Discussion in 'Anonymous News' started by Neonano, Oct 21, 2013.
What are your oppionions on obama care and the obama care web site?
That I don't give a flying fuck and am wondering why the OP thought this should be posted under 'anonymous news'?
The new Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has had its fair share of problems over the past weeks, and the trouble continues.
While using open-source software is fine, the makers of Healthcare.gov decided to blatantly remove all references to its owners or the original copyright license.
In other words, they simply took the open-source software and are passing it off as their own, a clear violation of the GPL v2 and BSD (3-point) licenses DataTables uses.
For a comparison, here is the original DataTables file and this is how it looks on Healthcare.gov.
SpryMedia, the company behind Data Tables told The Weekly Standard that they are “extremely disappointed” with the rip off and they will follow the issue up with the Department of Health and Human Services, who run Healthcare.gov.
Perhaps they can also contact the Department of Homeland security who are known to seize domains that assist in copyright infringement…
More ---- http://tinyurl.com/lnpjc2u (Torrent Freak Site)
That it is making a whole lot of Tea Baggers and GOP Nazi members butthurt. How dare the sick get better? They are dirty peasants and deserve to die like dogs!
For the rest of the world: Nobody cares.
One guy warned us back in MArch that the rollout was going be a clusterfuck.
Now, it's looking more and more as if it is failing to sign up enough people to make the system work. Without enough people in the system, by their own admission, prices will rise, destroying the reason for implementing it in the first place.
Anyone here actually signed up? How were your premiums? Were you able to navigate the site easily? Was it the ACA or a state exchange you used? Were the prices better or worse than now? was coverage better or worse than previous?
Op is a newfag. He has not been a member for even a week. Considering what other new fags post however, its above average.
I had health insurance before the laws. so i am not affected. Personally, i think the single payer system would have been better.
As for the "obama care violates the free market argument", there was no free market for health care in america. You went to a hospital, and if you wanted other options, then the hospital would charge unnecessary fees to force you to stick to the prescribed treatment.
The insane right( i am part of the right, but i do not agree with the shit they are saying lately) thinks that obama care's failure will be a victory. I disagree. if it fails, and the republicans loose seats in congress next year( i think they will). It will be one step closer to socialized medicine, something they do NOT want. They need to bite the bullet and get on the reform train.
Personally i think all of this could have been avoided if we regulated prices at hospitals. in any other industry, a "charge master"(the hospitals arbitrary system for pricing) would have been sued out of existence, and people would have gone to jail. Oh well, the free market always wins, and people in Washington will not be happy when their idiocy comes back to haunt them.
Will O'Bomber re-institute debtors' prisons for those who cannot afford to pay neither the insurance premium, nor the fines levied for non-payment of said premiums?
Otherwise, it doesn't affect this non-American either way, so... *shrug*
??? if people can not afford the tax, then they would qualify for medicare. How would they end up in debtors prison? You claim they would throw people in debtors prison, while other people in the same camp claim that he wants us to be a welfare state. So which is it? People like you are why everyone thinks conservatives are a joke.
the way the program is set up, you would either get health insurance, or pay a tax. Its a hell of a lot nicer then the mandatory car insurance laws states have. Were are the protests for those?
I think even sticking with the 'public option' idea that was part of the original proposals would have been pretty good. My country has that and it works pretty fucking well at keeping insurance prices down.
The idea is that the government set-up and run their own health insurance company. There is no obligation on the public to buy its services, and will only do so if it can offer better value for money than what other insurance companies are offering. In my country the public-run insurance company is an effective prevention measure against extortionate prices, and I have seen no reason to believe the same idea wouldn't work in the US.
It's no wonder the insurance companies over there tried so hard to kill the public option. It was a threat to their business model of ripping the guts of the American public.
The sad part, is that our health care system is the cause for sooo much money lost. Our economy would be so much better with any reform. Oh well, retarded business men in Washington killing jobs, again.
would cost me more per year, (while minimally covering my needs, if at all, ) than if I pay the fine, cover my own costs and keep my information to myself. Even at the inflated amounts of the fines for year 2016 , it's still cheaper than the premiums, WITH guvmint assistance for being so buttfuck poor. so no... not signing up... thank you, but no. If I wanted to leak my personal identifying information to everyone with a computer, I don't need some jack off government website admin to do it for me, thanks. They can't even build a website, much less guarantee my info is protected... no, no, no... They already have enough of me, if they want moar, let 'em dig for it. I'm between old enough to retire and not old enough to get Medicaid. Dont make enough money to get insurance, make too much to get it free... Insurance has NEVER paid medical costs ... always fight you on coverage. Paid premiums all my working adult life, got very little in return. Now the government wants me to pay some more or pay the fine... I'll pay the fines... I can afford those easier than the premiums. I've paid insurance companies all the dimes they are going to get.
Like all programs which emanate from the state, it's going to do more harm than good. The state is organized coercion, which is pretty much always the worst available option for dealing with any problem, and especially so in economic matters. One economic size doesn't fit all, and adding more thugs doesn't improve the fit.
Obama Drama Care?
Not so much.
Oversimplistic and inaccurate tosh imo.
accurate and on point, imo
A couple quotes from a wise man:
Tom Sowell is spot on. This shows why government programs can never work as intended. The people who devise and run them have no skin in the game, and hence, when they make mistakes, they have no incentive to fix the problem.
Health care is the perfect example. COngress makes stupid laws in 1943, and rather than fixing those stupid laws, they create more stupid laws to gloss over their previous mistakes. Obama Care is the latest is a string of mistakes running for 70 years. Only government can be that irresponsible and get away with it.
Thank you. Any chance the glitches in Affordable Care Act sign ups are, well....a result?
I can. Putting them in the hands of an HMO that makes profit by paying as little as possible, has non-doctors making medical decisions, and pays no price for being wrong.
Prolly not. It just means they aren't attributing the source of the Open Source code to the original developers. A faux pas to be sure. But glitch enducing? I doubt it.
Republicans have internet activists too, and security consultants, and private security companies on retainer. So I wonder.
As an outsider I can only conclude that you 'mericans have some strange problem that prevent yourself from organizing things properly at a national level. In the rest of the civilized world state run police, armed forces, education and health care works quite well. I have no idea of why it won't work over at your place.
I hope you guys find a way through though. A functional national health service of sorts really makes life easier for all.
100% agree. It's kind of sad that this sophistic "all gov is evil" prevents them from seeing the many examples outside the US that seem to disprove the contention.
It is not that I can't see that there are areas where can government work. That is not and has never been the contention. Governments are people, with all that means.
One problem Random Guy's claim of better health care in Europe is the difficulty of assessing health care across countries when those countries use different reporting standards. So, when we hear how much better health care outcomes are in Europe over the US, they are not telling the whole story. In fact, the way it is presented deliberately obscures the difference in how countries report medical data.
I've read recently that you do NOT want to be a cancer patient in the UK, as compared to the US. So the issues are much more complex than those data seem to indicate.
For me the issue comes down to this: most of us just want to be left alone to live our lives. But some people insist that they know better than the person does what is good for them. That level of arrogance needs to be cut down every time it rears its ugly head.
I say ObamaCare is a bad idea and will not have the results we want. I say that because of economics, pure and simple. It is not going to lower costs and raise our health, it will in fact do the opposite. So rather than allow me my conscience, many people say I should put it away and let Obama and the politicians decide what is best for all if us.
I think that is a prescription for disaster.
Disease, bacteria and viruses as pathological agents know No socioeconomic boundaries. So let the uninsured continue to be uninsured.
However no matter your income you place your life and those of your loved ones at risk by such behavior. TB, MRSA are on the rise many low income people suffer from these diseases and they can be fatal.
Do your own reading on TB, MRSA, STD's this list goes on and on. So maybe it's just screw the poor until some rich kids start dying. Then people will be saying the Affordable Care Act, wow that was a really good idea. Why didn't we think of that before my rich child died from a preventable disease.
Your rationalisation for ignoring real-world data continues to ring hollow. And, to be frank with you, it's very sad.
Let me walk you through a concrete example:
http://hushp.harvard.edu/sites/defa..._files/IFHP 2012 Comparative Price Report.pdf
This is a survey that compares the costs of various treatments available in the countries surveyed. What information is relevant to explaining why the US isn't much much shitter than the other countries surveyed? This is a like-treatment/like-drug to like-treatment/like-drug comparison, so what part of the story isn’t being told here? That the US spending as a % of GDP is so much higher is damning on its own, but to see the glaring differences in treatment/drug prices that lead to such is shocking.
What part of the story is missing or how was the survey methodology flawed? This is real-world raw data here, and its painting a very clear picture – simply ignoring it is wilfully imposed delusion.
Nothing really complex about it. If you are fucking loaded you're outcome in the US is top notch (although the UK isn't far behind this). If you're not loaded and live in the US then either you're dead or financially fucked. In the UK not so much. The WHO has done detailed reports on outcomes and costs on this, but since that constitutes real-world data I suppose it has to be ignored.
Would this include the private insurance companies and other private service providers who are putting their profit margins before your wellbeing? You do realise that, with the current status quo in the US healthcare system, that these companies are completely fucking you over right? And that the type of sophistic bullshit you are spewing here is refuted by the real-world data?
If you don't see that companies like Wendell Potter's ex-employees are going to continue fucking you over way above anything the US gov will do then you may be having a brainfart.
I have to wonder if you have Stockholm syndrome or whatever the equivalent to that would be after getting fucked in the ass by the current dysfunction US healthcare system. The FACT that you cannot make your case on real-world data, and have to go out of your way to ignore said real-world data, should clue you in to the terrible truth – you can have your own conscience, but your own facts are a different story.
It's not your choice to make for me, and trying to arrogate it to yourself will never end well, no matter how many rationales and white papers you wave around.
I would add that it's also not my choice to make for you, but there's no need to do so because I don't want to do that in the first place.
If you really have a good plan, then wave the white papers and rationales and persuade people to voluntarily join up. If you have to threaten and intimidate people to get them to join, then your plan is a bad plan and it deserves to die. Good results will attract more participants with no need for force.
These ideas are simplistic, and they're true.
I think the basic European idea is that you don't have to have people "join a plan", if you get sick you get a decent treatment, that's really it. It's paid for by your taxes, just like the army or the school system. If you don't want it, you can always go into the woods and croak on your own (in practical term no people seem to want to do that) or you can buy private health insurance and go to a private hospital. It costs a lot more but standards of care are often better and the queues are shorter. Some rich people do that. It's not like anyone is forcing anyone.
The only forced aspect of an NHS system is taxes, but taxes are mandatory for a range of services anyway (police, firebrigades, military, schools etc), so it's not like it is a novel approach, even in the US.
Again, you guys must do as you feel like, it's your country after all. We foreigners are only pointing out that the system actually works quite well over here. You may find it is hopeless, or you may find it is beneficial, only time will tell, but it would be kind of moronic to say it is bad on principle.
As a canadian I find it laughable
Yeah, the taxes part kills it. Sending round thugs to steal from people is out on principle no matter how helpful you expect the ensuing expenditures to be. Of course, that's not a popular view yet, so there's more nonsense ahead.
So, Johnny, I'm curious. What's the perfect system for you? Assuming you can define that...
Is the perfect system for YOU more important than what the "perfect" system is for ALL?
Who said I want "a system"? And since when is there ever any "system that's perfect for ALL"?
Fair enough answer. I was using "system" as a catch-all phrase for the treatment of illness and health in America. And "perfect" was in quotes (at least the second time) to connote my recognition that nothing is perfect. Presuming you can make your way past my use of these ill-considered and imprecise words, I'd venture to guess that you understand the gist of my question.
You don't want a tax funded police, firebrigade, military, sewer system or schools either?
Who the hell am I to dictate the treatment of illness and health in America? What do you take me for, a politician?
Correct. I respect people's property rights and right to contract freely.
True that. It would, however, be much more honest on your part to acknowledge the real-world data and to state that you are choosing a continuance of ass-fucking on your part.
I thought the plan was fairly obvious by now. It involves looking at other countries, recognising aspects of their healthcare systems that are working much better than the US one, and then trying to learn from that.
One idea that nearly made it (until US insurers had a shitfit) was the public option. No one would have been forced to use it, but examples of the idea in other countries have shown that it really does help reduce prices by injecting extra competition into the market. I get why the lobbyists, acting to protect insurer profit, were so against it – but cannot fathom why folks like you are so against it. What single downside does the idea have? No one would have been forced to use it, no one would have forced you to change your doctors, etc., so why were folks like you against it? I suspect the answer is because your folks confused your simplistic catchphrases for evidence-based argument.
Your ideas are completely at odds with real-world data, so how can you possible with a straight face claim them to be true??? As I said previously, the FACT that you are relying on simplistic catchphrases to ignore real-world data should be a red flag for you.
Have a look at the price differential between the US and other countries:
http://hushp.harvard.edu/sites/defa..._files/IFHP 2012 Comparative Price Report.pdf
Seriously, take your head out of your ass and look at that. Presently, the cost to every US patient is significantly higher for the receipt of equal treatment/drugs.
Within this context let me parse your taxes comment. Are you seriously implying that you would rather pay over the odds and a significantly increased amount for your healthcare solely to avoid having to pay comparatively less in taxes????? Anyone opposing learning from other countries on this topic "<i>… because of economics, pure and simple</i>" has a very odd grasp of economics.
Let's put a figure on this to emphasise how silly this is, noting that some of the price differences are over double in the US. Would you rather pay $1 in taxes for a given treatment or, sticking to some misguided unsubstantiated principle, would you pay $2 to a private insurer/hospital that is screwing you for profit??? The extra money being pissed away on US healthcare has to come from somewhere – so why is this being ignored??? Never let facts get in the way of a principle??
Reposting this specific point because I'm at a total loss to wrap my head around whatever US-brainfart thinks this is a good idea.
I'll pose it in the form of a question - which is better for the individual, the wider economy and the quality of healthcare? Is it;
- Paying over the odds for healthcare (essentially costing every citizen more in premiums and healthcare costs) solely to avoid your money ever passing through a public system?
- Copying a working system from another country that will result in much lower costs for every citizen (in both premiums and raw healthcare costs)?
The phrase "<i>cutting off one's nose to spite one's face</i>" springs to mind.
Everything you're going on about begins with the assumption of statism. Your entire thought process is poisoned, rendering you incapable of even hearing what I actually say. None of the comparisons you're making are of interest to me because I reject statism at the outset. I'm not interested in any of your options because I don't accept the state as a legitimate institution under any circumstances.
That having been said, in the interest of mitigating my tone, if nothing else, I'll gladly stipulate that you're probably a very intelligent person and you obviously care about making things better.
So you really want to live in a stateless area. Sure mate, whatever floats your boat.
You do know that there are stateless areas of the globe (and I'm not talking about single islands owned by the hyper-rich), and those areas are generally not considered very nice to live in? Actually, quite a few of the immigrants going through the all the troubles of getting entry to Europe come from just those kinds of areas. Unless one lives in one of those islands I mentioned (where the owner is the de facto state), stateless usually also means without sewers, hospitals or running water.
Why are you STILL ignoring that real-world factual data I cited, and upon which the entirety of my last two posts were built on?
The bit you seem to be missing is that my argument, unlike yours, does not have to rely on any opinion regarding the state – I am simply looking to countries whose healthcare costs are much lower than in the US, even when compared on a like-with-like basis. The data speaks for itself, and spells out that the US is doing it very very wrong.
But don't you realise your mistake here RG? Pointing out these things is referring to real-world data, and thus have to be utterly ignored in defence of some sort of principle.
Obama care depends on the young healthy people paying for care they do not very often need, to support the care of older or sicker people. This sucks for the healthy except younger people face maternity care costs and catastrophic accidents or illness. Statistically it sucks for the young. However there is no way to predict accidents and maternity problems so statistics are not helpful for individuals.
The plan doesn't work unless the healthy pay -hence the force.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!