Obama Failure Thread Part IV

I know the current system as well. It is pretty damn broken. Long story short, I am currently without a prescription plan (premium was $486 per month). My son has had a stubborn ear infection, so this has been the first time we've needed any prescription in over a year in our house.

After seeing the doctor, like you at 4:45, we were given a script. Powerful antibiotic. We informed the doctor we were without insurance. She was kind enough to shuffle through a pile of crap to find that a drug rep left coupons for steep discounts on the med. needed.

Walmart pharmacy wouldn't honor the coupon. They wanted $120 for the script (mind you, we have already done a $70 script and a second generic script). We left it at the counter and went to CVS. After about 20 minutes on the phone with the drug company, the pharmacy was able to honor the coupon to reduce the script by $100. We paid $20, but it took 2 trips to pharmacies. Waiting around for an answer. Finally, resolution and home by 7:00 PM

Point being, health care should not be like buying an airline seat. How the f#ck can a drug be $120 if I don't ask my doctor what they can do and $20 because of a drug rep coupon? Or God knows how much if my $500 pharmacy insurance premium with a co-pay built in was being used?

That's current day US healthcare.

 

In other countries, people also get sick, go to emergency rooms, get diagnosed, and are sent home with a prescription. The difference is that here it costs twice as much.

 

Yes, you are being completely selfish. It's easy to be a dick on the internet. Have you ever looked someone in the eye and told them that you don't want their child to have access to medical care?

 

In fairness, it's not that he doesn't *want* their kid to have access to healthcare, it's more that he doesn't *care* as long as his do.

 

That's the ultimate divide, isn't it. People who want to share services with others vs. people who want to hoard the same.

 

That is how the University of Chicago models all economic decisions.

It's an unrealistic model, as can be seen from the many objections on this thread to a person who behaves according to Chicago's assumptions. A whole lot of people incorporate other factors into their decisions.

 

Like where? Rwanda?

 

No Rwanda jokes from me, I don't want to be sent home from the Olympics.

 

I don't want to limit anyone's access to anything, I simply want to make sure that the access that I already have doesn't change. You can site all the graphs and studies you want but at the end of the day you cannot guarantee me that my access wouldn't change.

 

You'd be a whole lot more willing to trade off access for lower costs if you were paying the full costs out of pocket.

Which of course is why we're in this mess in the first place -- the benefits are upfront, the costs are mostly hidden. So more benefits please.

 

There is no guarantees in life, Stanger. Even if ACA had been repealed your wife's employer very well could have dropped your medical coverage. Almost all businesses go through annual reviews of their medical coverage and some come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. However, since ACA wasn't repealed, the good news for you is that even if your wife's work does end up dropping your medical, you can still jump on one of the insurance exchanges and get coverage for you and your family and your kids can get medical coverage even though they have a pre-existing condition.

 

"Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

 

You can't guarantee it, either. Your whole model is based on your wife's company being able to pay for your health insurance. Unless her company is a TBTF bank, your solution has the same weakness.

 

Hey, notices from our insurance companies just came in this week. The plans that our company offers intend to increase their rates 12% and 14% next year. God Bless the free market. Controlling the costs and all.

 

This is close to unbelievable. You're willing to let 50 million people go totally uninsured because your Cadillac plan has an infinitesimally small chance of being affected somehow? Some people just belong in the world of Hobbes, I guess. You must be one of them. I could list hundreds of equivalencies here to show you how absurd your position is, but I know it would be a waste of time. Living in a society is about give and take. You give some, you take some. Unless you're Stanger; then you only take.

You're a Catholic, right? Ever heard of the Beatitudes? You might want to check them out.

 

I kind of tell that to the homeless people I see everyday, not that I want them to go hungry, just that I am an asshole and do not want them to have my beer money.

 

Hey, I understand. You'd gladly let people die of cancer rather than take a tiny chance of things changing. That sounds fair.

 

So I am the one letting 50 Million people go uninsured? That would be the politicians on both sides.
I thought the quoted number was 30 Million. Oh, but then someone said those aren't new people.

Look, my kids need the care they are currently getting. I am thankful for that. If you are asking me to sacrifice that care in order to help insure more people, the answer is no. Not one of you would forgo your children's health for any reason.

Tell me their care will remain the same and you can do what you want, but you can't tell me that because none of you know that for sure.

 

I hope you never are put in a situation where people are telling you to forsake your kids care in order to help "the greater good".

 

Technically giving money to the homeless isn't helping them. Most homeless organizations will tell you not to do that because 9 times out of 10 they won't be using the money to buy food (they get that for free in most cases), but to buy drugs or alcohol.

 

No one's asking you to forsake your kids' care. That's just something you've made up. And you're telling people I know to go ******** themselves now. No one's asking you to be Pavlik Morozov here.

 

No - what you're doing is making up a false argument (that your kids' care will somehow suffer) in order to justify opposing something that you only really want to oppose because President Obama is behind it.

You know, I know, John Boehner knows, and even the Koch Brothers know, that your kids' care will not change one bit because of better coverage for everybody else. Just like the republicans, you're being disingenuous for the sake of opposing President Obama at all costs, even though in this case, his policy will help millions of people.

Maybe if you provide one single, solitary shred of evidence that your kids will somehow suffer because of this new law, you'll start helping people to see things your way. Just because Michele Bachmann says there will be death panels, doesn't make it so.

 

I have giving a bottle of booze to a homeless person, I mean foot he can get at a shelter, but as you say, we know that what he really wanted was the alcohol, he was a happy guy.

 

But I can guarantee that you didn't read one page of what I posted because if you had, you would realize that you can guarantee your access would not change.

And it's "cite."

 

Hell, none of us can tell you for sure that they're even yours.

I mean, look what you are doing-- when you brought them into the debate, everyone was respectful and I imagine like me everyone was concerned for them as a gut reaction. Over the course of a few pages, you've brought me, anyway,a lot closer to not caring about their welfare at all, because you are using them as an excuse for what I can only describe as your callousness. What you are saying in effect is that your children are real to you and other people's are not, and that you know everyone else is just like you but pretending to be different. Well, your children started as real to me, but they are getting more and more abstract as this discussion continues, and not through any fault of their own.

I have no children myself, but I can name off the top of my head J.L. and D.H. as people I know and KNOW without asking would approve in a flash a 1% risk to their children for a 30% improvement in your children's chances. In both cases it is a real not theoretical issue to them-- the children involved have needed a lot of support through the years.

And we're only talking about a 1-2 ratio for in each case, not a 7 digit one. Blood may be thicker than water, but you are trying to make it thick as armor.