Originally Posted by Deb C

... the rage, name calling and crude behavior that Playwrite displays on an ongoing basis.

The lies and half truths you keep posting over and over again is what is crude behavior. Cut the horseshit and you'll see a lot less rage. Keep the lies and half-truths a-comin and you'll get what you certainly deserve.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yet you have the selfrightous Maddows and other so called liberals passionately promoting the ACA on a daily basis. Somehow, it appears you might have a prejudice for activists who are passionate about shedding a light on the downside of ACA. This, to me, is a double standard.

You'll never hear the authors of the article I posted calling names and being down right nasty to those who disagree with them.

I wish all you wet dreaming a-holes had done was name-calling. Instead, you've done real damage by enabling the Right. I lay the blame for Red State governors denying Medicaid expansion to the most needy right on your doorsteps.

It's all derived from those polls showing that a majority opposes the ACA. What's lost in that is that over a forth of that opposition comes from you idiots saying it doesn't go far enough AND should be scraped. That is what been given that majority in opposition. If instead, the polls had been 60%+ either support it OR hope it will eventually turn into something more, then the last 3 years would have been completely different and we would have a strong foundation to move forward with what you idiots actually want. But that isn't how it worked out. Why? Well, because you all our frickin political idiots. Thanks, for all you've done to help push what we all want into being now nothing but a wet dream in at least our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

He's really only good at compounding the anger. I don't agree that the ACA is a step forward, because I think we have to calculate opportunity costs.

And when it comes to opportunity costs and political capital, the Democrats seem to be doing everything they can to waste the opportunity handed to them.

Everyone says "Maybe next crash, maybe next catalyst.." but how many chances do we really expect? Meanwhile, the Republicans have been so successful in getting everything they want, that all they have left to do is move the goal posts and demand even more. It's a failing strategy for the left, over and over and over again...

You don't hear this bullshit coming out of people who have sick kids and no insurance.

Your cheap ass insurance was cheap ass because the insurance company knew they would never have to pay off on it. So now you got to fork over some cash to buy yourself some real insurance, poor baby.

And you're having to do it in the GOP hellhole formerly known as North Carolina. I bet you never lifted a finger to stop that; more likely you helped voted those knuckle draggers into office. Man up and live with it.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Indeed! Is PW beating a dead horse and "arming the enemy" when he continues to spread debunked propaganda about a relatively unpopular piece of corrupt legislation, posting the same picture to the same thread twenty times?

M&L, can you teach us more about surrendering and letting the opposition win? That will be useful in the neo-gilded age your apathy contributes to.

And what "debunked propaganda" would that be? The road map? Explain to me what you believe is not true about it. I got the wager waiting for you, dude.

What's next, you're gonna tell me you can fire 100+ shots in under a minute with a revolver???? Maybe you'll finally be the dude with the $25 video camera to prove it.

You guys are all alike. Didn't your dads ever take you aside and explain what being a man is all about?

Wow! Quite a bit of spleen venting all around! My $0.02:

I basically agree with PW and M&L's positions. As I remember the Dems passed Obamacare by a single vote...not a lot of (any?) wiggle room for single payer for now. Also IMHO Obama spent most of his 1st term political capital to get it passed & is spending most of his 2nd term political capital trying to get it established. TP crazies are taking the country to the brink in opposition. It seems like this issue is becoming the lightning rod for political/social developments this 4T. Here's how Obamacare directly benefits my friends:

* no more insurance rejection for pre-existing conditions, didn't exist in the good ole' USA prior. If you've got no pre-existing conditions, do you really understand the significance of this change? Maybe only if you've really got the flexible mindset to be able to put yourself in another's shoes, so to speak.

* affordable insurance for self-insured and hard-working low-to-middle income self employed, once tax-credits are included. If Obamacare isn't gutted by TP types, I think in the long run the safety net provided will encourage entrepreneurship by individuals who may have otherwise stuck to the "safe" path of working for government or large corporations (that previously provided the only viable "guaranteed" health insurance plans). Ironically, such entrepreneurship is exactly what the TP and Republicans claim to be all about, although I believe those claims to be blatant lies by national politicians who really only support giant corporations and their controlling owners (socialism for the rich, bloody toothed capitalism for the rest).

BTW, I'm no fan of the Dems either, their basically center-right "opposition" to the crazies. Nonetheless, I believe it would be a terrible, terrible setback for progressives if the crazies succeed in gutting Obamacare, especially in a 4T. Therefore, it seems "crazy" to me to oppose Obamacare from the left at this point, similar to what PW has already pointed out. Let it get implemented, for pete's sake, then worry about creating something better. I wonder if some people's personal dislike of PW are getting in the way of their understanding and appreciation of his(?) what-seem-to-me-to-be-very-reasonable arguments?

end of $0.02, back to lurking...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's return to the roadmap -

That's a very good map

I don't disagree with Deb that single payer is better, and should be pushed for. What baffles me is the idea that ACA is not "the best we can do now". That it seems to me asserts that the Republicans can be convinced to support health care reform. It seems to me a snowball in hell would have a better chance than single payer in the current congress. So we should see ACA for exactly what it is, good and bad, and not be deceived by any of the politicians. We must also be politically realistic, and see that the only way to move forward is to defeat Republicans. That does not guarantee by any means that Democrats would move things forward, but it at least gets the snowball out of hell, and then the people can look past the political snowjobs and push the politicians forward-- if they have the guts and the wisdom to do so.

The Tea Party was unrealistic to think they could stop Obamacare with blackmail. We would be unrealistic to expect the Tea Party to support something even better. Send them home first.

PS I like your 2 cents Bill.

The real problem is the ACA fails to address costs in any meaningful manner, and in doing so, leaves every American at risk of medical bankruptcy whether or not they have insurance. In fact, it actually gives a huge incentive for the insurers to maximize spending.

A lot of talk and focus has been paid to the MLR rules, but the Kaiser Foundation estimates this will save $2 billion annually - 1/1000 of what we spend on healthcare.

The main component is cost shifting - from the sick to the healthy - makes some sense. But there's also a general cost shift from older workers to younger ones - and that doesn't make nearly as much sense when incomes and financial obligations vs. assets is considered. There's another shift from the consumer to the federal government, and we're going to have another few tens of billions on the list of things the federal government spends for healthcare.

HHS expects healthcare as a share of GDP to continue rising, reachnig 19.5% as soon as 2017.

And what do we get for this? Despite a 85% insurance rate before the ACA (compared to Japan's 90%), we're consistently ranked near the bottom of developed countries in life expectancy, infant mortality, and preventable disease.

So we've decided to spend even more, pervert industry incentives, and punish those workers who try to avoid the great insurance scam.

Really, if that's the best we can do, all of this discussion is pointless. The owners won the 4T, and the workers didn't even bother to put up a fight.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The real problem is the ACA fails to address costs in any meaningful manner, and in doing so, leaves every American at risk of medical bankruptcy whether or not they have insurance. In fact, it actually gives a huge incentive for the insurers to maximize spending.

A lot of talk and focus has been paid to the MLR rules, but the Kaiser Foundation estimates this will save $2 billion annually - 1/1000 of what we spend on healthcare.

The main component is cost shifting - from the sick to the healthy - makes some sense. But there's also a general cost shift from older workers to younger ones - and that doesn't make nearly as much sense when incomes and financial obligations vs. assets is considered. There's another shift from the consumer to the federal government, and we're going to have another few tens of billions on the list of things the federal government spends for healthcare.

HHS expects healthcare as a share of GDP to continue rising, reaching 19.5% as soon as 2017.

And what do we get for this? Despite a 85% insurance rate before the ACA (compared to Japan's 90%), we're consistently ranked near the bottom of developed countries in life expectancy, infant mortality, and preventable disease.

So we've decided to spend even more, pervert industry incentives, and punish those workers who try to avoid the great insurance scam.

Really, if that's the best we can do, all of this discussion is pointless. The owners won the 4T, and the workers didn't even bother to put up a fight.

That's typical in America though, since the 3T began. The main reason we are ranked at the bottom of those things also has to do with how much the deck is stacked against average people in the USA in post-Reagan America, with all the policies that have been enacted over the last 33-plus years that favor the owners and speculators instead of the workers.

I think you may have a good point about cost John. I hear, however, that health care costs are already not going up as fast as they did before any of ACA was in effect. I think there are some cost controls in ACA, if my memory serves. There no doubt need to be more. American medicine spends too much on end of life treatment, for one thing, but we don't want those "death panels" do we? We also need to pass the reform to the cost of drugs that was proposed but never passed iirc. Drugs were cheaper in other places by a considerable degree. Insurance companies take a lot. Single payer would contain cost a lot more, as Medicare already does, because it's group coverage and dominates the market. What other cost containment measures should be made until we get it?

And we really need to look at our lifestyle, in many ways. Can there be a movement again to change it? Physical health and fitness is more important for older than for younger people, but in our society the priority is reversed.

As I see it, the ACA's biggest drawback is the illusion it insists on creating that it is, at its heart, an "insurance" program and not a "welfare" program - and maintaining that illusion is making it cost infinitely more, both in dollars and, yes, human freedom, than it would otherwise. In this sense, its creators are living not in Oz, as several congresspersons intimated yesterday, but rather on the planet Talos 4, depicted in the Star Trek pilot episode, "The Menagerie."

And how many people would have lost their private insurance with the implementation of a national charity-care program (funded with a tax on the sale of what would be legalized marijuana) that I started another thread on here about? Hint: The number is colloquially expressed by such terms as "goose-egg," "donut," etc.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It’s hard to tell, but it looks like a pirouette. It was bit sloppy, but pretty good for wearing tight panties.

Is that what you think it looked like? That was just a hiccup while I was scratching the small of my back.

When I pirouette wearing ladies' undergarments, you will know it.

Originally Posted by Bill66

Wow! Quite a bit of spleen venting all around! My $0.02:

I basically agree with PW and M&L's positions. As I remember the Dems passed Obamacare by a single vote...not a lot of (any?) wiggle room for single payer for now. Also IMHO Obama spent most of his 1st term political capital to get it passed & is spending most of his 2nd term political capital trying to get it established. TP crazies are taking the country to the brink in opposition. It seems like this issue is becoming the lightning rod for political/social developments this 4T. Here's how Obamacare directly benefits my friends:

* no more insurance rejection for pre-existing conditions, didn't exist in the good ole' USA prior. If you've got no pre-existing conditions, do you really understand the significance of this change? Maybe only if you've really got the flexible mindset to be able to put yourself in another's shoes, so to speak.

* affordable insurance for self-insured and hard-working low-to-middle income self employed, once tax-credits are included. If Obamacare isn't gutted by TP types, I think in the long run the safety net provided will encourage entrepreneurship by individuals who may have otherwise stuck to the "safe" path of working for government or large corporations (that previously provided the only viable "guaranteed" health insurance plans). Ironically, such entrepreneurship is exactly what the TP and Republicans claim to be all about, although I believe those claims to be blatant lies by national politicians who really only support giant corporations and their controlling owners (socialism for the rich, bloody toothed capitalism for the rest).

BTW, I'm no fan of the Dems either, their basically center-right "opposition" to the crazies. Nonetheless, I believe it would be a terrible, terrible setback for progressives if the crazies succeed in gutting Obamacare, especially in a 4T. Therefore, it seems "crazy" to me to oppose Obamacare from the left at this point, similar to what PW has already pointed out. Let it get implemented, for pete's sake, then worry about creating something better. I wonder if some people's personal dislike of PW are getting in the way of their understanding and appreciation of his(?) what-seem-to-me-to-be-very-reasonable arguments?

end of $0.02, back to lurking...

Pretty reasonable; not too much to disagree with. Generally, deal with the landscape that is rather than what one's particular fantasy world holds for them.

Shooting people's magic ponies doesn't buy one too many friends. I accept that.

Maybe you shouldn't lurk so much; another reasonable voice in cacophony of insanity - I'm sure M&L, Wonkette, Pbrower, and a couple others wouldn't mind sharing the load. Leave the magic pony killing to me; my hands are way too bloody to turn back now.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The real problem is the ACA fails to address costs in any meaningful manner, and in doing so, leaves every American at risk of medical bankruptcy whether or not they have insurance. In fact, it actually gives a huge incentive for the insurers to maximize spending.

A lot of talk and focus has been paid to the MLR rules, but the Kaiser Foundation estimates this will save $2 billion annually - 1/1000 of what we spend on healthcare.

The main component is cost shifting - from the sick to the healthy - makes some sense. But there's also a general cost shift from older workers to younger ones - and that doesn't make nearly as much sense when incomes and financial obligations vs. assets is considered. There's another shift from the consumer to the federal government, and we're going to have another few tens of billions on the list of things the federal government spends for healthcare.

HHS expects healthcare as a share of GDP to continue rising, reachnig 19.5% as soon as 2017.

And what do we get for this? Despite a 85% insurance rate before the ACA (compared to Japan's 90%), we're consistently ranked near the bottom of developed countries in life expectancy, infant mortality, and preventable disease.

So we've decided to spend even more, pervert industry incentives, and punish those workers who try to avoid the great insurance scam.

Really, if that's the best we can do, all of this discussion is pointless. The owners won the 4T, and the workers didn't even bother to put up a fight.

You are confusing the micro with the macro when telling us that continued growth in medical costs means bankruptcy for the individual.

As the "road map" shows you, before the ACA, we have single payer (Medicare and Medicaid) covering just under 1/3 of the population and with ACA that goes up just over 1/3 of the population (33-35% depending on Red state governors). It's not possible for these people to suffer medical bankruptcy.

Before the ACA, you had another 45% that had employer-provided insurance that meets the ACA standards. The ACA imposes a maximum cap on out-of-pocket expenses: $5,950 for individuals, $11,900 for families. Even if these people loss their jobs, that insurance still has to cover their medical costs. If they go bankrupt, it's not from the medical costs; it would be from not being gainfully employed - that is a different issue.

Under the ACA, that 45% goes to 50% as substandard insurance is eliminated (see the whining about people losing their cheap ass 'insurance').

Then there's the remaining 15% eligible for the ACA exchanges, 80% of whom will get subsidies for their premiums - a lot of those households are making over $30K per year up to $92K. You really think they're going to go into bankruptcy over $6K individual or $12K family non-payments? You really think in the majority of cases the doctors and hospitals won't work this out with them? Do you really think that there are no other sources of support for these people to meet those bills in their communities?

Dude, within a year, the issue of medical bankruptcy is going away.

Now you may be right about the macro level of whether the nation can continue to afford the rising level of health care costs. In fact, taking away the possibility of medical bankruptcy for households might actually accelerate that issue. But here's the little secret, (psss, don't tell anyone) its now the insurers' problem ---- and they only have one solution. Now raise your game and think about what that will be.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I wonder if insurance companies will find ways to get around the new rules and give people their old policies back.
Maybe call it something other than "insurance?" Legalese is so interesting.

I also read somewhere that they can't enforce the penalty for being uninsured if you don't get a tax refund. Illinois does the same with Chicago parking tickets (takes it out of your tax refund) but I know folks with multiple tickets who never get nabbed, for that same reason.

As long as you don't have a tax refund coming, the govt can't collect the penalty - the ACA actually prevents any other way of collecting.

That penalty just sits on your IRS account as owed, collecting interest with each year it's not paid and with each year you don't get insurance having more penalty added - sort of like a savings account for the govt that they might not ever be able to collect on. It just grows with you as you move through life that gets increasingly complicated - mortgage interest deductions, retirement accounts, college savings, even more so if self-employed or running a business. You just have to make sure the govt never owes you a tax refund.

Probably deciding on who is going to be your tax accountant for life will be far more important of a decision than who you marry or whether or when you will have kids.

Also, what are the odds the law will change and change how that growing penalty can be collected. As the vast majority of people are on insurance increasingly look upon those that refuse insurance as the 'free-riders' driving everyone else's costs up, I'm pretty sure even a President Cruz or President Paul isn't going to be too concerned about such principled folks.

But I realize there's the principle of the thing - you know, like how various anarchists, libertarians, and nihilists have refused to live in this collective known as the United States!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

The real problem is the ACA fails to address costs in any meaningful manner, and in doing so, leaves every American at risk of medical bankruptcy whether or not they have insurance. In fact, it actually gives a huge incentive for the insurers to maximize spending.

Your correct.

"Millions of Americans are deep in medical debt. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will throw a lifeline to very few. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even after health reform is fully implemented in 2014, 30 million to 36 million people will remain uninsured. And tens of millions who do have insurance will have coverage that is too limited to ensure financial protection against an expensive illness. Many families will remain just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

Medical Debt: A Curable Affliction Health Reform Won’t Fix


"Learning from Massachusetts

Our findings from surveys of debtors in Massachusetts before and after the implementation of that state’s health reform (the prototype of the national reform) make it clear that such limited coverage will do little to prevent medical bankruptcy.

Among Massachusetts bankruptcy filers in 2009, 53 percent cited illness or medical bills as a cause of their bankruptcy, a percentage that was statistically indistinguishable from the 59 percent figure we found before reform. Indeed, because the total number of bankruptcies had risen, the actual number of medical bankruptcies in the state increased from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.[7] Surveys by others indicate that the reform had little impact on access to care.

Why are so many Massachusetts residents still suffering medical bankruptcies despite health reform? Although health-care reform cut the number of uninsured in the state by more than half (to about 219,000), much of the new coverage is so limited that serious illness still leaves families with medical bills they cannot pay."

Originally Posted by The Rani

I guess he thinks that playdude's tirades serve some constructive purpose?
Ironic, since plenty of people on the forum have noted that his attitude drowns out his message.

This chart pretty much spells out the conversations around here.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Your correct.

"Millions of Americans are deep in medical debt. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will throw a lifeline to very few. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even after health reform is fully implemented in 2014, 30 million to 36 million people will remain uninsured. And tens of millions who do have insurance will have coverage that is too limited to ensure financial protection against an expensive illness. Many families will remain just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

Medical Debt: A Curable Affliction Health Reform Won’t Fix


"Learning from Massachusetts

Our findings from surveys of debtors in Massachusetts before and after the implementation of that state’s health reform (the prototype of the national reform) make it clear that such limited coverage will do little to prevent medical bankruptcy.

Among Massachusetts bankruptcy filers in 2009, 53 percent cited illness or medical bills as a cause of their bankruptcy, a percentage that was statistically indistinguishable from the 59 percent figure we found before reform. Indeed, because the total number of bankruptcies had risen, the actual number of medical bankruptcies in the state increased from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.[7] Surveys by others indicate that the reform had little impact on access to care.

Why are so many Massachusetts residents still suffering medical bankruptcies despite health reform? Although health-care reform cut the number of uninsured in the state by more than half (to about 219,000), much of the new coverage is so limited that serious illness still leaves families with medical bills they cannot pay."

Ah, another report from magic pony land!

Let's see if Debs can tell you exactly who these 30 to 36 million people are that would not be insured and thereby subject to medical bankruptcy.

We know that due to Red State intransigence, about 2% of the population will not be insured under the Medicaid expansion (see "road map" above) and don't make enough money to get into the exchanges - that is upwards of 6 million people. I applaud anyone, including Debs, who will scream about this and send money to people in those Red states fighting this. Right now, the best place to send money for this is to the McAuliffe campaign in Virginia, but there are other non-election lobbying efforts in really key states of Florida and Ohio. And soon, you can send money to Wendy Davis in TX for her governor's run - the biggest prize possible!

Okay that accounts upwards of 6 million but where is Debs' other 24 to 30 million???

Here's one hint - when you go looking for these people, you'll have better luck if you don't dress up as a member of the Border Patrol. Also, you can find a big group of them not going anywhere for some time, but for them, you might find it easier to get them to talk if you are not dressed up as a prison guard.

Also, do you understand what bankruptcy is? It involves the loss of financial assets above those needed to live on - that usually excludes your home if you own it. Now, of this magical number of 30-36 million, how many of them have financial assets that would be of consideration in a bankruptcy courtroom? How many would actually go to such a courtroom, if you know, they're in prison or running for the border? Inquiring minds want to know!

Given that Debs apparently has no shame in continuing to propagate lies and half-truths, the real question is whether she is just a happy-go-lucky full fledged moron or is she a happy-go-luck shill for the t-baggers? Inquiring minds want to know that as well!

Originally Posted by Deb C

This chart pretty much spells out the conversations around here.

And where on that chart does someone like you that repetitively propagates lies and half-truths fall.

Where also on the chart do the Far Lefties fall that provided the margin to polls showing a majority wanting repeal and giving the Rightees the political momentum to trash the only effort in 45 years to further extend medical care to the less fortunate? Where do they fall that have that blood on their hands, deary?

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is about your hatred of Obama because he turned out to not be your Messiah. Grow up.

PW, that is unfair. Back in late 2008/early 2009, when many of us on this forum were pronouncing Obama to be the Grey Champion, Deb was one of the few skeptics on this forum from the left. She never was part of the Obama Fan Club.

Originally Posted by Deb C

PS: Marx and Lennon, I find it extremely interesting that you view activists who are working passionately for single payer by shining a light on the down side of the ACA, as angry, yet you are silent about the rage, name calling and crude behavior that Playwrite displays on an ongoing basis.

You have the option to ignore him, and probably should. You're oil and water. Does PW go over the top. Absolutely, but I do too at times ... so do you. But you and he are actulaly on the same side, so his anger (my assumption) has to do with strategy not message.

I'm somewhere in the middle, agreeing that sounding the alarm too often gets your message ignored, or irritates people you wish to impress. On the other hand, the ACA is far from perfect, and will need to be resivsed in a big way ... just not now. After 100 years of trying, something is launched. Let it get going, then start to suggest improvements. Just don't kill it. We can't start over.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You don't hear this bullshit coming out of people who have sick kids and no insurance.

Your cheap ass insurance was cheap ass because the insurance company knew they would never have to pay off on it. So now you got to fork over some cash to buy yourself some real insurance, poor baby.

And you're having to do it in the GOP hellhole formerly known as North Carolina. I bet you never lifted a finger to stop that; more likely you helped voted those knuckle draggers into office. Man up and live with it.

This is unfair. I have a feeling that John Mc82 never voted for the TP in his State.

I understand and appreciate your passion for ACA. You know how I feel about it. However, I object to the tone and to you jumping on someone who may be one of the few losers under ACA. Let's stop the name calling. It's not helping win arguments and its definitely driving saner voices off of 4T.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yet you have the selfrightous Maddows and other so called liberals passionately promoting the ACA on a daily basis. Somehow, it appears you might have a prejudice for activists who are passionate about shedding a light on the downside of ACA. This, to me, is a double standard.

You'll never hear the authors of the article I posted calling names and being down right nasty to those who disagree with them.

You totally miss the point. Being a sore winner angers people, and that's how it's perceived. Instead of saying its all bad, say, "This is good, but we can make it better." Same message. different feel.

Read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That assumes some equivalency between facts and logic and insane lying a-holes.

Sorry, I don't do that magic pony land.

Ted's actually an ally.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Among Massachusetts bankruptcy filers in 2009, 53 percent cited illness or medical bills as a cause of their bankruptcy, a percentage that was statistically indistinguishable from the 59 percent figure we found before reform. Indeed, because the total number of bankruptcies had risen, the actual number of medical bankruptcies in the state increased from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.[7] Surveys by others indicate that the reform had little impact on access to care.

Why are so many Massachusetts residents still suffering medical bankruptcies despite health reform? Although health-care reform cut the number of uninsured in the state by more than half (to about 219,000), much of the new coverage is so limited that serious illness still leaves families with medical bills they cannot pay."

This is the root issue right here. Full stop. I wonder if you and I can only see so clearly this because we've spent a unique amount of time dealing with chronic illness. There are typically two groups of people in America, those who are really happy with the healthcare system, and those who have had to use it a lot.

85% of Americans had insurance before the ACA. The HHS and CBO projections expect this law to increase that number to 90% in the next ten years. In the same time frame, the amount of money we spend on healthcare is expected to grow by 20% - from about 17% of GDP, to more than 20%.

What do we get for that cost? A system with every incentive to maximize billing, run unnecessary and often invasive procedures, and absolutely no incentive to contain costs or send people back home healthy.

People who are actually at risk of spending their OOP maximums and receiving some benefit for their insurance, are also at great risk of losing their jobs and income. PW wants to talk about the family who makes $90k, but what happens when the breadwinner gets sick and loses the $60k job? Suddenly, a $12k OOP cost doesn't sound so good.

If you have a good job and you're healthy, American insurance is great!!!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

PW, that is unfair. Back in late 2008/early 2009, when many of us on this forum were pronouncing Obama to be the Grey Champion, Deb was one of the few skeptics on this forum from the left. She never was part of the Obama Fan Club.

While I pretty sure the actual Messiah would be a Grey Champion, I darn certain every Grey Champion is not the Messiah.

Honestly, I couldn't handle that many Second Comings.

We're in the middle of one of the great convulsions. Our current grand mal (pun intended) will eventually end, probably horribly.

And then we will get a true NHS setup. After enough have suffered (and enough insurance company execs are serving prison time).