Sure, I sound like a crusty old dude, but if you want to do the things that lead to a better/healthy/successful life you need to make sacrifices. And a first good step is to not measure success based on material or monetary things.
I agree with what Rock is saying, but I think it's because modern society places very little value on rearing children. In an ideal world, paid maternity leave would last a lot longer than at present(def the first, all important 5 years of a child's development), it would have no detrimental effect on re-joining the workforce, and men would also be able to take it.
This would of course be at a huge cost to capitalist society, and judging by the almighty hissy-fit healthcare has caused, not likely to happen.
You're all disgusting little despots who lack moral swag and get their pussies wet just thinking about the destruction of the american ideal. You don't seem to have any political beliefs which don't boil down to wanting uniformed men with guns forcing people to do whatever it is you want them to do. Vicarious tyrant mufuckas
But in some areas they truly were the Greatest Generation.
I think they f*cked it all up though. They had the most to gain, but also the most to lose, and they pissed it all away. There hasn't been as much social protest since, and it feels like the establishment co-opted all of their good intentions (and every generation's since) with the consumerist world we live in now where we've never been more aware of the consequences of our actions, and yet never been more willing to turn a blind eye. IMHO.
Vietnam protests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iraq/Afghanistan protests for example
Until Americans start cooking for themselves again, there's going to be an obesity epidemic. You can't (as far as I can tell) eat a healthy diet that is prepared for you by stuffing as much corn, sugar, and fat as possible, into a microwaveable, golden-brown flavor-tray.
And this would mean some profound changes in the relationship Americans have towards work hours.
That's exactly right.
Meh. I don't buy it. I cook just about everything I eat myself from scratch, it's extremely healthy, and I don't even have to cook most days. Prepare large batches of healthy food on the weekend, pack lunches to work, and warm up dinner when you get home. It's really not that hard.
"We wouldn't need health care reform if there were fewer fat people."
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
But in some areas they truly were the Greatest Generation.
I think they f*cked it all up though. They had the most to gain, but also the most to lose, and they pissed it all away. There hasn't been as much social protest since, and it feels like the establishment co-opted all of their good intentions (and every generation's since) with the consumerist world we live in now where we've never been more aware of the consequences of our actions, and yet never been more willing to turn a blind eye. IMHO.
Vietnam protests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iraq/Afghanistan protests for example
"We wouldn't need health care reform if there were fewer fat people."
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried. Geriatric care is a bigger factor. And it's not just the profits made by the insurance industry that have to be taken into account, it's the third or so of all expenditures that go into propping up the insurance side of the health care industry. That's money that does nothing at all to care for people.
This is why European countries get better health care results for half the money we pay here. They're not skimming off the top to support a health care industry that passes out multi-million dollar bonuses. Those bonuses aren't even considered to be profits in our system!
"We wouldn't need health care reform if there were fewer fat people."
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried. Geriatric care is a bigger factor. And it's not just the profits made by the insurance industry that have to be taken into account, it's the third or so of all expenditures that go into propping up the insurance side of the health care industry. That's money that does nothing at all to care for people.
This is why European countries get better health care results for half the money we pay here. They're not skimming off the top to support a health care industry that passes out multi-million dollar bonuses. Those bonuses aren't even considered to be profits in our system!
An elderly person can't help being elderly, an obese person can, in the vast majority of cases, do something about their weight.
As for the rest, it would be a little more impressive if you could post any stats or specific info to back it up like I did.
BTW, have you seen anything in the bill that just passed that will prevent these bonuses from being given out?
"We wouldn't need health care reform if there were fewer fat people."
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried. Geriatric care is a bigger factor. And it's not just the profits made by the insurance industry that have to be taken into account, it's the third or so of all expenditures that go into propping up the insurance side of the health care industry. That's money that does nothing at all to care for people.
This is why European countries get better health care results for half the money we pay here. They're not skimming off the top to support a health care industry that passes out multi-million dollar bonuses. Those bonuses aren't even considered to be profits in our system!
An elderly person can't help being elderly, an obese person can, in the vast majority of cases, do something about their weight.
As for the rest, it would be a little more impressive if you could post any stats or specific info to back it up like I did.
BTW, have you seen anything in the bill that just passed that will prevent these bonuses from being given out?
No, I don't. I'm not defending the bill there, just talking about the system in general.
I don't get your point about what people can't help being, since all we were talking about there is what the biggest cost factor is. And geriatric care is bigger than fat people - especially since some geriatrics are fat.
I don't feel like searching for some wonk site that no one will read, but do you really think geriatric costs are less than 10%?
"We wouldn't need health care reform if there were fewer fat people."
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried. Geriatric care is a bigger factor. And it's not just the profits made by the insurance industry that have to be taken into account, it's the third or so of all expenditures that go into propping up the insurance side of the health care industry. That's money that does nothing at all to care for people.
This is why European countries get better health care results for half the money we pay here. They're not skimming off the top to support a health care industry that passes out multi-million dollar bonuses. Those bonuses aren't even considered to be profits in our system!
An elderly person can't help being elderly, an obese person can, in the vast majority of cases, do something about their weight.
As for the rest, it would be a little more impressive if you could post any stats or specific info to back it up like I did.
BTW, have you seen anything in the bill that just passed that will prevent these bonuses from being given out?
No, I don't. I'm not defending the bill there, just talking about the system in general.
I don't get your point about what people can't help being, since all we were talking about there is what the biggest cost factor is. And geriatric care is bigger than fat people - especially since some geriatrics are fat.
I don't feel like searching for some wonk site that no one will read, but do you really think geriatric costs are less than 10%?
My point is that it's an avoidable and largely unnecessary expenditure.
Health care, for the most part is geriatric care. I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Factoring geriatric care in the same way as obesity is, to me, like saying car insurance would be cheaper if you never drove the car.
I have no issue with paying what things cost, but when paying for avoidable things helps put the total cost out of reach, then it should be addressed. And yes, I include the bloated medical infrastructure here also.
I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Do I understand you correctly?...over 25 years or so you have not had Health Insurance and have "paid as you went" to the tune of a total of $2,500.
Now with this new bill someone like you will be forced to buy Health Insurance which will cost you at the very least $50K over the same 25 years?
My point is that it's an avoidable and largely unnecessary expenditure.
Health care, for the most part is geriatric care. I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Factoring geriatric care in the same way as obesity is, to me, like saying car insurance would be cheaper if you never drove the car.
I have no issue with paying what things cost, but when paying for avoidable things helps put the total cost out of reach, then it should be addressed. And yes, I include the bloated medical infrastructure here also.
A health care system looks after people's health. I'm not sure how you would "address" fat people specifically. Refuse to cover them? Make them get that lapband surgery or whatever its called?
People have health problems for all sorts of avoidable reasons. Drinking, not enough exercise, old sports injuries. I know more messed up old jocks than I can count, half of my friends have bad knees or hips it seems. I know at least 3 people who had repeat surgeries after skiing injuries. All avoidable.
A weight trainer friend of mine says half of the old people who need daily care are just too weak to take care of themselves because they never exercised to maintain muscle mass. Another avoidable cost, I guess. In an ideal world a lot of costs would be lower, but so what? In an ideal world I'd have a flying car and a much bigger record collection.
I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Do I understand you correctly?...over 25 years or so you have not had Health Insurance and have "paid as you went" to the tune of a total of $2,500.
Now with this new bill someone like you will be forced to buy Health Insurance which will cost you at the very least $50K over the same 25 years?
Yeah, that's it. It's a little misleading because I usually opt for carefully chosen 'holistic' treatment rather than medical. Still, my costs are a tiny fraction of what insurance would have cost.
The inner ear condition I alluded to earlier is considered untreatable, but I was able to rid myself of the more severe symptoms (insane vertigo attacks) through more natural means. None of these would be covered by the mandatory insurance I'll soon be forced to buy, of course.
If it were up to me, we would all be in a pool to cover the catastrophic treatments and pay as you go for the rest. I think this would be cheaper for 90% of the population and give people an incentive to try and take care of themselves and follow doctor's recommendations.
I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Do I understand you correctly?...over 25 years or so you have not had Health Insurance and have "paid as you went" to the tune of a total of $2,500.
Now with this new bill someone like you will be forced to buy Health Insurance which will cost you at the very least $50K over the same 25 years?
Yeah, that's it. It's a little misleading because I usually opt for carefully chosen 'holistic' treatment rather than medical. Still, my costs are a tiny fraction of what insurance would have cost.
The inner ear condition I alluded to earlier is considered untreatable, but I was able to rid myself of the more severe symptoms (insane vertigo attacks) through more natural means. None of these would be covered by the mandatory insurance I'll soon be forced to buy, of course.
If it were up to me, we would all be in a pool to cover the catastrophic treatments and pay as you go for the rest. I think this would be cheaper for 90% of the population and give people an incentive to try and take care of themselves and follow doctor's recommendations.
This is what really puzzles me about the excitement over this Health Care bill.
Over the last 30 years I have paid close to $200K for my family's health insurance and I received good health care in exchange.
Those who didn't pay received inferior health care, if any at all.
Now those folks who didn't pay will be mandated by law to do so.
You would think that if Health Care was important to individuals you wouldn't need a law to force them to pay for it.
Rich: If I understand the point of the mandate correctly, that was actually put into place *by the request of insurance companies* as a way to soften some of the possible future financial challenges that the industry will face. It's meant to force people to get health care, but not necessarily in a purely altruistic way. I may have that wrong however.
The issue here though isn't just over quality of care. If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you can and will still receive medical care but it will be a lot higher than what it would have been had you had insurance. Obviously, the level of care likely wouldn't be as good or consistent, but we don't live in a society where the uninsured have absolutely zero recourse in case of sickness or injury. And so long as that is true (and I don't see that ever changing) and so long as health care for the uninsured is going to be more exorbitant, there is a built-in incentive to force people to get health care as a way to keep long-term costs lower for everyone.
In theory.
Question to anyone: had Congress had the ballz to implement a single-payer public option instead, would the mandate still have been necessary?
Your anecdotes are getting old. Please do a little research.
Under the health care bill, by 2014 most Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. Employers would also be required to provide coverage to their workers, or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, however, are exempt from this rule.
Your anecdotes are getting old. Please do a little research.
I'll help with that: Here is the bill...all 2000 pages or so...enjoy! Now, that said, I voted for Obama but I'm not really too amped about this bill. However, I'm going to read this before I start spouting opinions on it. I'd suggest everyone else do the same.
I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Do I understand you correctly?...over 25 years or so you have not had Health Insurance and have "paid as you went" to the tune of a total of $2,500.
Now with this new bill someone like you will be forced to buy Health Insurance which will cost you at the very least $50K over the same 25 years?
Yeah, that's it. It's a little misleading because I usually opt for carefully chosen 'holistic' treatment rather than medical. Still, my costs are a tiny fraction of what insurance would have cost.
The inner ear condition I alluded to earlier is considered untreatable, but I was able to rid myself of the more severe symptoms (insane vertigo attacks) through more natural means. None of these would be covered by the mandatory insurance I'll soon be forced to buy, of course.
If it were up to me, we would all be in a pool to cover the catastrophic treatments and pay as you go for the rest. I think this would be cheaper for 90% of the population and give people an incentive to try and take care of themselves and follow doctor's recommendations.
This is what really puzzles me about the excitement over this Health Care bill.
Over the last 30 years I have paid close to $200K for my family's health insurance and I received good health care in exchange.
Those who didn't pay received inferior health care, if any at all.
Now those folks who didn't pay will be mandated by law to do so.
You would think that if Health Care was important to individuals you wouldn't need a law to force them to pay for it.
Who exactly "wins" in this scenario??
As I understand it people who make up to 80Kor so will receive credits to help them buy insurance.
People with preexisting conditions can't be denied care.
People with chronic conditions won't be capped and forced off plans.
Small business owners will get tax credits to help pay for insurance for their employees.
There's a lot in the bill. No one claims its perfect, but the people who fought against it didn't offer anything of value in its place. It seems like a start.
"You would think that if car insurance was important to individuals you wouldn't need a law to force them to pay for it."
As I understand it people who make up to 80Kor so will receive credits to help them buy insurance.
I am mildly enthusiastic of the bill (step in the right direction), but if there are no regulations on what the insurance industry can charge for a mandatory policy, won't the cost of such a policy likely be pretty high, credits or no credits?
Page 297: SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. ??(a) TAX IMPOSED.?In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of? ??(1) the taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross in come for the taxable year, over ??(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. ??(b) LIMITATIONS.? ??(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.? ??(A) IN GENERAL.?The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any tax15 payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year. Not mad at page 586: ??(F) with regard to a prescription drug plan offered by a PDP sponsor or an MA?PD plan offered by an MA organization, a reduc tion in or waiver of the copayment amount under the plan given to an individual to induce the individual to switch to a generic, bioequiva lent drug, or biosimilar.??. I'll read the last 600 pages later... So far, not as bad as I initially thought. But then again, there;s 500+ pages to go through yet.
1. People need to ease up on the "fatty" talk. Not to get all uber PC, but there are people who struggle with it their whole lives and are on this very board in this very thread. Have some tact.
Comments
I agree with what Rock is saying, but I think it's because modern society places very little value on rearing children. In an ideal world, paid maternity leave would last a lot longer than at present(def the first, all important 5 years of a child's development), it would have no detrimental effect on re-joining the workforce, and men would also be able to take it.
This would of course be at a huge cost to capitalist society, and judging by the almighty hissy-fit healthcare has caused, not likely to happen.
This rant on the Bush administration is on-point.
But i think you poasted in the wrong thread.
you wank-stain.
I think you have your generations mixed-up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation
Meh. I don't buy it. I cook just about everything I eat myself from scratch, it's extremely healthy, and I don't even have to cook most days. Prepare large batches of healthy food on the weekend, pack lunches to work, and warm up dinner when you get home. It's really not that hard.
If this was directed at my post I'm afraid you misunderstood. The point was that obesity is a major reason that we didn't have health care reform years ago.
At the current levels it accounts for at least 10% of total health care costs - can you think of any other single factor that costs as much?
By comparison the profits reaped by pharmaceutical and insurance companies accounts for only 2% or so.
http://www.usnews.com/health/managing-yo...alth-costs.html
Haha, yes, I was thinking babyboomers. Ooops.
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried. Geriatric care is a bigger factor. And it's not just the profits made by the insurance industry that have to be taken into account, it's the third or so of all expenditures that go into propping up the insurance side of the health care industry. That's money that does nothing at all to care for people.
This is why European countries get better health care results for half the money we pay here. They're not skimming off the top to support a health care industry that passes out multi-million dollar bonuses. Those bonuses aren't even considered to be profits in our system!
An elderly person can't help being elderly, an obese person can, in the vast majority of cases, do something about their weight.
As for the rest, it would be a little more impressive if you could post any stats or specific info to back it up like I did.
BTW, have you seen anything in the bill that just passed that will prevent these bonuses from being given out?
that would imply that he actually means or believes the things that he spews.
No, I don't. I'm not defending the bill there, just talking about the system in general.
I don't get your point about what people can't help being, since all we were talking about there is what the biggest cost factor is. And geriatric care is bigger than fat people - especially since some geriatrics are fat.
I don't feel like searching for some wonk site that no one will read, but do you really think geriatric costs are less than 10%?
My point is that it's an avoidable and largely unnecessary expenditure.
Health care, for the most part is geriatric care. I'm 47 and I've spent a whopping $2500 or so on health care over the last 30 years, half of it on an unnecessary CAT scan (see post above). I'm lucky in this regard, but not that unusual.
Factoring geriatric care in the same way as obesity is, to me, like saying car insurance would be cheaper if you never drove the car.
I have no issue with paying what things cost, but when paying for avoidable things helps put the total cost out of reach, then it should be addressed. And yes, I include the bloated medical infrastructure here also.
Do I understand you correctly?...over 25 years or so you have not had Health Insurance and have "paid as you went" to the tune of a total of $2,500.
Now with this new bill someone like you will be forced to buy Health Insurance which will cost you at the very least $50K over the same 25 years?
YES.
YES.
A health care system looks after people's health. I'm not sure how you would "address" fat people specifically. Refuse to cover them? Make them get that lapband surgery or whatever its called?
People have health problems for all sorts of avoidable reasons. Drinking, not enough exercise, old sports injuries. I know more messed up old jocks than I can count, half of my friends have bad knees or hips it seems. I know at least 3 people who had repeat surgeries after skiing injuries. All avoidable.
A weight trainer friend of mine says half of the old people who need daily care are just too weak to take care of themselves because they never exercised to maintain muscle mass. Another avoidable cost, I guess. In an ideal world a lot of costs would be lower, but so what? In an ideal world I'd have a flying car and a much bigger record collection.
I always thought it was Lap Dance surgery because they were too fat for a stripper to do her thing.
I would think "HEY FATTY!" would suffice.
Yeah, that's it. It's a little misleading because I usually opt for carefully chosen 'holistic' treatment rather than medical. Still, my costs are a tiny fraction of what insurance would have cost.
The inner ear condition I alluded to earlier is considered untreatable, but I was able to rid myself of the more severe symptoms (insane vertigo attacks) through more natural means. None of these would be covered by the mandatory insurance I'll soon be forced to buy, of course.
If it were up to me, we would all be in a pool to cover the catastrophic treatments and pay as you go for the rest. I think this would be cheaper for 90%
of the population and give people an incentive to try and take care of themselves and follow doctor's recommendations.
This is what really puzzles me about the excitement over this Health Care bill.
Over the last 30 years I have paid close to $200K for my family's health insurance and I received good health care in exchange.
Those who didn't pay received inferior health care, if any at all.
Now those folks who didn't pay will be mandated by law to do so.
You would think that if Health Care was important to individuals you wouldn't need a law to force them to pay for it.
Who exactly "wins" in this scenario??
The issue here though isn't just over quality of care. If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you can and will still receive medical care but it will be a lot higher than what it would have been had you had insurance. Obviously, the level of care likely wouldn't be as good or consistent, but we don't live in a society where the uninsured have absolutely zero recourse in case of sickness or injury. And so long as that is true (and I don't see that ever changing) and so long as health care for the uninsured is going to be more exorbitant, there is a built-in incentive to force people to get health care as a way to keep long-term costs lower for everyone.
In theory.
Question to anyone: had Congress had the ballz to implement a single-payer public option instead, would the mandate still have been necessary?
Under the health care bill, by 2014 most Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. Employers would also be required to provide coverage to their workers, or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, however, are exempt from this rule.
Here is the bill...all 2000 pages or so...enjoy!
Now, that said, I voted for Obama but I'm not really too amped about this bill. However, I'm going to read this before I start spouting opinions on it.
I'd suggest everyone else do the same.
As I understand it people who make up to 80Kor so will receive credits to help them buy insurance.
People with preexisting conditions can't be denied care.
People with chronic conditions won't be capped and forced off plans.
Small business owners will get tax credits to help pay for insurance for their employees.
There's a lot in the bill. No one claims its perfect, but the people who fought against it didn't offer anything of value in its place. It seems like a start.
"You would think that if car insurance was important to individuals you wouldn't need a law to force them to pay for it."
I am mildly enthusiastic of the bill (step in the right direction), but if there are no regulations on what the insurance industry can charge for a mandatory policy, won't the cost of such a policy likely be pretty high, credits or no credits?
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
??(a) TAX IMPOSED.?In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of?
??(1) the taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross in
come for the taxable year, over
??(2) the amount of gross income specified in
section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
??(b) LIMITATIONS.?
??(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.?
??(A) IN GENERAL.?The tax imposed
under subsection (a) with respect to any tax15
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
applicable national average premium for such
taxable year.
Not mad at page 586:
??(F) with regard to a prescription drug
plan offered by a PDP sponsor or an MA?PD
plan offered by an MA organization, a reduc
tion in or waiver of the copayment amount
under the plan given to an individual to induce
the individual to switch to a generic, bioequiva
lent drug, or biosimilar.??.
I'll read the last 600 pages later...
So far, not as bad as I initially thought. But then again, there;s 500+ pages to go through yet.
1. People need to ease up on the "fatty" talk. Not to get all uber PC, but there are people who struggle with it their whole lives and are on this very board in this very thread. Have some tact.
2. This schitt is getting outta hand.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34907.html
Gun sights w/red marks for those who've announced their retirement might not be the best idea right about now.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...bid=BgaOJcPIny9
I have my theories on why this is so.