Health Care Reform Passes

karmaKGB on 25/3/2010 at 23:35

Quote Posted by AR Master

so now you buy either from one of these FASCIST PROFIT DRIVEN KKKAPITALIST insurance companies or from the government, so whether or not you receive care (and live or die) depends on if funding for that care is authorized by one of two people:
1. A faceless government bureaucrat who doesn't give a fuck either way.
2. An insurance company rep who is motivated by profit.

Riiiight... Because those are the only two choices here. We're dooooooomed! If only (literally) dozens of other countries had a model we could follow that works better than the two choices offered by you!

If only...

AR Master on 25/3/2010 at 23:47

Quote Posted by karmaKGB

lol thats just the assessment on your brand new bill bru, if you wanted something different you should have voted for it/asked your represe ahahahahhahaa naw im kididng broham, thats all you get, but you go right ahead and feel like you've got a brand new bag brosephine

CCCToad on 25/3/2010 at 23:52

Quote Posted by AR Master

Try dealing with government insurance. It goes without saying that this is anecdotal, and not statistical evidence, but my own experience with them isn't all that great: Its a bureaucratic nightmare that takes months to get anything done. It far worse than my family's experience with BlueCross/BlueShield. The sad part is that my government health insurance provider (Tricare) is the top rated government health care agencie.

Its worth disclaiming again because some people don't read: this is my own experience and does not in any way prove which healthcare is better. Not to say Tricare was unworkable, but the idea that private insurance is always worse because its motivated by profit is a fallacy.

edit: Think i already linked it, but Glenn Greenwald put up a few articles ((http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/23/health_care/index.html) link to one) about why the idea that this bill somehow attacks special interests is a laughable delusion.

Bluegrime on 26/3/2010 at 00:50

Quote Posted by "CCCToad"

Not to say Tricare was unworkable, but the idea that private insurance is always worse because its motivated by profit is a fallacy.

As it is today, that isn't a fallacy at all. Insurance providers fight you the absolute hardest they can to get the coverage you pay for, generally at the worst possible point in someones life. If you are bankrupted by medical expenses before they have to actually pay out your coverage, its a net profit for the company. Some providers are practically a pyramid scheme, except the "investors" are expecting health care instead of fabulous profit.

While federal coverage won't be the best, or even close to it, it will at the very least provide a competitive market. And (hopefully) won't be the trap door under peoples feet when illness rolls through the family.

fett on 26/3/2010 at 01:49

Yeah, my experience with Medicare vs. Blue Cross/Shield is exactly the opposite.

Turtle on 26/3/2010 at 04:00

Quote Posted by CCCToad

Try dealing with government insurance. It goes without saying that this is anecdotal, and not statistical evidence, but my own experience with them isn't all that great:

Dude, nigga's Canadian. He's had his shitty experiences with NHS and posted about them.
You bitches need to pay attention.

dj_ivocha on 26/3/2010 at 06:47

Quote Posted by Bluegrime

If you are bankrupted by medical expenses before they have to actually pay out your coverage

Do you actually have to pay for stuff first and THEN get it reimbursed by the insurance company? That is, is this the norm or the exception in the US?

scumble on 26/3/2010 at 07:22

Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man

I like the Chinese way of paying your doctor every month unless you get sick. It's his job to keep you healthy, so you pay him while you are. If you get sick then that means he must have fucked up, so he's got to do his job and fix you for free.

Is it "socialist" or just a money-back guarantee? Certainly provides a better incentive than maybe hoping you get more ill so it's possible to rack up some more expensive treatments on the bill.

Quote Posted by Bluegrime

While federal coverage won't be the best, or even close to it, it will at the very least provide a competitive market.

I think the reform might have to go a bit further before you end up with a "competitive market" - I think someone mentioned some regional restriction for healthcare providers, which may also work as some kind of localised cartelisation. Just a thought - I don't know enough about how many options a person has under the new scheme, or even if it's changed at all if the essentials of the current industry are basically the same. The only comparable system I can think of is in Switzerland or Germany - how does it compare to that?

zombe on 26/3/2010 at 15:41

Quote Posted by AR Master

Fixed? Or what was it meant to imply?

Swiss Mercenary on 26/3/2010 at 20:50

Quote Posted by AR Master

I don't know about how things work south of the border, but up here, whether or not I receive care isn't decided by a faceless government bureaucrat.

It's decided by a doctor.

You guys may want to look into that.

Quote:

Is it "socialist" or just a money-back guarantee? Certainly provides a better incentive than maybe hoping you get more ill so it's possible to rack up some more expensive treatments on the bill.

There's the obvious conflict of interest at play, here.