GOP is too busy kicking their own nuts.

and moron i'm not claiming to have a better plan. i'm simply stating that the one you wanted was terrible.

if you're hung up on pre-existing conditions: i don't think it's fair to insurance companies or to the people that were already paying for insurance. the insurance industry is only sustainable up to so many people with their hands in the cookie jar... kind of a giant ponzi. now you're saying insurance companies have to accept any applicant, regardless of whether or not they already know that person will cost them tons of money. it's the same as telling geico that they have to give a guy with 2 dui's and multiple accidents auto insurance. it isn't sustainable.

i know by now you want to break out "death panels" and omg what about grandma and the children. look, i think it sucks. i'd much prefer we found a way to help those people too. that won't happen without a fundamental change in society. the aca is an attempt to force people to take care of one another. in the end, though, it will just hurt everyone. i honestly don't think it's malicious either; it's just misguided and lacks foresight. keep in mind the people that really pushed this garbage through don't have anything at all to worry about including obama. they're set FOR LIFE with a salary multiple times the average household income.

1/3/2014 8:42:16 PM

Haha, you just keep repeating the same thing, but with more elaborate statements.

So far, It seems like you only have beef with the coverage of preexisting conditions, which is possibly the only aspect of healthcare reform republicans, democrats, and everyone else agree on without hesitation.

If your belief is that sick people with no insurance should have no options for guaranteed coverage, your voice is irrelevant because your objective isn't to make the healthcare system better. You're starting from entirely different assumptions than everyone else. It also likely means you don't actually understand the problem, but Id rather give you more credit and just assume you just don't care about fixing (what was) one of the biggest problems with our healthcare.

1/3/2014 9:23:32 PM

Quote :

"So far, It seems like you only have beef with the coverage of preexisting conditions, which is possibly the only aspect of healthcare reform republicans, democrats, and everyone else agree on without hesitation. "

And it's easily the dumbest of them all! Hey, State Farm should have to give you a homeowner's policy when your house is on fire!

My belief isn't that sick people shouldn't get insurance. Rather my belief is that you shouldn't need insurance to get basic medical care! That's fucked up! But someone pointing out the absurdity of the pre-existing conditions bullshit doesn't mean they don't want sick people to get insurance, so get out of here with that nonsense

1/3/2014 10:01:18 PM

^ sheesh you aren't paying attention.

You're basically asking for the government to pay for sick people, which is fine. When ACA first passed I decried it as an insurance company handout. But in the absence of a public option, the turd sandwich of the ACA is what we get. We can thank republicans for this mostly. At this point, ACA needs more tweaking and debugging. This shouldn't shock or surprise anyone, but if you say this around the GOP they'll scream for a repeal and a return to the status quo.

Fry hasn't offered any solution, and I've asked him several times if he thinks the gov should pay and he's said nothing.

1/3/2014 10:10:21 PM

Quote :

"No that's bullshit. Most of the people who supposedly "lost" coverage will either be able to renew their existing plans"

renew their plans? FOR ONE MORE GOD DAMNED YEAR!!! They barely kicked the mother fucking can down the road and you're over here claiming it's a huge success, and that nobody is affected? How far up Obama's ass have you shoved your head that you can't see this? Step away from the keyboard, put down the talking points and think for a second. Seriously, I can't believe you would say something that stupid.


^ No, I'm not asking for the government to pay for sick people. Where the heck did you get that from? And no, the ACA doesn't need "tweaking". it needs dismantling. The problem with skyrocketing healthcare costs in the US is that we use insurance like a group savings plan to pay for it. The ACA makes that worse by pushing more insurance. It's like saying all a crack-addict needs is more crack. The solution isn't more insurance, it's less insurance.

1/3/2014 10:16:29 PM

^ who pays for the sick people?

1/3/2014 10:56:19 PM

^^I see where I misread your post.

You realize that crowing about not needing insurance for basic medical care has literally nothing to do we mandatory coverage for pre existing conditions? A large chunk of those people have grave illnesses, which is why they can't get insurance. Who should pay for them? If someone gets cancer, needs a transplant, needs a prosthetic, or gets in a serious car accident, you can have several hundred thousand dollars in bills.

And I aware of your theory that healthcare should be cheap enough for people to afford without insurance, but that's not feasible. It's not how the system evolved, and is counter to how much research dollars are in our healthcare system. And if you think ACA is too heavy handed, your system would require massive, massive amounts of government intervention to wind back a health care system that developed over a hundred years. There's literally no way to make your idea happen without totalitarian control.

Your ideas about healthcare would be easier to implement after obamacare provisions are in place, because you could adjust the rules to decouple healthcare from employers, slowly bring salaries down as your plan would necessitate, ween big pharma off their giant research budgets,etc. I somehow think this would be less popular....

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 11:05:18 PM

You say the system "evolved this way" so it's messed up. The system "evolved this way" because we pushed it in this very direction! It didn't just happen by accident. The gov't placed wage caps and restrictions on companies in the 1930s and 1940s. Companies responded by offering health insurance in lieu of wages. The government gave them tax-breaks for doing so. That entrenched the employer-provided insurance system. Naturally, as more people were shoe-horned into the employer-provided system, actual competition for individuals diminished, making individual plans more and more expensive. Likewise, as individual plans became more expensive, people then had their insurance tied to their jobs. Change jobs, change insurance. No other insurance works like this, but health insurance does. So now you've got the problem with pre-existing conditions rearing its ugly head. If you are more apt to change insurance, you are more apt to run into the basic problems that happen when you change insurance.

This isn't as bad as it could be, as long as basic care is affordable. But, to top it off, the gov't added more and more requirements of what insurance must cover. If you understand anything about insurance, you know that the more insurance covers, the more it must cost. Likewise, when insurance covers something, the thing it covers also rises in sticker cost to compensate for it. Study after study shows that states with more mandates on what insurance must cover have higher corresponding premiums. This isn't rocket science. So, you've made basic care unaffordable without insurance, while making it more likely that people will have to change insurance often, increasing the likelihood of them running into pre-existing condition exclusions, while also making individual plans that aren't as likely to turn over prohibitively expensive. This didn't happen by accident, and it certainly didn't happen as the result of a free-market; get that myth completely out of your head.

I'm well aware that unwinding this fucked up system would require massive effort. But only a fool or dissembler could call removing government intervention an introduction of government intervention in the market. I wouldn't unwind it over-night, because that would be a massive clusterfuck. We got into this problem in a phased manner, and we can get out of it in a phased manner. The first step is to phase out the tax-incentives given to employers. It's not just a "theory" that basic healthcare should be cheap enough for people to afford without insurance; it's how it used to be. The basics of almost everything else with an insurance market are all affordable: basic car repair, home repair, etc. yet, health care, one of the the most highly-regulated insurance markets, is massively unaffordable. And every step of the way as prices have risen, we've had concurrent increases in gov't intervention which have only made it worse. yet somehow, yet another instance of it that pushes the system further down the insurance path, is going to fix it? That's absolute insanity!

No, my ideas would NOT be easier to implement after obamacare is in place. It will be harder. Pulling out a tick is not easier once it burrows deeper into the skin. Likewise, further entrenching the employer-provided insurance system does NOT help get rid of the problems inherent in an employer-provided insurance system.


And all of this doesn't even begin to touch on issues with big pharma and the gov't's meddling in the hospital system, arbitrarily restricting the supply of doctors (salaries going up, what?) via medicare funding, etc.

1/4/2014 12:26:08 AM

Health insurance isnt insurance, it never has been, and it cannot be. It is a misnomer. You have that part right. http://www.businessinsider.com/your-private-health-insurance-is-really-a-government-program-2013-10

But nothing else you said makes sense. You still don't address how sick people pay for healthcare. You cover routine things, but don't address the illnesses that chew up most of health costs (keep in mind 10-20% of the sickest people use up 70-80% of costs). Even assuming you make things magically cheaper under the system you envision, these are costs that would be paid for by the government anyway, or result in spiraling increases in healthcare services (sort of like what was happening before ACA).

The only way to stop the spiraling increase in costs is to have more people in the insurance pools. In the absence of more people in insurance pools, you kick out the sick people (any of this sound familiar to you...? Your ideas don't work burro). One way to get more people into the pools is to incentivize employers to help pay...

The other way is ACA.

THe other way is single payer.

The other way is a public option.

These are the only viable options. You can see where the US stands in relation to other countries.

Our culture doesn't like the idea yet of a single payer, the public option is the best middle ground, and is probably the only way to fix the biggest problems with obamacare.

I'd like to see, as dtownral speculates, what would happen if the ratios were changes between the most costly plans and cheaper plans.

And employer health insurance was not a result of wage caps, and developed because of dangerous working conditions look up the history of Kaiser healthcare, the first "health insurance" company (that actually was more like insurance).

Other ways to change ACA is to get rid of the minimum standard on plans. That way insurance companies would create a cheap plan that covers almost nothing, to cover the costs of the sickest people, without people feeling forces into buying a very expensive plan.

1/4/2014 12:58:24 AM

medicare for everyone!

1/4/2014 10:50:17 AM

Quote :

"But nothing else you said makes sense. You still don't address how sick people pay for healthcare"

It's incredibly simple: They pay for the basic care and use HEALTH INSURANCE for the massively expensive stuff, the same as you do for your car and your house. And then, because you can buy a policy and keep it for many years, irrespective of your employer, you don't get whacked by the pre-existing conditions exclusions. The solution is obvious: health insurance is for catastrophic things, like cancer, while we all pay out of pocket for the basics, and end up paying far far far less than we pay today, because insurance is no longer jacking up sticker prices by 300%. And here's where you're going to flip out: for those who truly can't afford the basics, I'm not entirely against a gov't system to help with that. But first, make it so that the vast majority of Americans won't need it, then make it so that the new gov't program doesn't contribute to skyrocketing costs, the way Medicare and Medicaid currently do.

Quote :

"The only way to stop the spiraling increase in costs is to have more people in the insurance pools."

Bullshit! The prime reason for the spiraling increase in costs is the fucking insurance pools! You fail to see that more of the problem is NOT the freaking solution!

Quote :

"The other way is ACA. [b]which can't possibly work.[/i] THe other way is single payer. [b]which can't possibly work without massive reductions in services.[/i] The other way is a public option. [b]which can't possibly work.[/i] These are the only viable options. You can see where the US stands in relation to other countries. "

Yes, I do see where the US stands in relation to other countries: terribly obese and not exercising. If you compare apples to couches, don't be surprised when you find major differences. But yes, when you ignore and don't consider all the others, these are the only viable plans.


Likewise, I don't recall saying that employer-provided insurance was created by wage caps. As you've stated, there existed some plans long before then. However, it was most certainly promoted and entrenched via those wage caps. I don't think this is a shocking revelation to anyone.


^ you laugh, but that's essentially what happened to my brother. He had his own plan that he had been paying for for almost a decade, and it was pretty good, giving his pretty much everything he wanted. Obamacare comes in and makes his plan illegal, and the only remaining plans he could get, even on the exchange and with subsidies, were more expensive, because they covered shit that he, as a 35-year old man, didn't need, like lactation services, birth control, and mammograms. So, he's gone on Medicaid starting on January 1st.

1/4/2014 12:56:21 PM

Quote :

"^ you laugh, but that's essentially what happened to my brother. He had his own plan that he had been paying for for almost a decade, and it was pretty good, giving his pretty much everything he wanted. Obamacare comes in and makes his plan illegal, and the only remaining plans he could get, even on the exchange and with subsidies, were more expensive, because they covered shit that he, as a 35-year old man, didn't need, like lactation services, birth control, and mammograms. So, he's gone on Medicaid starting on January 1st."

This is Fox News idiocy.

Quote :

"It's incredibly simple: They pay for the basic care and use HEALTH INSURANCE for the massively expensive stuff, the same as you do for your car and your house. And then, because you can buy a policy and keep it for many years, irrespective of your employer, you don't get whacked by the pre-existing conditions exclusions. The solution is obvious: health insurance is for catastrophic things, like cancer, while we all pay out of pocket for the basics, and end up paying far far far less than we pay today, because insurance is no longer jacking up sticker prices by 300%."

This is mathematically impossible. The costs for the plan you are describing would be astronomically high, ordinary people couldn't afford it, to the point where it wouldn't exist in the market. If this were feasible for private insurance, the system would hVe evolved this way.

and you don't seem to get what Health insurance is. It's fundamentally different, intrinsically, inherently, innately than home and car insurance. You NEED to read the business insider article.

[Edited on January 4, 2014 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2014 3:42:48 PM

Quote :

"Obamacare comes in and makes his plan illegal"

BUT THINGS ARE NOT ILLEGAL UNLESS THEY START ARRESTING YOU AND PUTTING YOU IN JAIL!!!

</aaronburroargument>

1/4/2014 4:04:26 PM

Let's see... If the insurance company had offered that plan, the gov't would have come in and stopped them. That fits the definition. Stop being a dickhead.

Quote :

"This is Fox News idiocy."

And it's what happened. It was more expensive for him to buy the new plans on the exchanges, so he said "fuck it, Medicaid."

Quote :

"This is mathematically impossible. The costs for the plan you are describing would be astronomically high, ordinary people couldn't afford it, to the point where it wouldn't exist in the market. If this were feasible for private insurance, the system would hVe evolved this way. "

Then why does it work that way in every other insurance market?

Quote :

"and you don't seem to get what Health insurance is. It's fundamentally different, intrinsically, inherently, innately than home and car insurance. You NEED to read the business insider article. "

It's fundamentally different because we have made it that way. That is my entire point! Health insurance as we have it today DOES NOT OPERATE LIKE INSURANCE. That's why it's so much more expensive than other catastrophic-only plans and markets. And no, it didn't "evolve that way." We fucking MADE IT this way. it didn't happen by accident. If you're not even going to read what I'm saying, then don't bother responding!

And yes, I've read that article and others very much like it. THEY AGREE WITH ME. This is not insurance, it's a shitty attempt at a group savings plan, mandated into existence via the gov't.

Holy shit, I just re-read that article, and it's basically everything I've been saying, INCLUDING removing the tax-benefits for employers. How in the hell are you not seeing that?

1/4/2014 4:16:24 PM

Quote :

"No, they weren't. No one was thrown in jail or fined or even prosecuted"

Quote :

"Go google the word "illegal" before you make such a baseless claim."

-aaronburro

stop hitting arguing with yourself!

1/4/2014 4:19:45 PM

so what are the current chances it will self destruct?

1/4/2014 4:21:37 PM

^^ you're obviously trolling at this point to make up for your insecurity over your lack of hair. Go get some hair plugs from your Obamacare and leave the adults to talk. Thanks.

^ it was built from the beginning to self-destruct.

[Edited on January 4, 2014 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2014 4:22:42 PM

Quote :

"Stop being a dickhead."

aaronburro

1/4/2014 4:25:38 PM

I love you. Let's spend the rest of our lives together!

1/4/2014 4:33:46 PM

Quote :

"That should be enough to help you with google. or, if you just refuse to remember the hullabaloo over it, then you're just selectively forgetting it at this point."

1/4/2014 4:40:07 PM

1/4/2014 4:48:35 PM

Quote :

"I rejected that defect in spectacular fashion, including a CCed response to both my and her manager."

aaronburro

1/4/2014 4:50:16 PM

1/4/2014 4:55:14 PM

Quote :

"Then why does it work that way in every other insurance market?"

Because the vast majority of people will never total their cars or have their houses burn down.

But a significant number of people get old (to date 100% of people exhibit this symptom), and of these old people, a substantial number get sick.

Health issues are typically more costly than car insurance claims too (a friend recently had an appendix removed-- $30k).

This was discussed on the business insider article. Not sure why you haven't read this, it's not even a mystery that health "insurance" isn't insurance. It's mainstream that you can't treat health like a car or a tv or a house. It's one thing to be ignorant of this fact, but to have it explained to you and still reject it is just stubbornness (at best).

ACA is a turd sandwich, but a better solution was rejected by the GOP. The best step forward isn't dismantling the system, it's debugging it.

1/5/2014 1:36:54 AM

Quote :

"Health issues are typically more costly than car insurance claims too (a friend recently had an appendix removed-- $30k). "

Part of his argument, however, is that having insurance pay for everything has driven up the costs of medical car beyond what they would otherwise be. There is evidence for is given that medical procedures which are not covered by insurance tend to decrease in price over time, the most obvious and recent example of this being LASIK surgery, which has decreased from nearly 10k for both eyes to less than 2k for both eyes, and it's both faster and performed with better technology. Even the top end LASIK procedures, the ones that use different techniques that have developed since, run about 4k for both eyes. By comparison, in 1984, the average cost for an appendectomy was $1800 to $3200 according to the AP (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19840223&id=CrgdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u2gEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6238,2303449). If we adjusted those numbers for inflation, that means today the same procedure should cost ~4k to 7k today assuming no decrease in costs like LASIK has seen. But as you point out (and a University of California study confirmed) the cost is nearly 30k. Now it's likely not all of this cost increase can be attributed to insurance, but working in the pharmaceutical field, I can attest to the nature of insurance putting pressure on care providers to keep prices inflated. This is of course the opposite of what you would expect since insurers want to pay the least possible, but it's pretty much the result of insurance companies negotiating to pay a lesser percentage of your usual rates. It encourages providers to charge considerably more, to ensure that the percentage that they do get is what they actually want to get.

1/5/2014 9:59:51 AM

I'm not remotely convinced that the market forces that drive down the prices of elective procedures (LASIK) have any effect on procedures you need to live (appendectomies).

1/5/2014 2:51:33 PM

you mean you didn't spend weeks researching appendectomy reviews and shopping around for the best price?

1/5/2014 2:54:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm not remotely convinced that the market forces that drive down the prices of elective procedures (LASIK) have any effect on procedures you need to live (appendectomies)."

It works for food. And housing. And there's no reason to believe it wouldn't work for hospitals. I agree the effect probably wouldn't be as strong, but hospitals advertise all the time, and people talk about their experiences with them, including costs. There's no reason to believe that if people started realizing that "Sacred Heart" is charging less than "Plainsboro Teaching" that people won't start deciding to go to Sacred Heart as a general rule. Even when an ambulance comes to get you, they'll often ask you (or someone with you) if you have a hospital you prefer.

Quote :

"you mean you didn't spend weeks researching appendectomy reviews and shopping around for the best price?"

The fact is, for most of your medical care, it's not an emergency and you have a choice (and if you have insurance, you may be required to choose in network, even with hospitals). Obviously, if we changed the nature of health care in this country such that most elective and non-emergency care was selected in part on price, then insurance could still be available to cover those emergencies when you don't have a choice.

[Edited on January 5, 2014 at 3:46 PM. Reason : dsfa]

1/5/2014 3:44:41 PM

^
Insurance companies do the leg work of attempting to reduce what hospitals charge. They even have way more buying power than any single individual. But since it's hospitals that eat the cost of uninsured patients, there's only so much that "price shopping" can do.

Having everyone insured (either through mandate or single payer) is the best way to have market forces drive the costs of procedures down.

1/5/2014 5:32:04 PM

(spoiler: that's why the Heritage Foundation created Obamacare, because its the "free market" way to solve the problem)

1/5/2014 6:23:24 PM

[user]aaronburo[/user]'s rants are bad enough, does he have to keep posting that picture?

1/5/2014 7:25:41 PM

try adblock, i don't see any pictures on this page

1/5/2014 8:14:39 PM

Did Romney care have the same ratios for premium costs?

Were the min coverage standards similar?

1/5/2014 9:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Specifically, a plan must: Cover prescription drugs. Cover 3 regular doctor visits and check-ups for an individual or 6 for a family before any deductibles. Cap the deductible at $2,000 for an individual or $4,000 for a family each year. Cap out-of-pocket spending for non-Rx health services at $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family each year if you have a deductible or co-insurance). Not cap total benefits for a sickness or for each year; and more."

http://www.mass.gov/chia/gov/commissions-and-initiatives/minimum-creditable-coverage.html

[Edited on January 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM. Reason : other link i found noted that most MA plans already had no limits]

1/5/2014 9:52:40 PM

The deductible cap is interesting...I wonder why ACA doesn't have one. The deductible is where many people are currently finding themselves screwed.

1/6/2014 6:20:58 AM

http://www.space.com/24157-obama-legacy-in-planetary-exploration.html

1/6/2014 10:12:05 AM

Not so much an Obama credibility issue, but this is an important case testing limits on Presidential powers and how they are used. At issue are Obama's recess appointments which were not made while the senate was not technically in recess.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/

1/7/2014 1:51:27 PM

Quote :

"It works for food. And housing. And there's no reason to believe it wouldn't work for hospitals."

You don't wait until you're starving to buy food. You don't wait until you're homeless to buy a house. You can't compare those things to medical care, which people only buy at their greatest time of need. At least people without health insurance.

1/7/2014 4:41:19 PM

Quote :

"Insurance companies do the leg work of attempting to reduce what hospitals charge."

Except they don't. They don't reduce what hospitals charge. They increase it! On the surface, they negotiate a reduced price on a percentage basis, but hospitals aren't stupid; they end up raising the price by at least that percentage, leading to a "race to the top." That's what I've been trying to say. Insurance doesn't make anything cheaper, it makes it more expensive!

Quote :

"But since it's hospitals that eat the cost of uninsured patients, there's only so much that "price shopping" can do. "

And why do you think hospitals have to eat the cost of uninsured patients? That's right, a government mandate to do so! Another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the free market has failed".

Quote :

"Having everyone insured (either through mandate or single payer) is the best way to have market forces drive the costs of procedures down."

Yes, having everyone use the very system that is driving up prices astronomically is the only way to drive down prices.

Quote :

"You can't compare those things to medical care, which people only buy at their greatest time of need."

Which would be the wrong way to go about it. If I want my car to break down sooner, then I don't get regular oil changes or inspections or maintenance. Thankfully, those things aren't covered by car insurance, so they are fairly cheap compared to, say, replacing an entire engine.

1/15/2014 11:33:45 PM

Quote :

"Except they don't. They don't reduce what hospitals charge. They increase it! On the surface, they negotiate a reduced price on a percentage basis, but hospitals aren't stupid; they end up raising the price by at least that percentage, leading to a "race to the top." That's what I've been trying to say. Insurance doesn't make anything cheaper, it makes it more expensive!"

Insurance companies do the leg work of attempting to reduce what hospitals charge

Quote :

"And why do you think hospitals have to eat the cost of uninsured patients? That's right, a government mandate to do so! Another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the free market has failed"."

But since it's hospitals that eat the cost of uninsured patients, there's only so much that "price shopping" can do.

Quote :

"Yes, having everyone use the very system that is driving up prices astronomically is the only way to drive down prices."

Having everyone insured (either through mandate or single payer) is the best way to have market forces drive the costs of procedures down.

Quote :

"Which would be the wrong way to go about it. If I want my car to break down sooner, then I don't get regular oil changes or inspections or maintenance. Thankfully, those things aren't covered by car insurance, so they are fairly cheap compared to, say, replacing an entire engine."

You can't compare those things to medical care, which people only buy at their greatest time of need.

1/15/2014 11:56:22 PM

Quote :

"Insurance companies do the leg work of attempting to reduce what hospitals charge."

Except they don't. They don't reduce what hospitals charge. They increase it! On the surface, they negotiate a reduced price on a percentage basis, but hospitals aren't stupid; they end up raising the price by at least that percentage, leading to a "race to the top." That's what I've been trying to say. Insurance doesn't make anything cheaper, it makes it more expensive!

Quote :

"But since it's hospitals that eat the cost of uninsured patients, there's only so much that "price shopping" can do. "

And why do you think hospitals have to eat the cost of uninsured patients? That's right, a government mandate to do so! Another nail in the coffin of the claim that "the free market has failed".

Quote :

"Having everyone insured (either through mandate or single payer) is the best way to have market forces drive the costs of procedures down."

Yes, having everyone use the very system that is driving up prices astronomically is the only way to drive down prices.

Quote :

"You can't compare those things to medical care, which people only buy at their greatest time of need."

Which would be the wrong way to go about it. If I want my car to break down sooner, then I don't get regular oil changes or inspections or maintenance. Thankfully, those things aren't covered by car insurance, so they are fairly cheap compared to, say, replacing an entire engine.

1/15/2014 11:57:16 PM

]quote/[.charge hospitals what reduce to attempting of work leg the do companies Insurance]quote[
!expensive more it makes it ,cheaper anything make t'doesn Insurance .say to trying been ve'I what s'That ".top the to race" a to leading ,percentage that least at by price the raising up end they ;stupid t'aren hospitals but ,basis percentage a on price reduced a negotiate they ,surface the On !it increase They .charge hospitals what reduce ]i/[t'don]i[ They .]i/[t'don]i[ they Except

]quote/[ .do can "shopping price" that much so only s'there ,patients uninsured of cost the eat that hospitals s'it since But]quote[
."failed has market free the" that claim the of coffin the in nail Another !so do to mandate government a ,right s'That ?patients uninsured of cost the eat to have hospitals think you do why And

]quote/[.down procedures of costs the drive forces market have to way best the is )payer single or mandate through either( insured everyone Having]quote[
.prices down drive to way only the is astronomically prices up driving is that system very the use everyone having ,Yes

]quote/[.need of time greatest their at buy only people which ,care medical to things those compare t'can You]quote[
.engine entire an replacing ,say ,to compared cheap fairly are they so ,insurance car by covered t'aren things those ,Thankfully .maintenance or inspections or changes oil regular get t'don I then ,sooner down break to car my want I If .it about go to way wrong the be would Which

1/16/2014 12:00:52 AM

1/16/2014 12:04:26 AM

(FYI, i have blocked any images that you post, so I'm not sure what that is)

1/16/2014 12:07:36 AM

Fixing a car is just like providing health care you guys.

For instance, when it costs a lot to save a loved ones life, you can just total them and take the insurance payout.

And having an untreated broken leg causes someone to live in pain for the rest of their life, just like a flat tire would on their car.

1/16/2014 8:19:03 AM

I've had to get a couple surgeries on my shoulder, so the maintenance costs are getting pretty high. I'm going to sell it and get a quality off-lease shoulder, maybe something with leather.

1/16/2014 8:32:58 AM

1/16/2014 9:59:29 AM

McCrory having a Jan Brewer moment.

1/16/2014 2:15:56 PM

aaronburro, everyone. Literally copy-pasting his own post as a response and then calling the other guy a troll. Is there a still a way to block all of his posts?

1/16/2014 5:59:28 PM

^ you might want to go back and re-read that exchange, bro. trollholio couldn't make any logical rebuttal to what I posted, so he just took what I posted as the quote and "replied" with what I originally quoted. So I just re-posted my original.

1/17/2014 12:00:39 AM