Check this out.
The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies.) It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver — perhaps literally.
So this is my public apology. I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on. I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us. I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say "ObamaCares."
I wonder how many more of these stories we are going to here over the next few months and years.
12 comments:
I was planning on linking this anyway, but how much better that it should be in response.
No snippets. Read the whole thing. Or blab on in incoherent ignorance. Your choice.
So for now, we're paying for Ward's health care with our taxes, but by 2014 we'll be paying for people like her in the form of higher premiums.
And he knows this how, exactly? Let's see the data from an unbiased source.
Without the health care bill, premiums have gone up as well. So, the only bitching that goes on is when the government gets involved?
The whole apparatus of the modern welfare state is a giant interlocking network of bailouts for various pressure groups.
No recognition whatsoever for the positive results that have arisen from welfare capitalism. Just another Randian rant about the "welfare state."
. But some of them will draw a more practical conclusion and drop their health insurance.
And he knows this will happen how, exactly? Let's see his data from an unbiased source.
If everyone follows Ward's example, dropping their insurance and waiting for government subsidies or mandates when disaster strikes, the system will collapse. The only reason it hasn't yet collapsed is because people like me keep paying our premiums.
This statement is quite illustrative of how short sighted his entire argument is and why I get so frustrated with this mentality. He's not even addressing the bigger picture: the rising costs of health care that will continue as long as their is inelastic demand.
This is why your earlier suggestions of removing insurance from the equation won't work either. Setting aside the job losses that would result in such a shift, you still have to deal with the fact that buyers don't leave the market because their lives depend on the care. So, sellers can charge whatever they like. That's why it's necessary for the government to be involved otherwise resources are not distributed effectively.
The only conclusion with all of this is that you can't have a laissez faire approach to health care. In the final analysis, it can't be a for profit industry.
So, the only bitching that goes on is when the government gets involved?
That's the only way you can interpret things, isn't it M?
No recognition whatsoever for the positive results that have arisen from welfare capitalism.
Why don't you list some? Why don't you compare the benefits to the costs - because he nailed that side pretty well.
And he knows this will happen how, exactly?
Because that is exactly what Spike Dolomite Dipwad did! She said so herself you fucking moron. There is your unbiased source you colossus of idiocy.
...and why I get so frustrated with this mentality.
You get very frustrated with any people that think. I understand. Thoughts are hard things for you to understand; feelings are so much more obvious.
The only conclusion
La-la-la-la M won't listen to anything that won't fit into his little slots. Perfect M, you could not have been more predictable.
Why don't you list some?
How many times do you need me to mention Social Security reducing poverty? Or the quality of life that has been improved as a result of Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip etc...?
because he nailed that side pretty well.
No, he didn't. His argument was very one sided.
She said so herself you fucking moron.
So that means everyone will do that? Every single person? juris, you are the one who constantly harps on me for jumping to conclusions and generalizing. I guess it's ok when you do it or when it's something with which you agree.
You get very frustrated with any people that think. I understand
He's not thinking and neither are you as neither one of you has addressed the issue of elasticity on the demand side of most health care markets. Now, if you say to me, "Oh well, people are just going to have to die and then the free market will sort itself out." then that makes sense...demand will go down because there will be less people and the price will fall as a result.
How many times do you need me to mention Social Security reducing poverty? Or the quality of life that has been improved as a result of Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip etc...?
Brilliant - you jump right to the stuff that is driving this country into fiscal ruin. Anything else? Benefits have to be measured against cost. I'm sure you don't care what it costs as long as you feel good about the benefit.
So that means everyone will do that? Every single person?
It doesn't have to be every single person - a substantial minority is enough. This is exactly the same as the demographics issue with SocSec - the burden of carrying one beneficiary is spread over fewer and fewer people. It is a pretty simple concept - are you really so fucking dense you don't get it? Or you do get it and even though it hurts you just refuse to deal with reality?
You only impress the ignorant with your misunderstanding and misapplication of elasticity as an economic concept. The demand for something that is effectively free is infinite - there is no elasticity. No supply can ever fill such demand, there will be some mechanism to sort it out - price, lottery, political-connection, something. If you don't understand THAT, you can never, EVER speak intelligently about elasticity.
>>. But some of them will draw a more practical conclusion and drop their health insurance.
>And he knows this will happen how, exactly? Let's see his data from an unbiased source.
Wait, what? You need an unbiased source to be convinced that people would rationally choose to spend less money rather than more money for exactly the same outcome? Really?
I submit that neither of you would do so. You've assured me time and again that government run health care is bad news, right? I would think that if you guys had the income, you would purchase a plan that has as little government involvement as possible. In fact, many people purchase supplemental insurance aside from Medicare just in case.
What you're essentially stating here is that our entire nation is so irresponsible that we'd all wait to go on the cheap, not have insurance and then have the government bail us out. I think some people might do that but many don't trust the government. Others, might be more responsible and find a plan that suits them. Fear and fear of change are also two things to keep in mind here. Many people are reluctant to change their provider and wouldn't fall into the same mess that Spike did.
Of course, we're back at your ideological blindness again regarding human nature so I'm not sure if there are any facts I could provide you that would change your mind.
I submit that neither of you would do so.
What? You think I would pay more something than I can? Why? Because you think I am so committed to some ideology? Wrong. If I can save money I will.
In fact, many people purchase supplemental insurance aside from Medicare just in case.
Yeah, people just throw money into that for no reason. You never even took a single economics class you liar. Or if you did you slept through it and never read the book. People by that supplemental insurance to cover expenses not paid by Medicare.
What you're essentially stating here is that our entire nation is so irresponsible that we'd all wait to go on the cheap, not have insurance and then have the government bail us out.
Congratulations, you just learned what a moral hazard is. You should've learned that in your first economics course. Of course you will deny that rational people will act rationally. I think you are just projecting. If I can reasonably expect the govt to bail out my stupid decision, there really isn't any risk in it for me. That is called privatizaing the gain and socializing the risk. I can't do that on my own - I need the cooperation of the govt (and you and your beloved govt have become quite accommodating to that).
Of course, we're back at your ideological blindness again regarding human nature
I'm not sure it is ideology that blinds you. You sure love to do all the things you accuse the other side of doing. Part and parcel of childish dishonesty I guess. Too bad you are so resistant to learning anything that is discordant with beliefs. But such are zealots.
If I can save money I will.
So you would willingly submit to government bureaucracy?
Congratulations, you just learned what a moral hazard is.
What a bizarre perception of the world you have. Now that you've stated that EVERYONE is going to do this, I'll be waiting for the data to back up your claim. In fact, why don't you show me how EVERYONE has done this already being that your sentiments here stipulate that we are one giant welfare state with everyone mooching. I think you are forgetting how much people distrust the government.
What I find hilarious is that Mark is counting on the people he espouses against to keep his gov't program from breaking the bank.
So you would willingly submit to government bureaucracy?
When that is a personally cost-effective decision, of course I would. What kind of stupid fuck do you think I am? Am I going to advocate for a govt bureaucracy that will neither be cost-effective or liberty-maximizing - you're goddam right I'm not.
What a bizarre perception of the world you have.
This is such a standard part of economics that you betray your total and complete ignorance on the subject. This just isn't even controversial in the slightest. I think I understand you now - you know this is right and you don't have a way out, so you will lie about what we have both said. So childish and dishonest.
Now that you've stated that EVERYONE...
Well that was a short wait. You just lied about what I said.
I think you are forgetting how much people distrust the government.
Why don't you just shut your mouth rather than lie so outrageously? Seriously.
>Of course, we're back at your ideological blindness again regarding human nature
Mark postulates that people would rather pay more for the same outcome rather than less, and then accuses other people of ideological blindness about human nature. Hahahaha.
Mark, do you think that people refuse Social Security checks even if they are opposed to the program? The proof comes from your own team though - even your heroes who crafted the healthcare bill realized free riders would be a big problem, which is why they included the individual mandate. Seriously - you can't not understand this. Can you? Well, ok, more likely, you've backed yourself into a corner and haven't yet found a way to bluster your way out of it. Lets see it Mark!
Post a Comment