What if the fatties don't want "intensive counseling?" Whats the next step? Revocation of Insurance Benefits? Gulag, er mandatory weight loss recovery center relocation?
Obese adults should get counseling, federal task force says
Under the healthcare law, insurance companies would be required to cover the panel's recommended weight-loss treatments. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the law this week.
A federal health advisory panel recommends that all obese adults receive intensive counseling in an effort to rein in an American health crisis. (Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images / June 25, 2012)
June 25, 2012, 8:23 p.m.
In a move that could significantly expand insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments, a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling in an effort to rein in a growing health crisis in America.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force urged doctors to identify patients with a body mass index of 30 or more — currently 1 in 3 Americans — and either provide counseling themselves or refer the patient to a program designed to promote weight loss and improve health prospects.
Under the current healthcare law, Medicare and most private insurers would be required to cover the entire cost of weight-loss services that meet or exceed the task force's standards.
That could all change Thursday, when the U.S. Supreme Courtis expected to rule on the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare law, which requires adoption of certain recommendations from the task force, such as this one on obesity.
Few private health insurers now reimburse physicians for weight-loss counseling or pay for programs that patients seek out on their own. A growing number, in fact, charge obese patients more for coverage — a policy that some public health officials have denounced as punitive and ineffective.
The task force concluded after a review of the medical literature that the most successful programs in improving patients' health were "intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions." They involve 12 to 26 counseling sessions a year with a physician or community-based program, the panel said.
Successful programs set weight-loss goals, improve knowledge about nutrition, teach patients how to track their eating and set limits, identify barriers to change (such as a scarcity of healthful food choices near home) and strategize on ways to maintain lifestyle changes, the panel found.
In some cases, programs include exercise sessions as well.
The recommendation, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, does not apply to the roughly one-third of Americans who are considered overweight, those with a BMI from 25 to 29.9.
It follows a November decision by Medicare to reimburse physicians for providing "intensive weight counseling" to the roughly 14 million obese Americans insured by the government program.
The new guidelines were met with cautious support by many physicians on the front lines of the nation's struggle against excess fat.
Dr. Jack Der-Sarkissian, a family medicine specialist at Kaiser Permanente's Los Angeles Medical Center, called the guidelines a "long-overdue" prod to physicians to help their patients control weight gain, which raises the risk for diabetes, heart disease and other health threats.
He cited a recent study that found that more than half of all obese patients had never been told by their physician that they needed to lose weight. "That's just not fair to the patient," said Der-Sarkissian, who leads Kaiser's adult weight management efforts in Southern California.
"You have to diagnose the patient and have the discussion, even if the patient doesn't really want to hear it," he said.
But Jeffrey Levi, executive director of the nonpartisan think tank Trust for America's Health, said the recommendations would put physicians in a difficult position: Few have the time or resources to provide obese patients with intensive counseling, he said.
And since programs meeting the standards set by the task force remain scarce, most doctors won't know where to send their obese patients.
"The question is whether the services will develop fast enough to meet the potential demand," Levi said.
Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, said it was unclear how the report would affect the industry and patients. But, she said, "there's a lot being done" already by health insurers to help their enrollees lose weight.
Obesity and obesity-related diseases are already responsible for an estimated $147 billion in annual healthcare spending. Widespread adoption of the panel's recommendation would increase that spending, at least initially.
The panel acknowledged that one problem with its recommendation was that no studies have shown such intensive programs provide long-term health benefits.
There appear to be short-term ones. Two studies cited by the panel found that patients who received intensive counseling were 30% to 50% less likely to have Type 2 diabetes two to three years later than those who received lighter counseling, drug therapy or both.
But the counseling subjects' cholesterol numbers barely budged, and changes in blood pressure and waist circumference were, on average, small.
A pilot program considered a model by the task force is now being launched in 21 cities by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It is based on a clinical trial, the Diabetes Prevention Program, that encouraged modest improvements in food choices and at least 150 minutes of weekly exercise for participants, who were at high risk for developing diabetes.
The subjects, who typically met weekly for six months and monthly for the second half of the year, lost between 5% and 7% of their body weight and reduced their diabetes risk by 58%.
I would love to sit in if my Korean war vet - retired military father was 'required' to go to one of these sessions. That 80 year old can voice his 'opinion' with the best of them.
Archaeo wrote:I would love to sit in if my Korean war vet - retired military father was 'required' to go to one of these sessions. That 80 year old can voice his 'opinion' with the best of them.
Yea Daddy Frazzled was not quiet (well he was as he partially lost his voice in the Corps). But he could "exporess and opinion" with the best of them.
They're welcome to come bring me in for counceling. And my primary point will be that for the cost of the counceling, I could instead be sent to a doctor (I haven't been able to afford one for years) and find out where my problems REALLY are.
Vulcan wrote: I could instead be sent to a doctor (I haven't been able to afford one for years)
Statements like this just blow my mind! The idea of people not being able to afford what we in Europe regard as a fundamental human right (medical care) in the richest country in the world is just so alien.
No idea where you live exactly Vulcan, but seeing a primary care physician for a checkup/evaluation whatnot usually runs between $70-$200 for an appointment. Variious clinics will be on the low end cost wise, a private care doctor will be in the higher end.
For where I live the average is about $150. For a once a year checkup/physical. That doesn't break the bank. I could use a clinic for less, but I wouldn't be seeing the same doctor every year.
Can you not put together 100 or some odd dollars in the course of a year? If it really that is important.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:No idea where you live exactly Vulcan, but seeing a primary care physician for a checkup/evaluation whatnot usually runs between $70-$200 for an appointment. Variious clinics will be on the low end cost wise, a private care doctor will be in the higher end.
For where I live the average is about $150. For a once a year checkup/physical. That doesn't break the bank. I could use a clinic for less, but I wouldn't be seeing the same doctor every year.
Can you not put together 100 or some odd dollars in the course of a year? If it really that is important.
$70-200 to see a doctor? That's fethed up. You have to be able to see how messed up that is.
I am always baffled whenever I see reports about how anyone, ever, could not want universal health care. I mean, beyond abstract rhetoric, is there a logical reason? It can't be the cost, considering the US income tax brakcets are not very different than the ones in Canada (for everyone except the extremely wealthy, that is. There, we diverge greatly).
azazel - Yes thats "fethed up" as you say. A doctors visit would be half this price if doctors were made to compete with each other for patients in the free market, and we got rid of most "health insurance" which by my estimates is a huge scam and only drives up the cost of care.
Frazzled wrote:You act like medical care is free azazel. Its not.
But yet if anyone even hints at the need for/benefits of socialized medicine or national healthcare people start whispering "commie" and putting tinfoil hats on...
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:No idea where you live exactly Vulcan, but seeing a primary care physician for a checkup/evaluation whatnot usually runs between $70-$200 for an appointment.
You need to find a new insurance provider, your co-pay SUCKS.
I, however, can't complain. I get free healthcare in America(although if Obama had his way, that wouldn't be true).
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:No idea where you live exactly Vulcan, but seeing a primary care physician for a checkup/evaluation whatnot usually runs between $70-$200 for an appointment. Variious clinics will be on the low end cost wise, a private care doctor will be in the higher end.
For where I live the average is about $150. For a once a year checkup/physical. That doesn't break the bank. I could use a clinic for less, but I wouldn't be seeing the same doctor every year.
Can you not put together 100 or some odd dollars in the course of a year? If it really that is important.
$70-200 to see a doctor? That's fethed up. You have to be able to see how messed up that is.
I am always baffled whenever I see reports about how anyone, ever, could not want universal health care. I mean, beyond abstract rhetoric, is there a logical reason? It can't be the cost, considering the US income tax brakcets are not very different than the ones in Canada (for everyone except the extremely wealthy, that is. There, we diverge greatly).
With you on this one. Had to pay my visit to a clinic in Alberta when I first moved there, 70$ to get a prescription really hurts.
Universal Healthcare is golden. Paying 44$ a month as a direct deduction on my paycheck beats having to pay 7k the day I catch something which isn't covered.
Gotta ask, do you have to pay a premium on Health Insurance requests?
Frazzled wrote:You act like medical care is free azazel. Its not.
Yet the US healthcare system costs approximately double what the NHS costs per patient while being no better and actually performing worse on some criteria (aside from giving patchy treatment to people who simply can't afford it).
Fat people costs far more than thin people and they have a much reduced life expectance and a poorer quality of life. I fail to see how attempting to make people more healthy is a bad thing?
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
That's an hilarious misconception. Fat people will suffer from hunger far quicker than thin people. And won't get as much an advantage from every little bit of food they can scrap.
Frazzled wrote:You act like medical care is free azazel. Its not.
But yet if anyone even hints at the need for/benefits of socialized medicine or national healthcare people start whispering "commie" and putting tinfoil hats on...
Socialized medicine doesn't get risd of the cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You act like medical care is free azazel. Its not.
Yet the US healthcare system costs approximately double what the NHS costs per patient while being no better and actually performing worse on some criteria (aside from giving patchy treatment to people who simply can't afford it).
Fat people costs far more than thin people and they have a much reduced life expectance and a poorer quality of life. I fail to see how attempting to make people more healthy is a bad thing?
Its the "making" part thats the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
Frazzled wrote:You act like medical care is free azazel. Its not.
But yet if anyone even hints at the need for/benefits of socialized medicine or national healthcare people start whispering "commie" and putting tinfoil hats on...
America has a common misconception that we do not have socialized health care. We do, it's just done in the stupidest possible way.
What we have is a law that requires hospitals to treat people who come to the emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. Granted, the hospital will ruin your credit for 7 years if you don't pay, but they can't turn you away for being broke.
What then happens is, the people who cannot afford regular health care go to the emergency room with their entirely-preventable aliments. The emergency room. The second most expensive part of the health care system (only behind Intensive Care, IIRC). And because their problems have gone on so long before they get serious enough to require the hospital trip, they often wind up in Intensive Care afterwards.
Now, I'm sure you are all aware that the hospitals cannot - literally cannot - eat that expense and remain in business. Even not-for-profit hospitals (what few of those there are) have to pay for the doctors, nurses, morgage, supplies, etc. etc. etc. So... how do they make that cost up?
They charge the paying customers EXTRA. That's right, you pay extra to the hospitals because they are required BY LAW to treat poor people. In short, Socialized Health Care.
And just because you haven't been to a hospital doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. Potential hospital costs are a big factor in how much you pay for your Health Insurance. (Another big factor is the health insurance company's need to post ever-increasing profits if it doesn't want its stock values to drop, a subject that is of GREAT interest to the executives running the company, whose stock options are often more valuable than their estwhile salary... but that's another rant...)
If you think we don't have Socialized Health Care in America, you're seriously just decieving yourself.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Universal Healthcare is golden. Paying 44$ a month as a direct deduction on my paycheck beats having to pay 7k the day I catch something which isn't covered.
Gotta ask, do you have to pay a premium on Health Insurance requests?
Are you asking me? In BC, I think we have the highest monthly premiums. I think I pay $48 per month.
Frazzled wrote:Socialized medicine doesn't get risd of the cost.
Its the "making" part thats the problem.
See, that's what I meant when I said "abstract rhetoric". The principle is no different than it is for innoculations against Polio: everyone gets them, for the greater good of everyone. The same idea works with universal health care: everyone pays into the system just a little bit, and then everyone gets universal health care. This is far better than the sacrificial lottery that is currently being run in the US, wherein whoever gets sick either has millions to spend, or else loses everything they own to pay for it, or dies.
And as for the cost: in Canada, we have universal health care, 1/10 your population, and 1/24 your national debt. So obviously it's very possible to implement the system, economically speaking.
EDIT: The only reason that you don't have UHC in the US is because of the propaganda campaign that was started in the 1970s by Richard Nixon and the insurance company lobbyists.
Allowing EVERYONE to be able to go to the doctor means those preventable aliments (say, high blood pressure) can actually be treated by a doctor in an office visit. This is FAR cheaper than the thousands - if not TENS of thousands - of dollars spent when that high blood pressure results in a heart attack or stroke.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Universal Healthcare is golden. Paying 44$ a month as a direct deduction on my paycheck beats having to pay 7k the day I catch something which isn't covered.
Gotta ask, do you have to pay a premium on Health Insurance requests?
Are you asking me? In BC, I think we have the highest monthly premiums. I think I pay $48 per month.
Nah, I'm asking any american. And by premium, I mean that amount that needs to be paid in order to get the Insurance to cover a claim (like in a car crash, I'd have to pay what, about 600$ in order to get the amount I'm insured for).
Kovnik Obama wrote:Universal Healthcare is golden. Paying 44$ a month as a direct deduction on my paycheck beats having to pay 7k the day I catch something which isn't covered.
Gotta ask, do you have to pay a premium on Health Insurance requests?
Are you asking me? In BC, I think we have the highest monthly premiums. I think I pay $48 per month.
Nah, I'm asking any american. And by premium, I mean that amount that needs to be paid in order to get the Insurance to cover a claim (like in a car crash, I'd have to pay what, about 600$ in order to get the amount I'm insured for).
We tend to pay what's called a copay. Most are charged depending on what health service you're accessing.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Universal Healthcare is golden. Paying 44$ a month as a direct deduction on my paycheck beats having to pay 7k the day I catch something which isn't covered.
Gotta ask, do you have to pay a premium on Health Insurance requests?
Are you asking me? In BC, I think we have the highest monthly premiums. I think I pay $48 per month.
Nah, I'm asking any american. And by premium, I mean that amount that needs to be paid in order to get the Insurance to cover a claim (like in a car crash, I'd have to pay what, about 600$ in order to get the amount I'm insured for).
We tend to pay what's called a copay. Most are charged depending on what health service you're accessing.
To me this seems to completly defeat the purpose of a Health Insurance.
I mean, you have a choice, being uninsured and have $10 000 in a account somewhere safe, or pay monthly insurance fees. So if I chose to pay monthly fees, that'd be because I don't want to bother with saving $$$ every paycheck because I might fall down the stairs someday. But, even if I'm insured, I still have to worry about saving $$$ to pay to get that eventual amount, just a lot less...
Our healthcare...your healthcare..people are brought up under both system so each is use to their own. Some points are being made "at the moment" healthcare service. Depending on the injury/sickness/whateverthefukkailsyou paying back or free healthcare takes a back seat when your down and out. Because your main concern going to be taking up by...Do I have enough sickleave? How much do I have saved up to cover bills? How far can I stretch whatever additional incoming finance to break even till I can get back to work. How much ramien and hotdogs can I eat and can I really do it back to back if need be.
Jihadin wrote: Our healthcare...your healthcare..people are brought up under both system so each is use to their own. Some points are being made "at the moment" healthcare service. Depending on the injury/sickness/whateverthefukkailsyou paying back or free healthcare takes a back seat when your down and out. Because your main concern going to be taking up by...Do I have enough sickleave? How much do I have saved up to cover bills? How far can I stretch whatever additional incoming finance to break even till I can get back to work. How much ramien and hotdogs can I eat and can I really do it back to back if need be.
Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
We will just eat the fatties.
Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.
feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
We will just eat the fatties.
Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.
feth that, survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you. Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1
How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)
Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.
generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.
GG
Wouldn't the chance you need Healthcare at some point in your life dwarf the chances you'll need cops or firefighters, too?
I just want go out and say that the BMI charst that I've seen used in a lot offices, are really flawed. Back when I was well toned, and in great shape, the chart said I was "Obese" Even though I clearly wasn't even close.
Sasori wrote:I just want go out and say that the BMI charst that I've seen used in a lot offices, are really flawed. Back when I was well toned, and in great shape, the chart said I was "Obese" Even though I clearly wasn't even close.
Well yeah. I'm on the other side, being really short and small-framed. I've apparently been a few pounds away from malnutrition my whole life... go figure...
I apply a very simple test to these things. If tomorrow, you had to walk 2 hours to get to and from work, would you do it, or would you call in sick, or even worse, would you quit, given that it's possible that you'd have to do it the next day too.
If you are not going, then you are weak. Doesn't matter if it's fat, or just lack of exercice. You are weak and must harden up
Feth I know people who wouldn't even walk 1 hour...
generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.
GG
Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.
Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?
It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.
generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.
GG
Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.
Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?
It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.
generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.
GG
Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.
Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?
It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.
That link to payscale.com is showing you the median for private and hospital doctors, not government employed doctors. Also, those are general surgeons, not general practitioners. Surgeons tend to get payed more. Remember that much of that pay is to offset education investment and malpractice insurance(something that many hospitals/clinics help cover).
I'll just say, my father made more than double when he moved to a non-profit clinic(and created their entire podiatry department) what he made working for the government. He never broke into 6 figures at Carville.
Edit: Looking for more info, have found that minimum wage for State Doctors as set by federal government is $36/hr. As cops are paid at the state or municipal level depending, it's a bit relevant.
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
We will just eat the fatties.
Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.
feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1
How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)
Captain Buzzkill strikes again! You must be new around here. Zombie killin is a major topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Just tax fatties is a better idea. Money talks.
Make them pay for two plane seats too. Why the feth do I only get the same baggage allowance when they weigh 120lbs more than I do?!
I agree with this exactly.
And it isn't Big Brother. Read 1984 before you make comparisons between Obama and the Party, Frazzled.
How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)
Captain Buzzkill strikes again! You must be new around here. Zombie killin is a major topic.
Yeah I'm new here. Or so everyone seems to need to tell me. Anyhow, far from me to restrict any description of what might we do in a fictional zombipocalypse... Just that if you think you are ready... well... in every sense of the word you aren't...
Jihadin wrote: Our healthcare...your healthcare..people are brought up under both system so each is use to their own. Some points are being made "at the moment" healthcare service. Depending on the injury/sickness/whateverthefukkailsyou paying back or free healthcare takes a back seat when your down and out. Because your main concern going to be taking up by...Do I have enough sickleave? How much do I have saved up to cover bills? How far can I stretch whatever additional incoming finance to break even till I can get back to work. How much ramien and hotdogs can I eat and can I really do it back to back if need be.
Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?
Its quite simple actually,
Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?
Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.
I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.
Fire Fighters and Police are a good opposing argument, but it is inherently flawed because their effect isn't just seen when there is a fire or a shooting.
Especially Police. Its what doesn't effect us that makes these guys so important. We get our money's worth from these guys every single day.
They prevent people from driving unsafely. If there was no risk of reprisal, alot more people would drive unsafely. More red lights would get run, people would drive at unsafe speeds(more blatently)
Its not the obvious criminals that Police forces stop the most, its all the little things that stack up.
Thats why we are willing to pay for them collectivly.
Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it. The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.
Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.
azazel the cat wrote: But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?
Many aren't. But they keep getting shouted down by people saying "Keep your hands off my money!" and "Socialism id da EBIL!!!11!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:I apply a very simple test to these things. If tomorrow, you had to walk 2 hours to get to and from work, would you do it, or would you call in sick, or even worse, would you quit, given that it's possible that you'd have to do it the next day too.
If you are not going, then you are weak. Doesn't matter if it's fat, or just lack of exercice. You are weak and must harden up
Feth I know people who wouldn't even walk 1 hour...
Been there, done that. It's not fun but even a fattie like me can do it. Just need the right motivation, and earning a living is on the list.
Ask me to run any distance though...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:Its quite simple actually,
Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?
Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.
I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.
Ah, but you already are, in increased insurance premiums. Because the hospitals aren't eating the cost of providing emergency care for people who can't pay; they are passing it on - ultimately to YOU!
Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it.
So... everyone dies before they get old and start getting all the various ailments of the elderly? Thinks like arthritis, dementia, cancer, osteoperoris?
The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.
Even people who DON'T pay up have that. Remember, hospitals can't turn away people who can't pay.
Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.
[dryly] Obviously you haven't watched the American political process in action. Talk about sheep following the (party) leader...[/dryly]
Co-payment, what's that? I am talking actual cost of service, cash out of pocket. Not that expensive.
Anyways, I was trying to give Vulcan there a good idea of what he could expect to pay for a doctors visit with no "health insurance."
I hear ya about running Vulcan, but imagine a zombie, monster, wolf, cops, bullies whatnot chasing you, then you run.
Zombies can be outpaced with a good power walk. If I run... they'll catch me too tired to fight.
Wolf... just a feral dog. It would have to be pretty desparate to come after me, and I'd fight it for lunch. Sure, there's a good chance I'd loose. But there is NO WAY ON EARTH I'm going to be able to outrun an animal that routinely chases deer, moose, and buffalo down.
Cops... why would I run from the cops?
Bullies? These I have faced. Running just encourages them. Beating their discourages them pretty thoroughly, even if you get the beat out of you at the same time.
Well, feth. I am sitting at a BMI of @26....
Of course, I am 6'4" 215# so of course I am "overweight".
In related news, a woman who wears a size 6 is now considered to be "Plus sized".
.Is size six the new plus size? It can be if you're a model. Twenty years ago, the average model was eight percent smaller than the average American woman -but today, models are 23 percent tinier than the rest of us. Want proof? According to Denise Bidot, a popular plus-size model and recent cover girl, size-six women often model what are supposed to be size-14 samples for plus-size catalogs.
lol I hate the army height/weight policy. I'm 230 at 72" and I always get taped since my max weight at 41 is 198. come out little under 25% body fat max is 26% so I do get nervous lol
@helgrenze - now that would be a good movie, the mis adventures of John Cena and The Rock as they undergo counseling for being obese under the guidance of a nanny state government.
The local football coach for the High School would be technically overweight. He said that according to the BMI chart he needed to lose 80 pounds. I tell you, if he lost 80 pounds he would be in serious trouble.
BMI doesn't work with muscular individuals, I have been flipping between 'overweight' and 'obese' for years, but that doesn't mean that it has no value for the general population. It is extremely easy to perform and it is acceptable for a first line test and that is why it is so widespread despite its limitations.
You can always get a soft tissue scan to determine you're correct BMI though...I got one recently for my own training...and lets just say that I can't say that I am just big boned anymore...
azazel the cat wrote:Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?
Its quite simple actually,
Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?
it's quite simple as well, actually. Because they will in turn pay your your medical problems. Car accidents are quite indiscriminate about the previous health of the victims.
Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.
I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.
1 in 3 Americans will get cancer in their lives. I want you to look up the costs of cancer treatment. If you do not have that much money in the bank, then you may as well put two bullets into a revolver and play solitaire Russian Roulette. So I've underscored the part of your statement that is a falsehood. In order to make it correct, you have to qualify it as being "little tangible benefit as perceived by someone who has yet to be seriously ill or injured". That is, this is one of those cases where people whose attitudes are driven by propaganda and rhetoric need to be saved from themselves before they recognize their error only when it's too late.
And I am confident in saying that your attitude is being driven by the propaganda, as you are already forced to pay for things for other people. Your general income tax dollars do that every year. The question is not about increasing taxes to pay for health care; it's about reallocating current resources to do so. I think you'll find that if you look at how your tax dollars are already spent, you'll notice that the federal government is shipping off its funcitons to the private sector like it's a fire sale, and this is actually costing the government money as it requires the same amount of resources to be drawn from you, but you get less in return and thus the government is forced to draw more resources from you just to be able to maintain its previous status quo of services. Again, this is something that began with the Nixon administration. I have my own views about your political parties (which are far more muddied than you'll ever give me credit for, I'm sure) but I will refrain from including them here. However, I will point out that there has been a major trend ever since Nixon of the lowest-common-demonimator of voters being tricked into voting against their own interests. Anyway, moving on...
They [the police] prevent people from driving unsafely. If there was no risk of reprisal, alot more people would drive unsafely. More red lights would get run, people would drive at unsafe speeds(more blatently)
While the latter half of your statement is technically correct, it is far from accurate. The first bit you said is completely incorrect. The police are a retributive, response-oriented force. Their function is not based in prevention in any function outside of a generalized deterrent. This is the only reason the second part of your statement is somewhat correct. If there was no risk of reprisal, it is highly likely that no laws would be obeyed if breaking them gained individuals even the smallest modicum of utility. However, the three principles of deterrence are severity, celerity and certainty: and all three have to work in harmony in order to create an effective deterrent level. With your current justice system -particularly for traffic offenses- the element of certainty is almost nonexistent and the element of severity is a minor nuissance at best; and as such everyone drives too fast. However this is getting off topic. If you want to discuss the finer points of Beccaria's principles of deterrence, and how they relate to modern society and Bentham's concept of the panopticon, then just PM me. I'm always happy to engage in discourse on those topics.
Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it. The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.
The trouble with this statement is that the health insurance you speak of is privatized, which means that every single insurance company's solitary goal is to make money from you. And the best way to do that is to take your money and then figure out a way to not deliver on services -such as claiming your ailment was a prior ailment. Another method is outright denial to many, many people. That is exactly why health care -which is considered a basic human right in most of the Western world- is never left to private organizations that will always have a conflict of interest by the very nature of them being profit-driven.
Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.
Actually, it's that attitude that makes many non-Americans think that many of you are sheep. (please, everyone read that statement clearly so that a flame war doesn't begin. I didn't say everyone or all, I said some or many. I'm sure that doesn't include you) You see, that stubborness and resistance to change is easily fueled by ignorance. It's very easy to convince someone to vote against something that will only benefit someone else, because so many people assume that they are not "someone else" to someone else. As a result, many people don't recognize their error until it's too late and they are unable to recover from it.
I recognize that your idea of universal health care is Obamacare -which I think was upheld by the SCOTUS today- however, that is not what I refer to as Universal Health Care. My definition is as follows: your overall income tax increases by 1-5% (depending on which income tax level you're at already. Likely yours would increase by 1-2% unless you make over 100K a year.) Inexchange, you never have to purchase private insurance, because you'll be covered by the state. Break your leg? No problem. Costs you nothing. Catch SARS? No problem. Costs you nothing. THAT is universal health care, and it does work, because in Canada, we've been doing it for a very long time, and we're in better economic shape than you are (granted there are other factors to this, but the point stands that the health care is not what will kill the national budgets or economies).
Palindrome wrote:BMI doesn't work with muscular individuals, I have been flipping between 'overweight' and 'obese' for years, but that doesn't mean that it has no value for the general population. It is extremely easy to perform and it is acceptable for a first line test and that is why it is so widespread despite its limitations.
BMI breaks after 5'11". The range for people taller than that goes from borderline anorexic to what most consider to "look fit". People that fall into the "Overweight" and "Obese" catagories include all professional athletes. Yeah some players could probably afford to tighten up their abs, but for the most part they are considered to be "fit" or "healthy".
It also doesn't help that different countries use slightly different charts to determine what is "healthy". In Japan, I would be considered "Obese" (Bmi 25+). Of course this is based on the Japanese body type, not the northern European one.
Age is another factor to be considered in calculating BMI.... but that metric is only used on calculations for children and young adults (ages 2-20).
It should also be noted that the current ranges (healthey, overweight, obese, etc...) were not established with references to any scientific study, but are arbitrary ranges.
Am I reading this wrong? From the article I only get that doctors are now supposed to tell fat people they're fat, and that insurance companies are now required to cough up the money for counseling/treatment if the patient wishes to follow up on his doc's recommendation.
Am I missing the part with the black van and the handcuffs? I expected more from this headline.
azazel the cat wrote:And as for the cost: in Canada, we have universal health care, 1/10 your population, and 1/24 your national debt. So obviously it's very possible to implement the system, economically speaking.
Yeah, it's funny. In Europe, healthcare costs less per person, and people are healthier. It really must be the lobby propaganda, combined with a deep-rooted belief in the "established ways" that have sort-of worked for the last couple centuries.
Obama's healthcare law requires adoption of certain recommendations from the task force, such as this one on obesity.
There was nothing in the "recommendation" about the patients wishes.
Yes, the Ins will have to pay for it, but they will also be allowed to make weight loss required to continue coverage, or face raised rates.
The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.
2) It mainly benifits the ins companies who, while being "forced" to accept everyone, also collect payments fron those same people. You only need to have car insurance if you own a car..... "everyone" does not have to buy it, just people who own cars, or drive.
Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.
azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.
As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?
You kidding, it takes doctors forever to get any sort of payment from the government when it comes to medicare and medicaid so I'm sure that they'll get their payments on a timely manner.
abclocal wrote:Dr. Joseph Shanahan was up front with the I-Team about the challenges of accepting Medicare patients.
"I don't do medicine for the money. I never got into it to get rich," he said. "The real reward in medicine is taking care of patients and making them feel better."
But Shanahan says the system doesn't pay enough to cover costs.
"The reimbursement is so low for that - in some cases 60, 80 dollars - it costs you more to get a plumber to come to your house than to get a rheumatologist to come to the hospital," said Shanahan.
Shanahan says he's one of only a few rheumatologists treating Medicare patients in the Triangle. They make up about 60 percent of his business but pay for a small percentage of the cost to run it.
"The less physicians get paid, the poorer care you're going to receive," said Shanahan.
Right now, Shanahan said Medicare pays him between $40 and $190 to see a new patient and $19 to $134 for follow-up visits. If proposed Medicare cuts kick in by the end of the year, the payments will be about 30 percent less.
Best of all doctors run up the best student debt and the government doesn't feel inclined to lessen the burden of becoming a doctor. So all in all our government feels that by screwing over the medical field it will be best for the populace as a whole. However there is the hope that everyone will be forced to pay the new taxes, and by everyone I also mean the poor. Some reasons why doctors don't like medicare.
about wrote:
Medicare regularly cuts the rates of reimbursement, which means doctors earn less for office visits and various procedures
There is a longer delay than ever before for doctors to get reimbursements from Medicare
Medicare has a very convoluted, bureacratic process that allows some tests and treatments, refuses to pay for others, and limits how a doctor can practice medicine
Private insurers set low reimbursement rates for various services and treatments, rates that may not even cover a doctor's overhead.
Insurers often systematically make reimbursement deliberately difficult, complicated and time-consuming.
When reimbursement is approved, payments from insurers can be extremely slow to reach the physician.
Doctors may need additional staff to handle the extra paperwork, phone calls, resubmissions, and negotiation with insurance companies.
azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.
As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?
That's why people are supposed to have an insurance, duh. Healthcare only works if everybody pays - not only those who are sick. The money for treatment has to come from somewhere; universal healthcare only forces people to set some aside rather than allowing them to become expensive ER cases or die because they were too stupid to plan ahead. I've heard horror stories of people doing surgery on themselves ... that's just fethed up!
I guess you could call it a tax - just like your tax money is used to pay for the roads you're driving on, now your tax money is also used to pay for the body you're using daily. Why is one acceptable but the other a reason to threaten civil war?
As for the "dystopian sci-fi", just like before, no-one forces anyone to undergo surgery or whatever. The US is only finally starting to adapt to the rest of the modern western world in setting up a healthcare system where everybody has access to medical treatment, not just the upper classes. From now on, insurance companies are legally required to insure anyone. Before Obamacare, 17 million children with pre-existing conditions were thus exempt. Make a wild guess how many had parents able to afford treatment on their own.
In short: good news for 17 million children.
Before Obamacare:
With Obamacare:
Jihadin wrote:So whats the chances of financialy breaking the US?
That's a tricky question. I'm sure it will become quite expensive in the near future, simply because there are so many cases who can now afford to have their conditions and illnesses treated.
On the long run, it should get much cheaper than before, simply because people will be healthier. That's how it worked in Europe.
Maybe, in 20 to 30 years, people will look back and realize what Obama has achieved with this. Right now, the attitude portrayed by some protester crowds makes me question whether the US of A would have actually been able to form, if such opinions would have already been around during the time of the founding fathers. "You want money to levy more troops against the Redcoats? But that's a tax!" "You want to replace the King's constitutional monarchy with a Continental Congress? That's socialism!"
Jihadin wrote:Alright...wo mention this?....you all know I'm itching for the water cannon...
Just an exaggeration - but it is a bit scary with how much enthusiasm so many people throw themselves behind resistance against something that is designed to help them. The ongoing protests, those signs with the silly (and often simply misinformed) statements, some people's efforts at demonizing the Prez ...
For Europeans who have grown up in and benefited from a system like this, it is extremely difficult to understand, especially as it clashes with what I was led to believe are American and Christian ideals ("love thy neighbor" etc).
Lynata wrote:Am I reading this wrong? From the article I only get that doctors are now supposed to tell fat people they're fat, and that insurance companies are now required to cough up the money for counseling/treatment if the patient wishes to follow up on his doc's recommendation.
Am I missing the part with the black van and the handcuffs? I expected more from this headline.
azazel the cat wrote:And as for the cost: in Canada, we have universal health care, 1/10 your population, and 1/24 your national debt. So obviously it's very possible to implement the system, economically speaking.
Yeah, it's funny. In Europe, healthcare costs less per person, and people are healthier. It really must be the lobby propaganda, combined with a deep-rooted belief in the "established ways" that have sort-of worked for the last couple centuries.
This one is pure irony:
In all probability, the person in the picture with the no socialism sign is already having to shovel out a third of each paycheck to government programs. They have a right to medicare since they were forced to pay for it in the first place.
azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.
As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?
I guess you could call it a tax - just like your tax money is used to pay for the roads you're driving on, now your tax money is also used to pay for the body you're using daily. Why is one acceptable but the other a reason to threaten civil war?
The govenrment created the roads.... they did not create my body. Notice the difference?
Even the Supreme Court says it's a tax.
The issue is Obama isn't giving people a choice. We did not get a chance to vote for this, it was forced on us by a bunch of polititians whose biggest fear is not getting re-elected. It does not guarentee health care, only that you will have insurance, neither with any established quality. If the Pres, Congress, and Scotus had to get the same level of health care they just approved that normal working americans have to accept, they would work on fixing the actual system instead of putting money in the pockets of the insurance companies that paid for this BS piece of crap. It only allows for the minimal level of care needed to avoid defying the law.
As for that 17 million children.... how many do you think will be heading to the Mayo Clinic any time soon? My guess..... Thats not covered by the insurance their parents can afford.
helgrenze wrote:The govenrment created the roads.... they did not create my body. Notice the difference?
The government did not create the car you are using for traversing that road. And what difference does that make, anyways, when in both cases it's money used to support you? Would you honestly rather come up with an illness you can't afford to have treated just so you can claim you have preserved your precious right to get sick? Because in that case I'd deem that a pretty silly ideal. People shouldn't have a right to get sick, they should have the right to medical treatment when they are ill.
helgrenze wrote:The issue is Obama isn't giving people a choice.
Of course not. People had choice before, and it led to a general decline in health and a rise in healthcare costs. Sometimes, the government needs to enforce what is good for the country over what an individuum (many of whom seem to operate on flawed information likely received from biased sources) thinks is good for him/herself. This isn't a socialist/communist concept, it's common sense.
On the other hand, I'm also a big fan of referendums and direct democracy, so you actually do have a point there. I suppose the question would thus be: Should a people be free to run themselves into the ground - and drag down the minority that would have been fine with universal healthcare with them? I'm tempted to say the US didn't deserve Obama; perhaps (given the resistance he seems to face) the states just weren't ready for something like this yet. I would feel bad for those that have to suffer under the self-destruction currently going on in the government and the bureaucracy, though, at least if the election campaigns are any indication of how US politics normally look like.
helgrenze wrote:It only allows for the minimal level of care needed to avoid defying the law.
I'd wager that even this is much, much better than not being able to afford going to a doc at all.
Really. from what I've read it doesn't sound very different to what we have in Europe, and it works. Perhaps you should just, y'know, give it a try? From what it looks like from here it cannot get much worse than it already is.
Relapse wrote:In all probability, the person in the picture with the no socialism sign is already having to shovel out a third of each paycheck to government programs. They have a right to medicare since they were forced to pay for it in the first place.
Really? In all probability, I'd have thought it is one of those crazies who believe what certain lobbies have spoonfed them. If universal healthcare is socialism, then so are firefighters and the police. People using these "shock words" to generate upheaval in the US (whose people are apparently still so paranoid that this works) just don't strike me as very informed. They don't use arguments, they do not use fancy flowcharts and statistics (who would prove that this system works fine in Europe, so no wonder they aren't interested in facts) - all they do is scribble Obama's face on a red poster and draw a hammer and sickle next to him, and call it a "threat". Yeah, right.
Right now there's actually a big drive among private insurers here in Australia to provide healthy living stuff, particularly focussed on weightloss (if any Aussies are wondering that's what all those stupid 'a healthier you' ads from BUPA are about). They've decided to do this because the cost of helping people to lose weight actually saves the private insurers money in the long run.
This idea works in Australia because we are directly insured as individuals, and therefore likely to stay with one insurer for a long time. So $100 spent now for me to lose weight means when I'm 50 my insurer will likely save $1,000 (or whatever the numbers are). On the other hand, in the US the same incentive doesn't work, because your employer pays your health insurance, and so the people being covered for health changes constantly as people move from job to job. As such, $100 spent now helping someone lose weight is probably a bad investment, because that person will almost certainly be with another provider by the time their weight is starting to cost money.
This is another of the reasons why the US system of employer provided healthcare has all the problems of a for-profit health system, without any of the benefits.
Platuan4th wrote:Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.
Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?
It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.
Your assumption that government pay won't give a doctor enough money to attract people is a huge, and completely unfounded assumption.
The problem with attracting the best and brightest into medicine is that there's a whole lot of jobs out there for the smartest, most hard working people that are all in the 'enough money so that any more doesn't really change your lifestyle' range, but most of the rest see you earning the big dollars sooner and with less hard work. That is, there's less education, and less on the job training in finance or engineering before you can command stupid money than there is in medicine, and once you get there doctors work worse hours than the others.
These things are a problem, and whether the average doctor's remuneration is $250,000 under a government scheme, or $300,000 under a private system changes that not one bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:So whats the chances of financialy breaking the US?
Given the Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the cost of healthcare in the country, the chance is zero.
Lynata wrote:As for the "dystopian sci-fi", just like before, no-one forces anyone to undergo surgery or whatever. The US is only finally starting to adapt to the rest of the modern western world in setting up a healthcare system where everybody has access to medical treatment, not just the upper classes. From now on, insurance companies are legally required to insure anyone. Before Obamacare, 17 million children with pre-existing conditions were thus exempt. Make a wild guess how many had parents able to afford treatment on their own. In short: good news for 17 million children.
You obviously missed my point.
I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.
I'm in favour of universal health care, but my understanding of this current situation does not lead me ot believe that this is anything close to universal health care; at least not as it's defined in Canada or Europe.
Wasn't concern. My medical free...something to do with 20+ yrs army and being wounded twice pretty good. To me its unsustainable unless our gov't can get a rein on its spending.
azazel the cat wrote:You obviously missed my point.
I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.
I'm in favour of universal health care, but my understanding of this current situation does not lead me ot believe that this is anything close to universal health care; at least not as it's defined in Canada or Europe.
But you're not forced into it. You have the choice to either get insurance, or pay the fine, and the cost of that fine is pretty minor.
In exchange for that, it means you cannot be denied health insurance for a pre-existing condition. Given the number of people who have been bankrupted after being denied medical coverage, or the number of people living with serious conditions because they simply cannot afford treatment, that fine looks pretty minor.
And yeah, it isn't universal coverage, but it's a lot better than what you had before. I'd hope that once this goes through, people see that the people declaring this socialism that'll destroy the country are revealed for the liars and lunatics they really were, and so further reform becomes possible.
sebster wrote:And yeah, it isn't universal coverage, but it's a lot better than what you had before. I'd hope that once this goes through, people see that the people declaring this socialism that'll destroy the country are revealed for the liars and lunatics they really were, and so further reform becomes possible.
I agree with you in principle; but I have a feeling that placing marginalized people between a rock and a hard place isn't going to win the hearts & minds.
The point I was getting at is that in the US, the insurance companies have all but colluded to fix prices. If those companies decide to set a standard rate for insurance at $500 (random figure here to prove a point) per month, per person, and the fine is $250 per person, then anyone barely above the poverty line is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
All I'm trying to say is that half measures toward social change generally never accomplish anything.
Wasn't concern. My medical free...something to do with 20+ yrs army and being wounded twice pretty good. To me its unsustainable unless our gov't can get a rein on its spending.
True, economy is already in the toilet, might as well add on to it. Actually wait, that penalty that they wanted to have can be used as a tax so if you don't have healthcare you get taxed. Then again if you don't have healthcare there's a chance that you will be reimbursed anyways. The system is hemorrhaging money and Obamacare decided that bloodletting is the best cure around, in the future we might get leeches.
helgrenze wrote:The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.
You are 100% correct. Poor people without insurace will still go to hospitals for treatment. Hospitals will still pass on that expense to paying customers. Insurace companies still work hard to make as big a profit as they can. None of that changes under Obamacare.
helgrenze wrote:The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.
You are 100% correct. Poor people without insurace will still go to hospitals for treatment. Hospitals will still pass on that expense to paying customers. Insurace companies still work hard to make as big a profit as they can. None of that changes under Obamacare.
One thing that Obama has accomplished was to mess up the insurance for myself and the other 850 people where I work.
Lynata wrote:For Europeans who have grown up in and benefited from a system like this, it is extremely difficult to understand, especially as it clashes with what I was led to believe are American and Christian ideals ("love thy neighbor" etc).
<snerk> Whoever said Americans ideals and Christian ideals are even remotely similar?
American ideals involve being wealthy and having lots of toys with which to enjoy your freedoms.
Christian ideals involve helping others even at great expense to yourself.
The two clash quite horribly, great expense helping others is not great expense used to enjoy your freedoms. But it amazes me how much the conservative Christians will get all uppity about gay people (who Jesus never mentions) being 'against the will of God' while they ignore the parts (as in more than once) where Jesus tells his followers to give up everything and help their neighbors.
Because the Christian faith includes more then what is said in the new testament. It includes everything in the bible, including Leviticus which condemms homosexuality as a crime(punishable by death)
Of course all sin is punishable by death so its a moot point.
Its an individual responsibility to know what's good for one self. I might get fast food like once every 60 days but I know some people who try it 24/7.
Weight issue is a two edge sword. Everyone focus on "Chubs"...we have people who are under weight to. I've seen quite a few people who needs to "grow a chest"
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
We will just eat the fatties.
Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.
feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1
How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)
Wow, you even threw in a nice personal insult there. Nice. Well before I report that gem, Im going to say my statement is true. I go to the range pretty regularly, and practice shooting drills and and such with my oldest brother. Hes a Marine, a Sargent that spent his time as an MSG over seas AND was in charge of the training of the other Marines to protect the Embassy. I keep up with him, being a "fatty" so again, I can actually BACK UP my internet badass claim bud
Jihadin wrote:Weight issue is a two edge sword. Everyone focus on "Chubs"...we have people who are under weight to. I've seen quite a few people who needs to "grow a chest"
azazel the cat wrote:You obviously missed my point. I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.
But wouldn't this require the insurance companies to form an illegal cartel? The people (or the companies employing them) still get to pick from a selection of competing insurers, right?
Vulcan wrote:American ideals involve being wealthy and having lots of toys with which to enjoy your freedoms.
Christian ideals involve helping others even at great expense to yourself.
The two clash quite horribly [...]
I realize this, but had thought that a lot of people would strive to somehow combine the two - at least given the role religion apparently plays in the US.
I guess many people might be Janus-faced in that they put on the mask of "good Christians" and go to church, but actually don't care at all for the message. Like certain Senators who were all about family values until the media found out he was a regular customer of the same hookers he'd been damning on TV for years. It is as if people are afraid to show their true face because they know they'd be shunned, even if so many people are just like them. I think we have this kind of hypocrisy in just about every human nation, but in the US it seems particularly strong. Though perhaps only because some people are spending so much effort to make themselves look like saints, so the gap between the mask and the real face is even wider.
azazel the cat wrote:You obviously missed my point. I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.
But wouldn't this require the insurance companies to form an illegal cartel? The people (or the companies employing them) still get to pick from a selection of competing insurers, right?
They have, several times over, and any choices that are presented are really just Hobson's choices. The health insurance field in the US is just a zaibatsu, as are most of its other industries.
azazel the cat wrote:They have, several times over, and any choices that are presented are really just Hobson's choices. The health insurance field in the US is just a zaibatsu, as are most of its other industries.
Ah, I see why that could be a problem. "Free enterprise" at its finest...
I'd still say that even an expensive insurance is better than no insurance, given what could happen to the unfortunate, but perhaps I'm just having a too optimistic PoV on this development. I wish the people in the US the best in getting this sorted out.
Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people
We will just eat the fatties.
Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.
feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1
How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)
Dial it back just a notch, bud. Zombie Apoc is fun and games and standard joking material for many gamers. Zombie Apoc also makes a fun game of "what if" for people who enjoy disaster preparedness and/or shooting as a hobby.
You look to be making the game a little less friendly. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.
Fat...thin...fit....in a even start run for your life I be the one to throw a flash bang. I'm a team player. If I see KC lagging behind because of the insane amount of ammo and weapons he's carrying I back him up. because I to is carrying triple load out for my M4/M9 and a SAW...couple detcords....frags...claymores...bangolore topedo...C4 blocks....MRE's...bucket of KFC along side my bucket of Popeye...coffee maker...cigs...wait....this is Amerika...."GET IN THE DAMN JEEP KC!!!"
Every year you have to go for a health check and the doctor will tell you off for being fat if your waist size is above the medically prescribed maximum.
Jihadin wrote:Fat...thin...fit....in a even start run for your life I be the one to throw a flash bang. I'm a team player. If I see KC lagging behind because of the insane amount of ammo and weapons he's carrying I back him up. because I to is carrying triple load out for my M4/M9 and a SAW...couple detcords....frags...claymores...bangolore topedo...C4 blocks....MRE's...bucket of KFC along side my bucket of Popeye...coffee maker...cigs...wait....this is Amerika...."GET IN THE DAMN JEEP KC!!!"
Grey Templar wrote:Because the Christian faith includes more then what is said in the new testament. It includes everything in the bible, including Leviticus which condemms homosexuality as a crime(punishable by death)
Of course all sin is punishable by death so its a moot point.
"The wages of sin are death" as I recall. Where the reward for faith is eternal life.
Yes, I have read the bible.
And I'll point out a detail you seem to have missed. The Old Testament (the Torah, as the Jewish faithful call it) describes - get ready! - the old pact between God (Jehovah) and the tribes of Israel. The New Testament talks about - here it comes - the new pact, between God and all the people of the world.
As such... the Old Testament is about as relavent to Christianity as the legal codes of the Roman Empire are to modern America.
And yet Christian fundies continue to use Leviticus to justify hatred of homosexuals. Also pretty sure Jesus said something about how the old laws still apply, something like "I have not come to abolish the old laws, but fulfill them".
My point was not hatred of homosexual people vs hated of homosexual acts, it was Vulcan's statement that Old Testament rules are irrelevant to Christianity.
I guess the problem is that people cherrypick which parts of their religion they want to follow up, and which to dismiss. I've seen this as a particularly strong trend in Christianity as well as Islam, though I guess this also has to do with both religions just being extremely prominent as well as dogmatic in their various interpretations.
Unfortunately, the religious leaders, where they exist, are doing little to reign in or denounce "rogue" members. Thus the gap between what a religion is supposedly standing for and what it actually represents as enacted/preached by some of its members can be surprisingly wide.
Personally I love when people trot out Leviticus....as it actually maps out how the Hebrews were to conduct their lives and religion.
Though it is part 3 that is the one that covers what is restricted....including Pork (Ham, bacon, ribs...) Lobster, crab, oysters. Touching dead animals not killed for sacrifice or food or that are restricted as food. Tattoos are specificallly mentioned.
Then there is this tidbit from Lev 19:17 (Chapter 19, verse 17) "You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him."
You wanna play bible study, you should know the whole.... blessed.. thing, not just the parts that support your view.
Jihadin wrote:Wasn't concern. My medical free...something to do with 20+ yrs army and being wounded twice pretty good. To me its unsustainable unless our gov't can get a rein on its spending.
You sounded like you were, what with wondering if the country being financially broken.
And given you again repeated your claim about government getting a reign on its spending, then the fact that Obamacare will reduce spending in the healthcare system and reduce government spending means you should be wildly in favour of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:I agree with you in principle; but I have a feeling that placing marginalized people between a rock and a hard place isn't going to win the hearts & minds.
But the rock and hard place right now is 'don't have insurance, hope you don't get sick'. Having people spend what is a pretty minor amount of money for the fine so they can get coverage when they need it isn't ideal, but it's much, much better.
The point I was getting at is that in the US, the insurance companies have all but colluded to fix prices. If those companies decide to set a standard rate for insurance at $500 (random figure here to prove a point) per month, per person, and the fine is $250 per person, then anyone barely above the poverty line is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
People can not buy insurance. They can pay the fine, and then if they get sick enough that it becomes worthwhile, they buy insurance.
All I'm trying to say is that half measures toward social change generally never accomplish anything.
Everything is half measures, little fixes to make things a little more efficient, or a little more fair. That's how we build complex systems. The alternative is revolution, and those have a generally crappy track record.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:Because the Christian faith includes more then what is said in the new testament. It includes everything in the bible, including Leviticus which condemms homosexuality as a crime(punishable by death)
Um, not really, no. Leviticus 11:10-12 says you should eat, or touch the carcass of any seafood without fins or scales. 12:5 says you shouldn't go to church within 66 days or having given birth to a girl. So any Christian that opposes homosexuality because of a single verse in Leviticus better go and read the thing, and get serious about the nonsense they'll have to introduce into their lives.
Fortunately for Christians, though, the fifth book of the New Testament has the story of Peter, in which he is given a vision in which he is told he can kill and eat all manner of animals that were previously forbidden, when he questions this God tells him 'What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ Peter is puzzled by this vision, and then is greeted by three gentiles, who according to his religion he cannot take into his house. Peter realises this is the purpose of his vision - that all things previously called profane must be treated as God's creations. Peter travels with the gentiles, and eventually declares 'You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.’
This means the old rules about all kinds of arbitrarily profane things were no longer valid, God made them clean, and we should treat them as such.
So this is a big let off for any Christian that thinks Leviticus means homosexuality is wrong. The New Testament specifically moves past that.
And then there's that whole thing where the Son of God came to Earth and told people about being kind, and charitable a lot, and didn't mention homosexuality. So if you keep most of your money for yourself, but then talk about homosexuality being wrong because the Bible says so... odds are you're actually just a bigot.
Really I think the biggest argument for Christians to ignore Leviticus is the Leviticus and the jewish faith itself. The old testament or covenant is pretty specific in stating that the laws in the torah are only for jews because a jew must put it upon himself to be better then his fellow. There is no need for a gentile to follow the laws of the torah or Leviticus because god said that they apply only to jews, and that a gentile need not follow them to reach heaven or be reserected.
youbedead wrote:Really I think the biggest argument for Christians to ignore Leviticus is the Leviticus and the jewish faith itself. The old testament or covenant is pretty specific in stating that the laws in the torah are only for jews because a jew must put it upon himself to be better then his fellow. There is no need for a gentile to follow the laws of the torah or Leviticus because god said that they apply only to jews, and that a gentile need not follow them to reach heaven or be reserected.
The Bible doesn't really support that. Christianity is Judaism adapted to the needs of everyone (at the time), rather than solely towards the Jews, and ultimately only a few things were separated as being "Jews only." Namely the debate over circumcision, even though Christians by and large did it anyway.
LordofHats wrote:The Bible doesn't really support that. Christianity is Judaism adapted to the needs of everyone (at the time), rather than solely towards the Jews, and ultimately only a few things were separated as being "Jews only." Namely the debate over circumcision, even though Christians by and large did it anyway.
The story I mentioned above from Acts is really very clear in how we are all supposed to treat the old Jewish laws in this brave new world - 'What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ This was a step forward from an old way of viewing sanctity, that one must remain clean of impure things in order to be holy, and instead embrace the world that God created. It's really quite a remarkable concept for the time.
But, of course, loads of people like to pretend it's just talking about seafood, because they want to keep on hating on gay people.
Frazzled wrote:yea...sure it is. Discussed by complete nonscholars and atheists. ok.
I have studied theology as personal interest, and am not atheistic. Im fairly sure that most public education outside the US contains theological classes so sebs probably educated on the manner and many prominent theologians are atheists and agnostics
Jihadin wrote:Want to start another thread about religion?
No. This thread has drifted. That's what happens in conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Why? there are two religion bashing threads ongoing now. You have to space these out a little bit.
Uh huh. A thread in which it's pointed out Christianity doesn't require any kind of bigotry is now seen as bashing. Fraz, I know that there is no shortage of teenage rebels ready to come in and bash Christianity at any time, but by being so hyper-sensitive to any conversation about religion at all you only weaken your complaint.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:I have studied theology as personal interest, and am not atheistic. Im fairly sure that most public education outside the US contains theological classes so sebs probably educated on the manner and many prominent theologians are atheists and agnostics
I've not taken a theological class, no. Nor were they required. When I was in Year 4 (I think) the Parents and Teachers Association got won over by a local church, and so for an hour a week some church guy came in and talked to the class. Kids belonging to other faiths and those with no faiths were given the option to sit out, and so we went and sat in the teacher's lounge and talked.
After a while it turned out the guy they had talking to the kids was from a pretty hardline church, and was giving the kids lessons that were not at all like they'd told the PTA they were going to teach, and the whole thing got quickly shut down. Which was a shame, because I had a hell of a crush on one of the girls who sat the classes out.
Basically my theological knowledge comes from talking to Christians.
Whew...make's me glad I worship Mars....occasionaly a few prayers towards Zues....sacrifice towards Venus....lots of tilting back of alcohol for Bacchus
Well, Frazzled, you're right, I have absolutely zero theological training and no faith in any deity.
But I don't have to be a degree-holding theologist to say that I've heard some Christians say the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians, and I've heard others say it does.
I'm totally serious; which is it? It can't be both. Either the Old Testament applies to Christians, or it doesn't. If it doesn't apply, then the bit condemning homosexuality also doesn't apply. If it DOES apply, well, then pretty much all Christians ever are in gross violation of (probably several) Levitical law(s).
Either way, IIRC there's bits of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality (Romans? I think), so I don't know why they don't use that. Using Leviticus just makes things too easy for us. ("OK, so if Leviticus still applies, why do you eat pork, why don't you stone adulterers, why do you wear blended fabrics, why do you have tattoos etc etc?") It's not going to convince anyone, but it will mean one cannot throw other Levitical laws back at them.
Whatever they say. People take and leave from religion all the time.
Some OT laws don't apply because they're specific to the Covenant with the Jews (Pork, Circumcision are examples). Others are just laws, and can be left. Others still apply. It's not clear cut. It has to be gone through and examined, but most people don't have the time or the inclination. Most of it gets repeated in some form in the NT anyway.
Either way, IIRC there's bits of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality (Romans? I think
You'd be correct. Romans 1:26-27. Although on its face, that verse only condemns exclusive homosexuality, while bisexuality is seemingly permitted, but it was written for the Romans so maybe we shouldn't be so shocked.
LordofHats wrote:Some OT laws don't apply because they're specific to the Covenant with the Jews (Pork, Circumcision are examples). Others are just laws, and can be left. Others still apply. It's not clear cut. It has to be gone through and examined, but most people don't have the time or the inclination. Most of it gets repeated in some form in the NT anyway.
Sure, a religion described mostly through narrative, from multiple sources is bound to require a lot of examination and personal interpretation.
The issue comes when people are willing to apply reason to some things, but just accept others unquestioningly. As such, if you recognise that a women who's given birth within 66 days shouldn't be banned from sitting in church anymore, but think the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is unquestionable, it's really just bigotry you're attempting to give a religious covering.
sebster wrote:The issue comes when people are willing to apply reason to some things, but just accept others unquestioningly. As such, if you recognise that a women who's given birth within 66 days shouldn't be banned from sitting in church anymore, but think the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is unquestionable, it's really just bigotry you're attempting to give a religious covering.
I don't disagree. I'm just saying tossing out the whole OT is a cop out from discussing the issue rather than an actual argument or examination of things we in modern times might not find so savory (not that that'll stop some groups from doing it anyway EDIT: Or that leaving bits discarded is improper. People underestimate how diverse Christianity is.).
mattyrm wrote: feth giving obese people counselling, what about giving them a personal trainer and marching them onto the fething Stairmaster twice a day!?
The problem there is the definition of "Obese" as used in the OP. They said everyone with a BMI over 30.
John Cena's BMI is 33 so he classifies as "obese" in this instance.
You wanna tell him he needs to lose a few pounds?
For those of you who aren't wealthy and who are smart enough to realize that "Obamacare" now means many benefits including the fact that your insurance company can no longer cancel you (thereby condemning you to death) for being catastrophically ill here's a bit of humor about the Extreme Right who clearly don't seem to understand that once again they are protesting against their own interests.
Who will hear their cries? The Affordable Care Act has already
unleashed a plague on our country: butthurt conservatives, whose
butthurt medical needs are being completely ignored.
The sound, vigorous spanking by--of all people--Justice Roberts, 30 million Americans getting coverage, and because PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR SOMETHING has resulted in a wave of redness, welts, and soreness.
Judging from symptoms displayed on Facebook, there seems to be no
balm, lotion or tincture to soothe their butthurtedness. They can't
really move--every other advanced industrial nation has universal
access to decent medical care. So that fething sucks.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/health.htm
But remember, no whining! After getting all that health care LITERALLY
SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, that will only cause chafing and irritation.
Alpharius wrote:Especially where it concerns the mocking of special needs individuals.
That hasn't actually happened. My post wasn't actually about Trig Palin per se, more that I was using him as a prop (just as his mother is so fond of doing) to try and again debunk a ridiculous yet inexplicably popular lie. If I inadvertently gave the impression I actually thought we should round up special needs people and deny them healthcare so they died, that was not my intent.
BrassScorpion wrote:For those of you who aren't wealthy and who are smart enough to realize that "Obamacare" now means many benefits including the fact that your insurance company can no longer cancel you (thereby condemning you to death) for being catastrophically ill here's a bit of humor about the Extreme Right who clearly don't seem to understand that once again they are protesting against their own interests.
Who will hear their cries? The Affordable Care Act has already
unleashed a plague on our country: butthurt conservatives, whose
butthurt medical needs are being completely ignored.
The sound, vigorous spanking by--of all people--Justice Roberts, 30 million Americans getting coverage, and because PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR SOMETHING has resulted in a wave of redness, welts, and soreness.
Judging from symptoms displayed on Facebook, there seems to be no
balm, lotion or tincture to soothe their butthurtedness. They can't
really move--every other advanced industrial nation has universal
access to decent medical care. So that fething sucks.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/health.htm
But remember, no whining! After getting all that health care LITERALLY
SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, that will only cause chafing and irritation.
LordofHats wrote:I don't disagree. I'm just saying tossing out the whole OT is a cop out from discussing the issue rather than an actual argument or examination of things we in modern times might not find so savory (not that that'll stop some groups from doing it anyway EDIT: Or that leaving bits discarded is improper. People underestimate how diverse Christianity is.).
Yea Daddy Frazzled was not quiet (well he was as he partially lost his voice in the Corps). But he could "exporess and opinion" with the best of them.
discourages them pretty thoroughly, even if you get the 
Just an exaggeration - but it is a bit scary with how much enthusiasm so many people throw themselves behind resistance against something that is designed to help them. The ongoing protests, those signs with the silly (and often simply misinformed) statements, some people's efforts at demonizing the Prez ...
