befall you and yours, as who will advocate for you when fate's merciless scythe strikes you down?

Larry J said...

Robert Cook said...
"'Does the punishing way the Obama administration has run aspects of the shutdown reveal anything about how it will run national health care?'"

Does Byron York not realize we do not have national health care? (Except for the elderly, who do, and by all accounts it is well run and most of those who receive it are quite happy with it.)


By all accounts? Hardly. Medicare and Medicaid* each have fraud in the tens of billions of dollars each year. They're slow to pay providers and quick to deny coverage.

*A significant percentage of those on Medicaid are the elderly.

Larry J said...

Also, the federal government runs health care at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Veterans Administration and for the military. None of those are exactly well-ran operations.

Robert Cook said...

"Medicare and Medicaid* each have fraud in the tens of billions of dollars each year."

Most of that fraud is from unscrupulous medical providers...the well-educated and well-paid physicians.

Our society is rife with fraud, in both the private and public spheres. If we're going to argue against providing services on this basis, there is no public or private provider of services who is immune from condemnation or who should not--by this argument--be put out of business immediately.
The answer, rather, is to exert greater efforts into punishing those found guilty of fraud...starting at the top.

As for being "quick to deny coverage," I know people who have received Medicaid and Medicare, (my parents in the latter case, both now deceased), and they have been among those many who report great satisfaction with the services provided. (My parents worked hard their entire lives, were rock-ribbed Republicans, and without Medicare in their later years would have been easily bankrupted of the fruits of their lives of work by necessary medical care they each needed. And they were among the healthier in their peer group, until they failed rather swiftly toward their respective ends. They neither one were among those who had years of ongoing medical procedures as a result of their aging.)

damikesc said...

Robert, condemning kids to economic serfdom for stuff they never requested is the most inhuman thing possible. Anybody can get care now. It's not fast or preferable...making it like govt health care internationally..but it is there.

Progressivism does little more than increase income inequality.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert, condemning kids to economic serfdom for stuff they never requested is the most inhuman thing possible."

Your overstatement duly noted, we can certainly find other things to cut in the budget that will alleviate the "economic serfdom" of our future generations: slash the military budget by at least 75%; shut down our hundreds of military bases around the world; slash the budgets of the NSA and CIA and other intelligence agencies by at least 90%; increase taxes on the wealthy and on corporations--even just a percentage of what they had to pay during the Eisenhower years would be more than sufficient), etc., etc.

At least making medical care accessible to everyone is a useful use of our tax dollars. Think of it...using our tax dollars to improve our health and save lives instead of to kill, torture and spy on people around the world!

Robert Cook said...

By the way, health care may be something our children "never requested"--young people never believing they will ever get sick or become infirm--but it is certainly something they will one day need.

eric said...

Jerry Pack wrote;

"I was a lifelong member of Kaiser until I lost my job in the downturn. Would Kaiser take that into account? Hell no. Now I'm just a schmo with a pre-existing condition."

Jerry, why didn't you purchase a plan after losing your job?

Larry J said...

Robert Cook said...
"Medicare and Medicaid* each have fraud in the tens of billions of dollars each year."

Most of that fraud is from unscrupulous medical providers...the well-educated and well-paid physicians.


Yes, there are crooked doctors who're scamming Medicare and Medicaid. There are also crooked medical equipment suppliers and a long laundry list of other crooks. That's what happens when large, poorly managed programs are ripe for the picking.

Also, I doubt if you'd call the health care received on the reservations is high quality or effective. The VA health care leaves a lot to be desired and I can speak from first hand experience that the military health system ranges from dismal to merely tolerable, depending on location.

Robert Cook said...

"Jerry, why didn't you purchase a plan after losing your job?"

Having lost his job, perhaps he couldn't afford to buy health insurance as a private buyer, at least not any policy that would offer real coverage.

Or, perhaps he tried and was deemed to have a "pre-existing condition" such that no insurer would cover him.

Buying insurance on the private market is like trying to buy a car, but finding that only the Cadillacs will actually transport you from point A to B, and that the car dealer won't sell to you if he can find or fabricate any reason not to do so...because you might actually want to use the car you're paying for.

Jason said...

Having a preexisting condition would not have stopped him if he had bought a new policy within 63 days of the old one lapsing.

Doesn't even need to be a COBRA plan.

Robert Cook said...

Jason,

That's assuming he could have afforded to buy his own policy--a BIG "if," and it's also assuming--in the event he did try to buy insurance and did have a pre-existing condition and was rejected by the insurance providers for that reason--the insurance companies would have been honest with him.

We can't really assume any such thing, can we?