Damn. You must be good.>> ^peggedbea:

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:
>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:

>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

>> ^peggedbea:

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!


I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.

free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

*viral *commercial

I noticed (while waiting for my oil change last week) that whenever Car & Driver magazine rates a small performance car, they compare it to the Speed3. It's the gold standard by which all other pocket-rockets are compared, according to C&D.

Fun commercial.

@NetRunner : Yay! An actual conversation.

Yes, the assumption is that medicare is gone, in fact, all other "health insurancey" middlemen are gone. The whole point is that health insurance, aside from catastrophic care, isn't really insurance at all. We aren't transferring risk to anyone (the traditional definition of "insurance"). We are just taking expenses we know we'll encounter, and paying someone to book keep for us. Why not cut out the middleman and pay directly? It's not like we file claims with our car insurance to pay for oil changes. Why should I file a claim to pay for regular service on my body?

To be honest, I don't really care how you pay for it. Republicans probably prefer the underhanded flat tax of the printing presses. If you want to use a progressive tax, whatever, that's fine. In any event, the bills only come due when the "stamps" are converted, so it isn't like you need the government to have the money up front. I mentioned the lump sum just because it gets around the problem of catastrophic situations where the person hasn't paid in enough yet, and the government has to bridge the gap. It removes uncertainty about how much everyone is getting. When it's out, we throw you under a bus (that's smartass for you pay out of pocket). Thus, you still have the incentive to minimize costs. Whereas with the Delong solution you have questions like, when do you roll it over, how do we predict government liability, etc...

Politically speaking I can sympathize quite a bit. However, this IS what conservatives are suggesting we do. You saw it yourself in the video, the guy was calling for HSAs. Obama was the "demagogue," calling it a rich man's solution. If Obama would allow himself some humility here, and pitch a new proposal partially drafted by Republicans, I think he'd win the support he needs. The Republicans are looking for a gracious out to this whole "party of no" nonsense. They know that nobody likes pure obstructionists, they just can't appear to be entirely caving either. They need it to look like they at least contributed something to language of the bill. They need it to look like they have some real ownership, that's all.

But in the current system of insurance, people already pay for other people's healthcare. That's what insurance is, lots of people pay, some people claim from the pot of money collected.

Well, consider this. Take a look at the auto insurance market. It does not pay for oil changes, brake pads, or other routine maintainance. So car insurance is relatively cheap. Imagine if Congress made a law that said car insurance must now cover headlights, brake pads, spark plugs, tires, and all other basic maintainance.

Consumers would immediately start charging all these services to auto maintainace providers as OFTEN as they possibly could. Maintainance would move from a market driven method of "I pay for it when I need it" to a scheduled system determined by government panels. The new 'consumer demand' would thus be artificially determined - not naturally derived by real costs or market needs.

The inevitable result would be that the cost of the services to the insurer would increase dramatically. An oil change that cost a consumer 20 dollars would now 'cost' $200+ in the insurance tables. The cost of insurance itself would have to increase to reflect this new reality. Auto insurance that used to cost $70 a month would now cost $400+.

That is what government involvement in the insurance industry does to the market. It screws up the laws of supply & demand, inserts artificial (more expensive) standards, and increases costs to ALL participants. That is what the current bill in Congress will do to health insurance. What used to be 'affordable' insurance for middle-income earners will become unaffordable.

I believe that is the actual target end-game for the political class. When this crappy plan fails (as it inevitably will) they will step in (OH-SO concerned) and offer to nationalize the system completely. The inattentive, civically ignorant American public - desperate for a solution to a problem the GOVERNMENT CREATED will agree. Bingo. Welcome to the United Union of the Socialist States of America where Pelosi/Obama/Ried are in charge of your health care and you have no recourse for grieveneces with your rationed care.

What the rich often forget though is that the only reason they are rich is because there are poor people.

No - rich people exist because a large, free marketplace of all income levels rewarded them with money in exchange for beneficial goods & services. You describe parasitism. Capitalism is symbiosis.

Is it really so hard to give something back to them?

Of course not. It is called PRIVATE CHARITY. Rich, middle-class, & poor alike give to charity every year and we don't need a government to tell us to do it. The public is not rejecting 'helping' people. What they reject is the liberal left-wing's DEFINITION of help (because it sucks).

Its a measure of a democracy how well it looks after all of its citizens, not just a few of them.

No - the measure of a democracy is how limited government is at restricting freedom and protecting its citizens from external threats. The measure of the CITIZENS lies in how well it looks after their own poor. But that is not a government issue. It is the morality of the citizens in how they use their enlightened self-interest.

The current system has more than enough money within it to provide more than adequate healthcare to everybody, so long as the (deliberate?) waste is removed and the fat cats diet a little.

And government solutions are so good at removing waste & thinning out the fat cats... Regardless, when you make something 'free' then there is NEVER 'more than enough' of that good for a population. The well of human want is bottomless. As with all government solutions, nationalized care would devolve quickly into a labryinth of regulations and delayed/denied coverage.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Do you ride to work in the rain? Because nobody I know rides their bike in the rain. So what then, call in sick every time it rains?

Rain, snow, lightning, fog, hail, tumbleweeds, crazy drivers. The weather here ranges from -10 F to 105F and yes I ride every day no matter what. Riding in the rain isn't that big of a deal if you have a waterproof helmet, jacket, pants, gloves, and boots.

You can buy a used dirt bike for about $1000 - in fact my very first motorcycle was a used Ninja 250 (sport bike) which I bought for $1400. Gets 70 MPG. As far as maintenance on my current bike goes; spark plugs are about $2 (single cylinder) and an oil change is what $10? Mine was $7000 brand new, but I don't make minimum wage. Most people spend what, 10, 20, 30 thousand on a new car? Why would you spend $20,000 on a car? They are slow, dangerous, get terrible gas mileage, and can't even ride down single track

Thing is, if you are making minimum wage, why would you need a car to commute in the first place? Theres a McDonalds on every block and used bicycles are like $30. Anyone working less than 10 miles from their house could easily ride a bicycle to work. One of my coworkers does it every day (14 miles) ...yes in the rain and snow too.

Its not a question of "can" its a question of "will." People in America think (know?) they need a car yet theres really no need for it.

As far as TAXES go...you know I'm a libertarian right? I don't believe in taxation...so that part is on you...if you want to steal 20% from someone making minimum wage thats on you, not me

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion.

And I would argue that this financial practice only came into existence because of government interference in the private lending market. It was looooong leadup where government and lobbyists joined together for their own agenda items to change the rules. This crisis was NOT simply a crisis of capitalism gone amok. That is a neolib conceit, and it is inaccurate because it ignores 66% of the problem. The crisis was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. GOVERNMENT was the one that set the table. 2. Financial houses were the ones that sold the food. 3. Citizens were the ones that came and gorged themselves stupidly on unnecessary, unaffordable debt.

Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance.

There have been numerous studies that show conclusively that the real problem is not the lack of socialized medicine. The problem was the creation of an government mandated 'insurance' system that screwed up the private market. THere are two kinds of insurance really. One kind of insurance is 'universal' and it supposedly covers all expenses. THe other kind of insurance is 'catastrophic' which is supposed to only kick in when something serious happens.

The problem here is that people want to treat health insurance like "universal" insurance, when they really should be treating it like "catastrophic". Americans need to get it through their thick skulls that health insurance is not and NEVER WAS designed to cover drugs, doctor visits, band-aids, flu check ups, and stubbed toes. Health insurance as a concept can ONLY WORK if it covers only large scale, catastrophic disease or injury. Everything else should be paid for out of your own pocket by direct interaction and discussion with doctors & providers. That would bring costs down to affordable levels so fast it would make your head spin.

Think about it. If you treated your car insurance like you treat your health insurance then it would cripple the industry. People would be taking their car in to change their oil, rotate their tires, replacing headlights, fixing scratches and so forth. Suddenly the demand for those services would skyrocket because they were 'covered' and people would be doing them a lot more often because they were 'free'. Suddenly, oil changes would cost $100. Tire rotations would cost $500. All because they were 'insured' and the laws of supply & demand got screwed up by an artificial system that was inserted into the private market.

But auto insurance stays relatively cheap and affordable because you can only use it when something 'big' happens. And you can go get your oil changed for only $20 because you are negotiating directly with the provider for a cheap commodity service. That's how our health care should be. CHEAP basic services we negotiate directly in the free market, with insurance for the unexpected major problems.

Yes. Define excessive.

Excessive = anything beyond what was prescribed in the original US constitution and bill of rights. I.E. pretty much 99.99999% of what the federal government is currently doing except national defense.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:

Well if auto insurance covered oil changes and all kinds of other preventative maintenance services, then you would see oil changes costing hundreds of dollars.
Jiffy Lube wouldn't post prices, but instead when they come to you asking if you want to "flush your radiator and replace your timing belt" you wouldn't ask "How much? And is it necessary?" You'd just say "sure" and the auto insurance company would front the bill.
That's what drives up costs.


Mark this day on your calendar. You're 100% correct.

Problem is, with a car repair, I'm never in a hurry. If the mechanic recommends something that's too expensive, I can comparison shop. If no one can fix the problem at a price I can afford, I'll have to take the bus.

If on the other hand, some dickhead starts spraying gunfire at a health care town hall, and I get hit with a bullet, I'm not going to shop around. Chances are, I'll tell the doctor "do whatever you have to, just save me!" My insurance company may later decide that the bullet-wound was a preexisting condition, or more likely that they won't cover me because I didn't call my GP before calling 911. The doctor won't worry about costs, he'll save me anyways, but the bill will likely bankrupt me.

So where does that leave us?

You say I need more opportunity to comparison shop for bullet-wound repair, and that if I can't afford the service, I should just go without it and die.

I'm saying that stopping my insurance company from playing games is as important as controlling costs. So first, let's stop the insurance company from wiggling out on me.

Second, let's stop people from waiting until they're sick to start paying for insurance, since the companies now must cover people who're paid up on premiums, even if they're sick.

Third, let's realize that there are lots of people who will have trouble paying premiums, so let's set up a subsidy to help them out.

Fourth, let's make sure people are taking advantage of preventive care, since it's much cheaper to treat someone for high blood pressure than it is to treat them for a heart attack.

Fifth, let's set up programs for doing comparative effectiveness research, so we can get some objective science on what we're paying for, to make sure that people know if certain types of treatments are a good value.

Sixth, let's set up a standard format for electronically exchanging medical records and test results so specialists aren't re-doing tests that have already been performed by ER or GP physicians.

Seventh, let's set up a national marketplace for individual insurance, and ensure that customers are given clear, standardized information for comparing between the insurance offerings.

Eighth, let's set up a public, non-profit insurance plan to provide a basic level of care, and to help drive down the cost of the private offerings.

There's more detail in the full plan, but that's a lot of the big elements of the plan.

>> ^NetRunner:


Well if auto insurance covered oil changes and all kinds of other preventative maintenance services, then you would see oil changes costing hundreds of dollars.

Jiffy Lube wouldn't post prices, but instead when they come to you asking if you want to "flush your radiator and replace your timing belt" you wouldn't ask "How much? And is it necessary?" You'd just say "sure" and the auto insurance company would front the bill.

That's what drives up costs.

It's easy to point fingers at the big, evil corporate insurance companies. No one ever criticizes the little guy for stacking the system so he can have a free lunch.

>> ^blankfist:
Imagine if your auto insurance paid for oil changes every three months.

I'd really want that, if oil changes cost hundreds of dollars, and my engine seizing up meant I would die.

I think it's sad we rely on insurance so heavily. There's nothing wrong with insurance to be used as a means to "insure" you in case something catastrophic happens, but we look at insurance nowadays as a health plan where we require routine services to be covered.

Imagine if your auto insurance paid for oil changes every three months.

I once worked at an auto oil change shop and one of my co-workers had put out one of those sticky pad mouse traps. It worked and a mouse got stuck to it. I felt bad for the poor little guy struggling to get free. I couldn't peel it off, the pad way too sticky. So I tried using some water to get him unstuck. That didn't work so then I brilliantly tried some motor oil to unstick him. No luck but I was intent on saving this cute little mouse. So even more brilliantly, I used some WD-40. Then some transmission fluid.

Finally, after about an hour of carefully toiling away at getting this mouse free...the mouse died and I threw him in the garbage still stuck to the sticky pad and soaking in carcinogens. And then I went to McDonald's and ate chicken nuggets with honey dip. And that's why this video reminds me of that tasty tasty day.

That's ok. Jiffy lube is on my nemesis list.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Thanks very much! Are you sure that wasn't your oil change pocket money? Jiffylube will be sad.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
There, have some of my oilmoney pocketchange.