October 11, 2010
Healthcare "Huh" for Today
The article's a couple of weeks old, but it's still worth noting a bit of writing that I don't think Projo journalist Felice Freyer or her editors would have allowed into print if they weren't fundamentally in favor of government healthcare:
The increases will pay for the coverage of dependents through age 26 and preventive services that now must be provided without any cost to the consumer.
Yup. The extra money you'll be paying for insurance is intended to make sure that you don't have to pay for certain services. Makes sense...
Of course, there may be a correlation-is-not-causation effect, here. Perhaps an habitual tendency to believe that something is free as long as its cost is filtered through a few steps of disguise results in a preference for government solutions.
Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller,(and Pea-Party Favorite) the father of eight, acknowledged Thursday that his family has received assistance from federal Medicaid and Denali KidCare, the state's low income health care program --THE SAME KIND OF FEDERALLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE BENEFITS HE NOW CALLS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
go figure
Posted by: Sammy at October 11, 2010 9:55 PMYou do realize that using the Caps Lock key doesn't necessarily make your ranting more persuasive, don't you?
Posted by: David P at October 11, 2010 10:39 PMDave....
Sure, but it takes a special kind of worthless douchebag to take advantage of those loopholes and then defend them
Bonus douche-points if he then turns around and claims to be a 'fiscal conservative' or 'concerned' about the deficit
Sammy
Posted by: Sammy at October 11, 2010 11:24 PMI have a car that I need to get rid of. It's free. A 2010 red Chevy Corvette, with 136 miles on it, mint condition.
Car is free, but I just need you to pay a $75,000 "finders fee".
Who wants to take me up on this free car?
Posted by: Patrick at October 12, 2010 9:45 AMNot that it matters, but this is exactly the language used at insurance companies (aka payers) about who "pays" (usually phrased from the perspective of the provider). Note that the "increases" mentioned above refer to rates, which are distinct from payments in industry lingo.
But, hey, you guys already know this is a consiracy of the sclm, so never mind.
Posted by: Russ at October 12, 2010 1:41 PM"Not that it matters, but this is exactly the language used at insurance companies"
Ahh, so I have the same choice to pay for this system as I do with insurance? Is that what you're telling me, Russ? Since you made the comparison and all.
Posted by: Patrick at October 12, 2010 1:57 PMPatrick, I didn't comment on the legislation, just on the idea that the language in the story is somehow biased (only so when viewed through the lens of someone unfamiliar with the industry).
Posted by: Russ at October 13, 2010 9:09 AM