# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Health Care Bill Passed. Fallout?

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

148 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:20 pm

Tzor, you promised to leave forever, can you please stop being stupid now?

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Cynic
  Prince
  Posts: 2776
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Cynic » Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:29 pm

> Kaelik wrote:Tzor, you promised to leave forever, can you please stop being stupid now?

am I missing something, where is Tzor?

> Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.

Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:36 pm

I don't know. Maybe he's accusing Zinegata of being an alt (not likely, as Tzor left afterward). Maybe he's just being funny and saying he sounds like Tzor.
(or maybe I'm completely off base and he's talking about someone else )
Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:14 pm

Thanks for finding that, angelfromanotherpin. Here's actual, meaningful information contained in the official summary, for those who don't want to read through all the patting themselves on the back:

> The key components of the Affordable health Care for America Act include:
> Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers’ choices.
> * If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
> * For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
> * This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.
> Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won’t lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.
> * Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
> * It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
> * The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expenses to protects every American from bankruptcy.
> Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.
> * Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
> * Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
> * Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
> * Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
> Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.
> * Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
> * All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
> * The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.
> Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
> * Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
> * Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
> * Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
> * Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
> Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.
> * Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors’ benefits in any way – and revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
> * The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
> * Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.

Top

RiotGearEpsilon
  Knight
  Posts: 469
  Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:39 am
  Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

###

- Quote

Post by RiotGearEpsilon » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:23 pm

Thanks, Gelare, that was useful.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:49 pm

> Cynic wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:Tzor, you promised to leave forever, can you please stop being stupid now?

> am I missing something, where is Tzor?

I was making fun of Zinegata or whatever, for being Tzor like in his retarded bitching.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

violence in the media
  Duke
  Posts: 1723
  Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

###

- Quote

Post by violence in the media » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:02 pm

@Gelare's one bolded part: Oh noes!
I'm really failing to see where I should be affording any sympathy to someone that essentially wants to privatize gains and socialize losses. If you save $2-5K a year by not buying health insurance, for whatever reason, how does that help any of the rest of us?
If, on the other hand, your dumb ass then winds up with a medical emergency that lands you in the ER, who pays for it? The rest of us. How do I know we'll pay for it? Because chances are you're not going to fork over the tens of thousands of dollars for your uninsured heart attack (or whatever) and that will wind up stiffing everyone else with the bill.
So, please try to explain your objections to me. Because all I have right now is my impression that opposition to that particular point is generally based in selfishness.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:18 pm

-Username17
Top

IGTN
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 729
  Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by IGTN » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:23 pm

> violence in the media wrote:@Gelare's one bolded part: Oh noes!
> I'm really failing to see where I should be affording any sympathy to someone that essentially wants to privatize gains and socialize losses. If you save $2-5K a year by not buying health insurance, for whatever reason, how does that help any of the rest of us?
> If, on the other hand, your dumb ass then winds up with a medical emergency that lands you in the ER, who pays for it? The rest of us. How do I know we'll pay for it? Because chances are you're not going to fork over the tens of thousands of dollars for your uninsured heart attack (or whatever) and that will wind up stiffing everyone else with the bill.
> So, please try to explain your objections to me. Because all I have right now is my impression that opposition to that particular point is generally based in selfishness.

Mandate + No public option = Everyone is required by law to buy from the same insurance companies that set up the mess we had before.
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:37 pm

> IGTN wrote:
> Mandate + No public option = Everyone is required by law to buy from the same insurance companies that set up the mess we had before.

The survey I am reading says:

> Bill Summary wrote:For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option.

-Username17
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:44 pm

> IGTN wrote:Mandate + No public option = Everyone is required by law to buy from the same insurance companies that set up the mess we had before.

If the summary on the previous page is accurate, I thought there was a public option.

> * For individuals who aren&#8217;t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
> * This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.

Edit: Ninja'ed
Last edited by RobbyPants on Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:05 pm

> violence in the media wrote:@Gelare's one bolded part: Oh noes!
> I'm really failing to see where I should be affording any sympathy to someone that essentially wants to privatize gains and socialize losses. If you save $2-5K a year by not buying health insurance, for whatever reason, how does that help any of the rest of us?
> If, on the other hand, your dumb ass then winds up with a medical emergency that lands you in the ER, who pays for it? The rest of us. How do I know we'll pay for it? Because chances are you're not going to fork over the tens of thousands of dollars for your uninsured heart attack (or whatever) and that will wind up stiffing everyone else with the bill.
> So, please try to explain your objections to me. Because all I have right now is my impression that opposition to that particular point is generally based in selfishness.

Well, let's see. I'm young, healthy, and smart, so I can pretty clearly read about potential risks to my health and make an educated decision as to whether I want to buy health insurance, which, you may have noticed, is not cheap. The government requiring me to go against my own, not just well-informed but better-informed judgment (since I know more about my own health than the government knows about my health) is coercive, inefficient, and something to be avoided barring important justifying reasons.
But wait, you say! What if I suffer a medical emergency and stick "everyone else" with the bill? I'm such a cad, using emergency medical services without paying for them. Except, you know, I'm totally going to have to pay for them. You know how I know I'm going to have to pay for them? Because I'm apparently wealthy enough to be forced to buy health insurance. You know who probably can't pay for that emergency treatment?

> Health Care Act wrote:All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.

People who don't have to buy health care because they're poor. So the people you should be worried about taking emergency medical services and giving nothing back are the very same people who still are not required to buy health insurance.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:20 pm

No Gelare, you are not better than the government at recognizing your health risk.
You, like all human beings, are an idiot, and you have a thousand different biases that lead you to believe you won't need health insurance, and you are wrong. Wrong to the tenth power. Infinity Wrong.
You do in fact need health care, and this way, you get preventive care, whereas before, you did not, because you are an idiot and think "it will never happen to me, look how healthy I am."

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

NineInchNall
  Duke
  Posts: 1222
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by NineInchNall » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:36 pm

Sounds like the same sort of reasoning behind, "Why should I be required to buy and wear a helmet to ride my motorcycle?"
*sigh*
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Top

Juton
  Duke
  Posts: 1415
  Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:08 pm
  Location: Ontario, Canada

###

- Quote

Post by Juton » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:57 pm

Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet. In Canada if you took those types of risks you did so on my dime. If you where an idiot in America and you could get themselves killed for a minimum of cost and inconvenience why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Being a free society means allowing people do stupid things as long as they don't hurt others.
Last edited by Juton on Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

violence in the media
  Duke
  Posts: 1723
  Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

###

- Quote

Post by violence in the media » Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:14 pm

> Gelare wrote:So the people you should be worried about taking emergency medical services and giving nothing back are the very same people who still are not required to buy health insurance.

You can be wealthy enough to afford health insurance without being wealthy enough to cover the medical costs of a major emergency entirely on your own. The difference is that I have sympathy for the people who want/need, but cannot afford, health insurance. I am not willing to do the same for someone who could afford health insurance and instead opted to purchase a new computer/ATV/vacation instead.
Sure, you'll talk about making the right to make your own risk assessments, and how you should be allowed to take on more risk if you're comfortable with it, but the problem is that you'll never be wholly responsible for the results of your cavalier attitude. The paramedics aren't going to leave you on the golf course after a lightning strike or toss your ass back into the surf after a shark attack, saving everone the attendant costs of treating you, because you don't have health insurance. Maybe friends and family help you with your medical bills after the fact, maybe your community holds a collection, but that money could have gone to something worthier (or even just something else) if you'd had insurance to cover the costs in the first place.
Besides, the maximum penalty of $2085 kicks in at a family income of just over $80,000 per year by 2016. At $80K a year (or even two $40K jobs) you are very likely to already have employer offered health insurance. It's probably even significantly subsidized. I can't even imagine a rational argument for opting out at that point.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:23 pm

> Juton wrote:Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet. In Canada if you took those types of risks you did so on my dime. If you where an idiot in America and you could get themselves killed for a minimum of cost and inconvenience why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Being a free society means allowing people do stupid things as long as they don't hurt others.

The problem is that if you go to the ER, the ER pays the cost now and tries to get the money out of you later. That means that the proportion of people who don't pay (including the people who die and did not have insurance), have their costs socialized anyway. If people smoke and then then have to pay for it themselves, that would be at least excusable. Except that takes its toll on the elderly, who benefit from socialized medicare anyway.
Medical costs are always socialized, whether they are actively socialized or not.
-Username17
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:24 pm

> Juton wrote:Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet. In Canada if you took those types of risks you did so on my dime. If you where an idiot in America and you could get themselves killed for a minimum of cost and inconvenience why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Being a free society means allowing people do stupid things as long as they don't hurt others.

I think it depends on the state. I'm from Michigan, and I know it's required here, but I think it has something to do with no-fault insurance and being required to have auto-insurance to drive.
I'm assuming the insurance companies had a say in this.
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:26 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:Medical costs are always socialized, whether they are actively socialized or not.
> -Username17

B-b-but Frank, if people would stop treating underprivileged people in the ER unless they have an insurance card the costs wouldn't be socialized. Well, except for the stress it gives to the underclass and the resentment and the harm it does to the economy.
But if I don't see the cost directly it doesn't exist.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:38 pm

Oh boy, Kaelik called me an idiot, I guess I must be doing something right. Probably breathing.
Anyway, how about that "hardship exemption"? I mean, those are the people who are both most likely to need a trip to the ER and those least likely to have the insurance to cover it. You're all getting butthurt about someone getting emergency treatment and not paying for it, so why the fuck is there a hardship exemption at all?
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:56 pm

> Gelare wrote: Anyway, how about that "hardship exemption"? I mean, those are the people who are both most likely to need a trip to the ER and those least likely to have the insurance to cover it. You're all getting butthurt about someone getting emergency treatment and not paying for it, so why the fuck is there a hardship exemption at all?

Because even now I don't know what the hardship exemption entails. I assume that one way or the other it involves socializing the medical costs of people who don't have money. Either at the front end by having the American people cover the bill, or at the back end by making the hospital eat the costs and pass them along to the paying public who then foots their own bills that include their share of the bills of the indigent.
-Username17
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:04 pm

> Zinegata wrote:Cha-Ching.
> In short, the Dems are gonna raise taxes to the tune of about 1 trillon dollars.

Those are mostly not taxes, but fees. Some of it is a tax on high-end medical insurance, but most of it is fees and fines; where the government is charging money instead of someone paying to a private company. None of these 'taxes' trigger until 2014. And even then, they're amortized over ten years.

> Zinegata wrote:Apples and Oranges.

I'm not sure even Tzor would say something that stupid.

> RobbyPants wrote:20% interest in a standard savings account? I think that's a bit optimistic. I'm assuming this was meant more to be rhetorical than literal?

Yes, I'm aware a standard savings account gives 0.2% to 4% interest. It was rhetorical without doing the math to realize I'd gotten off by one factor.

> Juton wrote:Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet.

Technically, it's a safety issue as well. Wearing a seatbelt and helmet increases your ability to stay in control of a vehicle in an accident, and tends to prevent accidents. That it also prevents fatalities means that after an accident, it's easier and cheaper to clean up, which is also on my dime. I don't particularly care if you die or not; just don't take others with you.

> violence in the media wrote:The difference is that I have sympathy for the people who want/need, but cannot afford, health insurance. I am not willing to do the same for someone who could afford health insurance and instead opted to purchase a new computer/ATV/vacation instead.

Computers are needed in this age to access things like tax preparers, government services. Vacations are required to keep up health and efficiency at work. I'm not saying ATVs and expensive vacations should come before health insurance; but health insurance is like $10K a year - are you going to begrudge someone a less-than $1K a year expense?
-Crissa
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:49 am

> Kaelik wrote:

> > Cynic wrote:

> > > Kaelik wrote:Tzor, you promised to leave forever, can you please stop being stupid now?

> > am I missing something, where is Tzor?

> I was making fun of Zinegata or whatever, for being Tzor like in his retarded bitching.

I'm not Tzor. I'm just someone who likes to bring up uncomfortable truths
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:58 am

> Crissa wrote: Those are mostly not taxes, but fees. Some of it is a tax on high-end medical insurance, but most of it is fees and fines; where the government is charging money instead of someone paying to a private company. None of these 'taxes' trigger until 2014. And even then, they're amortized over ten years.

Check the bill. It's collected by the IRS (and apparently the IRS doesn't have the budget to collect these fees yet). Claiming it's not a tax increase is honestly semantics-wrangling.
It is money collected by the government from the people. Call it a tax, fee, or whatever. Bottom line: Money from the people, collected by the government.

> I'm not sure even Tzor would say something that stupid.

It may only seem that way because your comment was even more stupid to begin with, Mr 20% standard interest rate guy.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:05 am

> FrankTrollman wrote:

> > IGTN wrote:
> > Mandate + No public option = Everyone is required by law to buy from the same insurance companies that set up the mess we had before.

> The survey I am reading says:

> > Bill Summary wrote:For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option.

> -Username17

The HIE isn't exactly a public option. It's a clearing house run by the government. Who send people without coverage to the same insurance companies that started the mess in the first place.
The new public health insurance option mentioned isn't actually in the bill itself yet. The HIE merely makes provisions that there will be one in the future via a seperate bill (otherwise, all the major news networks are misreporting that there is no public option, and the Dems complaining about no public option are whining delusionally.)
Not that I'm for the public option or anything. But the "no public option" concern is pretty valid. Right now they just made the government a middleman between the insurance companies and the patients... which I'm not even sure is a good idea unless the HIE proves to be very effective at regulation.
On a side note, this is also one of the reasons why the bill is controversial. It's a confusing mess.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

148 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS