I've mentioned this before, but one of the hilariously unintended consequences of sabotaging Obamacare at the state level (such as refusing the medicaid expansion) is that we'll have a reversal where red states will wind up subsidizing health care for blue states, but not get many of the benefits. Normally Republicans are pretty good about keeping government goodies for their constituents, but the asshole factor's been upped substantially throughout the years that they don't seem to mind having their base take the hit, as long as there's SOME negative feedback that can be then blamed on Obama.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
I've mentioned this before, but one of the hilariously unintended consequences of sabotaging Obamacare at the state level (such as refusing the medicaid expansion) is that we'll have a reversal where red states will wind up subsidizing health care for blue states, but not get many of the benefits. Normally Republicans are pretty good about keeping government goodies for their constituents, but the asshole factor's been upped substantially throughout the years that they don't seem to mind having their base take the hit, as long as there's SOME negative feedback that can be then blamed on Obama.
Of course. But they wound up getting both.
The Chosen One
Member
I've been gone for a while (when did GAF get a redesign?), but I wanted to know what does PoliGAF think of the Weiner scandal? Do you guys think he's a complete idiot or his personal life & flaws is not the public's business?
I'm leaning toward the former considering how humiliated he was, it's amazing he would revert back to the old behavior AND then still run for mayor the following year. No doubt he would probably have a scandal while in office and just waste more of the public's time on non-sense.
I admired him a few years ago because he was a fighter. But he just doesn't have any self-control and even his judgment is suspect. He probably makes a better congressman than a Mayor. A mayor has real responsibilities.
I'm leaning toward the former considering how humiliated he was, it's amazing he would revert back to the old behavior AND then still run for mayor the following year. No doubt he would probably have a scandal while in office and just waste more of the public's time on non-sense.
I admired him a few years ago because he was a fighter. But he just doesn't have any self-control and even his judgment is suspect. He probably makes a better congressman than a Mayor. A mayor has real responsibilities.
It's not a huge deal to me, but it just shows that he's a moron with little self-control. More an indictment of his judgement than his character.
i was a huge fan of him and really wanted him up front for 2016 ... but he clearly isn't competent
if this were 5+ years from now and there was never another scandal, okay maybe its time to consider running for office again. but he has another one this shortly after... and then runs for mayor of NYC... uh okay
Black Mamba
Member
LOL
I'd say they got most of what they want, but not all. Which is just reason to ignore their complaining; the bill was far too generous to them. I know we both know this, just thought I'd elaborate.
Seriously, how is this dude not fired yet?
He said he won't go to CVS because they are educating people about Obamacare, he says ill go to Walgreens.
Politico link says Walgreens and Bluecross also teaming up to educate people about Obamacare.
O'Reilly spending his entire opening segment discussing Al Sharpton and Lil Wayne.
Yes, i'm going to assume this is entirely to back-up his "race talk" and going after the only racism that exists in America, people like Al Sharpton.
Wow, asking this guy over and over agian if Lil Wayne is debasing African American culture. The guys response was lil wayne doesn't represent african american culture and all O'Reilly can do is say he isn't answering his question and would fail his class if he were a student. O'Reilly is going full on racist tool right now.
Yes, i'm going to assume this is entirely to back-up his "race talk" and going after the only racism that exists in America, people like Al Sharpton.
Wow, asking this guy over and over agian if Lil Wayne is debasing African American culture. The guys response was lil wayne doesn't represent african american culture and all O'Reilly can do is say he isn't answering his question and would fail his class if he were a student. O'Reilly is going full on racist tool right now.
Right, I was just commenting based on the fact that it's one thing for a company to grudgingly shut up and deal with new regulations and such, but Blue Cross is going even a step further by trying to actually be helpful. Wall Street reform was fairly toothless for the most part, but it didn't stop bankers from invoking Godwin every other day.
Yeah, I pieced that together after I saw both tweets. Would be perfect if Chik-Fil-A hopped on board too just to make everything complete.
Newsflash, O'Reilly: there's a bunch of tools out there that are white too. Bad taste in music and clothes extends to a whole bunch of "cultures" out there.
Hobbestetrician
Member
A single degree of separation from Lil Wayne shows that quite clearly: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=633821&highlight=limp+bizkit
RustyNails
Member
Who a politician is boffing shouldn't be anyone's business, but it's clear that it matters to enough voters in this country that if you want to get elected, you need to keep it in your damn pants. So yes, he's a fucking idiot. All the good policy intentions in the world aren't going to help if the electorate sees that you're cheating on your wife. See also John Edwards.
Unless you're Republican, in which case you can do the Great American Jesus Forgives Penance Dance and keep
RustyNails
Member
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I really think we're seeing the early signs of a party split.
rocketknight
Member
What the fuck is he doing? I used to think he was smart and competent and was excited about where he was going.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sounds like he was excited about where he was going too.
He seemed more excited about where he was coming than where he was going tbh
Frank the Great
Banned
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Damn she was beautiful!!Here's Scalia during the 50s
I see what you are saying. I just see Blue Cross as just acting in their own best interest, which requires a different public demeanor than Wall Street. Before the law passed, the insurance industry wanted to weaken the regulations as much as possible. They got some but not all of what they wanted. Now that it's passed, the only way they get to soak up those lovely federal premium subsidies is if people actually participate. That means they need to understand the law and buy coverage. So, they're playing that role. My understanding is they are still lobbying hard for their preferred implementation of the regulations. But they've moved that behind the scenes. Publicly, they're rounding up customers, and I don't think they'd round up as many if they were going around making the law sound like a disaster. (Put differently, they need the law to be a success if they're to make a lot of money.)
With the financial industry the less people understand, the more they can be screwed over. So regulations really cut to their bottom line. They don't really need the public on their side to make out. But with the ACA, people need to get comfortable with the law for them to participate. "We're here to help" kind of image. So Blue Cross has a vested interest in not freaking out to much, or at least too publicly.
They may be pieces of shit but I doubt they're stupid enough to split the party up.
zero shift
Banned
I browsered that source site for like one minute and came across this.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Snook/edward105.htm
You know, everytime I said "The GOP can't possibly be THIS stupid..."
And they've proved me wrong yet again.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Black Mamba
Member
Hey guys, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal wrote a glowing endorsement in the WSJ for Obamacare!
My fave:
Exactly what state level implimentation happened in Louisiana and Wisconsin, assholes?
Hey, doesn't Obamacare offer each state their own way of setting up the exchanges and thus 50 unique ways of handling the exchanges? Oh, that's right, you two assholes opted to not do that and put it on the Feds yourself.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578626452647631608.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEAD
Not a big enough bag of dicks for these two.
My fave:
Exactly what state level implimentation happened in Louisiana and Wisconsin, assholes?
Hey, doesn't Obamacare offer each state their own way of setting up the exchanges and thus 50 unique ways of handling the exchanges? Oh, that's right, you two assholes opted to not do that and put it on the Feds yourself.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578626452647631608.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEAD
Not a big enough bag of dicks for these two.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think he could be a good mayor even if he's a shitty person, but at the same time I wonder if he needs to spend more time working on himself and his family. He clearly has a problem. And his wife...sigh. I was hoping she would rip of the script and slam him during the press conference.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Spoke to my Constitutionalist buddy today about immigration reform and why if the GOP refuses to act as a partner in passing a path to citizenship the GOP will continue to dwindle.
He basically said that the right is no longer the Republican Party but Libertarian/Constitutionalist/Tea Party. He asked me why they shpuld act as a partner if it means ignoring their morals and consciences. That if the country does continue to go Left on immigration, debt, electing Dems that it will cause a lot of problems in the MidWest/South and these groups simply won't go down without a fight.
I really enjoy our conversations. We're polar opposites on so much but it never gets heated.
He basically said that the right is no longer the Republican Party but Libertarian/Constitutionalist/Tea Party. He asked me why they shpuld act as a partner if it means ignoring their morals and consciences. That if the country does continue to go Left on immigration, debt, electing Dems that it will cause a lot of problems in the MidWest/South and these groups simply won't go down without a fight.
I really enjoy our conversations. We're polar opposites on so much but it never gets heated.
Tabbi had an article on RollingStone.com to that effect the other day and I can't help but agree. He needs about a decade to get his shit together. There are somethings I disagree with him on, the bike lanes and that sort of thing, but overwhelmingly he's got a bunch of ideas that I can't help but like. Creating a single payer health care system for the city can only be a boon. Everyone would benefit, but sadly due to the scandals no one is really talking about this. I was hoping that even if he lost the primary that the winner would incorporate it into their platform, but I doubt it now.
Black Mamba
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
Two useless sack of shit governors. Cool.
Too bad one is term limited and the other is unreasonably popular in his state. Maybe Wisconsin's shit economy will start to drag on Walker next year, but I doubt it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
O'Reilly has always seemed like easily the most actually racist of any TV personality or politician, but he has seemed to particularly go on an all out racist assault since the Zimmerman thing. I wonder what is it about Zimmerman/Martin that's gotten him all riled up. Afraid that the mainstream is finally beginning to really acknowledge the racist nature of the justice system?
rocketknight
Member
Can anyone explain the conservative meme about how healthcare is something that needs to be like, personalized and tailored on every level? Why do different states have different healthcare needs? It makes a little more sense when talking about individuals, but not much.
Healthcare should be tailored to people, income level, median age, lifestyle, you name it.
But health insurance shouldn't.
But conservatives have been conflating health providers with health insurance for a while now, I think it's just a tactical move to be honest.
rocketknight
Member
Yeah, that's more what I meant. It's just, like, are some states fighting to keep shitty plans because they think the people in their state will benefit more from shitty coverage? What the hell?
Seems like just more of the usual "States rights!" and "Federal government can't tell us what to do!" stubborn posturing to me.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Don Shelby may enter MN-03 House race and challenge Republican Rubber Stamp Erik Paulsen. Shelby was a huge Twin Cities news anchor for years and years and years. I think Don would win if he were to enter the race. Says he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Environment is important to him. Said he'd make a decision within 2 days. Would love to see the media cover that race too.
Minnpost also links to a MN-02 poll by PPP I think that may give a glimmer of a chance for Obermueller(D) over John Kline(R) the dude who got his way with student loan rates being tied to the market. Then if the MN-07 can get a better Democrat than Peterson(if he retires) to somehow pull off the win without being as loony... Then if Bachman and Graves get back in the race...There could be 8 Democrats and 0 Republicans in Minnesota's Congressional Delegation.
Minnpost also links to a MN-02 poll by PPP I think that may give a glimmer of a chance for Obermueller(D) over John Kline(R) the dude who got his way with student loan rates being tied to the market. Then if the MN-07 can get a better Democrat than Peterson(if he retires) to somehow pull off the win without being as loony... Then if Bachman and Graves get back in the race...There could be 8 Democrats and 0 Republicans in Minnesota's Congressional Delegation.
ErasureAcer
Banned
It was a joke. MN-06 is gone most likely(99.9%). A pickup of a seat or two would be nice with Shelby and Obermueller and if Peterson doesn't run and Democrats lose that seat it's not that big of a deal. Think he is in the top 5 blue dogs out there. Still on paper it would be nice to see 7-1 Democrats in MN.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Wow at the spin of this article that seems to have caught fire among republicans.
IRS union doesn't want Obamacare is the headline but dig deeper and you see they don't oppose the law they just don't want to give up their government health care to be forced into private health care exchanges which is a cynical proposal by Rep Camp.
In the Republican bubble fighting for government health care and against private insurance is somehow a noble rebuke to socialist Obama.
IRS union doesn't want Obamacare is the headline but dig deeper and you see they don't oppose the law they just don't want to give up their government health care to be forced into private health care exchanges which is a cynical proposal by Rep Camp.
In the Republican bubble fighting for government health care and against private insurance is somehow a noble rebuke to socialist Obama.
empty vessel
Member
People really need to stop saying this.
socially liberal appears to be "i accept gays" now. If you are fiscally conservative, you can't really be socially liberal, since it would cost money
empty vessel
Member
Why secret courts are the dumbest thing since sliced bread (which makes you fat):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/u...cret-surveillance-court.html?pagewanted=print
Roberts’s Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The recent leaks about government spying programs have focused attention on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its role in deciding how intrusive the government can be in the name of national security. Less mentioned has been the person who has been quietly reshaping the secret court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.
Though the two previous chief justices, Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, were conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts, their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978.
According to the analysis, 66 percent of their selections were Republican appointees, and 39 percent once worked for the executive branch. ...
The court’s complexion has changed at a time when its role has been expanding beyond what Congress envisioned when it established the court as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The idea then was that judges would review applications for wiretaps to make sure there was sufficient evidence that the F.B.I.’s target was a foreign terrorist or a spy.
But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins. ...
At a public meeting this month, Judge James Robertson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to the surveillance court in 2002 by Chief Justice Rehnquist and resigned from it in December 2005, offered an insider’s critique of how rapidly and recently the court’s role has changed. He said, for example, that during his time it was not engaged in developing a body of secret precedents interpreting what the law means.
“In my experience, there weren’t any opinions,” he said. “You approved a warrant application or you didn’t — period.”
The court began expanding its role when George W. Bush was president and its members were still assigned by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died in 2005. Midway through the Bush administration, the executive branch sought and obtained the court’s legal blessing to continue secret surveillance programs that had originally circumvented the FISA process.
The court’s power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans’ communications after they are picked up.
“That change, in my view, turned the FISA court into something like an administrative agency that makes rules for others to follow,” Judge Robertson said. “That’s not the bailiwick of judges. Judges don’t make policy.”
For the most part, the surveillance court judges — who serve staggered seven-year terms and take turns coming to Washington for a week to handle its business — do not discuss their work, and their rulings are secret. But the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, have cast an unusual spotlight on them.
The first of the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden was a top-secret order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over three months of calling records for all its customers. It was signed by Judge Roger Vinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who had previously achieved prominence in 2011 when he tried to strike down the entirety of President Obama’s health care law.
Chief Justice Roberts assigned Judge Vinson to the surveillance court in 2006, one of 12 Republican appointees, compared with 2 Democratic ones.
While the positions taken by individual judges on the court are classified, academic studies have shown that judges appointed by Republicans since Reagan have been more likely than their colleagues to rule in favor of the government in non-FISA cases over people claiming civil liberties violations. Even more important, according to some critics of the court, is the court’s increasing proportion of judges who have a background in the executive branch.
Senator Blumenthal, citing his own experience as a United States attorney and a state prosecutor, said judges who used to be executive branch lawyers were more likely to share a “get the bad guys” mind-set and defer to the Justice Department if executive branch officials told them that new surveillance powers were justified. ...
[A]n executive branch background is increasingly common for the court. ...
Chief justices have considerable leeway in choosing judges — the only requirement is that they ensure geographic diversity. In practice, according to people familiar with the court, they have been assisted in evaluating whom to select by the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The counselor to the chief justice and the surveillance court’s presiding judge also sometimes play a role. Judges sometimes volunteer for consideration, while chief justices and their advisers sometimes come up with their own ideas. ...
Chief Justice Roberts has dealt with a small circle. His past two choices to direct the judiciary’s administrative office have been Republican-appointed judges, Thomas F. Hogan and John D. Bates, whom he also appointed to the surveillance court.
Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, who has filed a bill that would let Congressional leaders pick eight of the court’s members, said it was time for the court to have a more diverse membership.
“They all seem to have some type of a pretty conservative bent,” he said. “I don’t think that is what the Congress envisioned when giving the chief justice that authority. Maybe they didn’t think about the ramifications of giving that much power to one person.”
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The recent leaks about government spying programs have focused attention on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its role in deciding how intrusive the government can be in the name of national security. Less mentioned has been the person who has been quietly reshaping the secret court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.
Though the two previous chief justices, Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, were conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts, their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978.
According to the analysis, 66 percent of their selections were Republican appointees, and 39 percent once worked for the executive branch. ...
The court’s complexion has changed at a time when its role has been expanding beyond what Congress envisioned when it established the court as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The idea then was that judges would review applications for wiretaps to make sure there was sufficient evidence that the F.B.I.’s target was a foreign terrorist or a spy.
But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins. ...
At a public meeting this month, Judge James Robertson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to the surveillance court in 2002 by Chief Justice Rehnquist and resigned from it in December 2005, offered an insider’s critique of how rapidly and recently the court’s role has changed. He said, for example, that during his time it was not engaged in developing a body of secret precedents interpreting what the law means.
“In my experience, there weren’t any opinions,” he said. “You approved a warrant application or you didn’t — period.”
The court began expanding its role when George W. Bush was president and its members were still assigned by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died in 2005. Midway through the Bush administration, the executive branch sought and obtained the court’s legal blessing to continue secret surveillance programs that had originally circumvented the FISA process.
The court’s power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration’s program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans’ communications after they are picked up.
“That change, in my view, turned the FISA court into something like an administrative agency that makes rules for others to follow,” Judge Robertson said. “That’s not the bailiwick of judges. Judges don’t make policy.”
For the most part, the surveillance court judges — who serve staggered seven-year terms and take turns coming to Washington for a week to handle its business — do not discuss their work, and their rulings are secret. But the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, have cast an unusual spotlight on them.
The first of the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden was a top-secret order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over three months of calling records for all its customers. It was signed by Judge Roger Vinson, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who had previously achieved prominence in 2011 when he tried to strike down the entirety of President Obama’s health care law.
Chief Justice Roberts assigned Judge Vinson to the surveillance court in 2006, one of 12 Republican appointees, compared with 2 Democratic ones.
While the positions taken by individual judges on the court are classified, academic studies have shown that judges appointed by Republicans since Reagan have been more likely than their colleagues to rule in favor of the government in non-FISA cases over people claiming civil liberties violations. Even more important, according to some critics of the court, is the court’s increasing proportion of judges who have a background in the executive branch.
Senator Blumenthal, citing his own experience as a United States attorney and a state prosecutor, said judges who used to be executive branch lawyers were more likely to share a “get the bad guys” mind-set and defer to the Justice Department if executive branch officials told them that new surveillance powers were justified. ...
[A]n executive branch background is increasingly common for the court. ...
Chief justices have considerable leeway in choosing judges — the only requirement is that they ensure geographic diversity. In practice, according to people familiar with the court, they have been assisted in evaluating whom to select by the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The counselor to the chief justice and the surveillance court’s presiding judge also sometimes play a role. Judges sometimes volunteer for consideration, while chief justices and their advisers sometimes come up with their own ideas. ...
Chief Justice Roberts has dealt with a small circle. His past two choices to direct the judiciary’s administrative office have been Republican-appointed judges, Thomas F. Hogan and John D. Bates, whom he also appointed to the surveillance court.
Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, who has filed a bill that would let Congressional leaders pick eight of the court’s members, said it was time for the court to have a more diverse membership.
“They all seem to have some type of a pretty conservative bent,” he said. “I don’t think that is what the Congress envisioned when giving the chief justice that authority. Maybe they didn’t think about the ramifications of giving that much power to one person.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/u...cret-surveillance-court.html?pagewanted=print
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
No they don't.
The last thing that's needed to to calcify progressives of any stripe with the kind of "purity" notion that is wrecking the GOP.
Somebody who's pro Wall-St, has conservative ideas about spending and debt, and is anti-worker is still better than somebody who is all those things, plus wants to keep marriage "traditional" and is actively working to undermine abortion rights and increase the incarceration rate.
I consider myself to be a conservative in the tea party/Ted Cruz mold, and I think that the problem with health care is group insurance. Ever since employers started to roll out group insurance, and insurance in general, that is when costs began to explode.
I personally think that health insurance should only be for major health related events, such as car accidents that lead to broken bones, cancer, surgeries, and other big, high cost health related issues. Not annual checkup doctor visits, or prescriptions, or going to the doctor because you have a cold.
With insurance being used for every single health related issue, there is no price check to let market forces work. People just think "Who cares how much it costs, my insurance will take care of it". Because of this middle man, there is no way to keep prices in check. Because of this, health providers can raise their prices, which causes insurance providers to raise their premiums. There is nothing to control costs. You may be paying a $10-$20 co pay to see a doctor, but your employer/insurance is paying the rest of it and this drives up health costs and causes employers to lower wages or not hire as many people.
If people paid out of pocket for the non catastrophic health issues, it would drive down costs because the average consumer would actually know how much each kind of health procedure costs.
I read a story about some hospital in Oklahoma that is cash only, and how even major surgeries like hip or knee replacement only costs a couple thousand dollars. Wish I still had the link.
Long story short, I honestly think health costs have exploded because no one knows how much the procedures cost because "my insurance will take care of it". Because of this, health providers can charge artificially higher prices and this screws over people who have no insurance. Get rid of group insurance and only have insurance for catastrophic events, and prices will go down.
Insurance is meant to hedge against a risk, and how is health insurance health insurance when you know you will be using it for every single health related issue? That is not a hedge for a risk, that is just a pool of funds to use for your health visits. Health insurance these days is not insurance, its a common slush fund to pay for health issues.
- Status