You can come to the US now, we have health care

[Ex-Cyber]

You have stubbornly resisted acknowledging my hint that a person without insurance COULD conceivably pay their bills. (If not, why does the hospital even bother mailing out the bills?)

Standard accounting practices. A business entity generally doesn't just arbitrarily decide to not bill a customer. It bills by default, then marks down the value of the debt later if it becomes apparent that payment is unlikely.

[BryanM]

I would like to see more of this study.

Two of them actually, at least. Very small scale.

Japanese 1990 study, 11 subjects. Breast form changes resulting from a certain brassière.

French 2003 study by sportsperv Jean-Denis Rouillon. "The development of the breasts after discontinuing wearing bras. Preliminary longitudinal study of 33 volunteer sportswomen." Had something like 250 subjects.

About all we can say that's good about them is to prevent bouncing while jogging. Otherwise, they help atrophy the connective tissue involved in keeping them up. It's also been purposed that wearing one 24/7 doubles your risk of breast cancer.

So it's very much one of those "culture trumps thinking about it" kind of things, since there are alternatives to bras. In the same bucket as high toilet seats, the disregarding the benefits of a bidet, and screaming outside a building about letting people die.

It's funny that heart disease isn't very prevalent with Mexicans even though their pan dulce has trans fats out the waz00.

A bit of critical thinking pans this out a bit: our ancestors ate pretty much every mammal they could into extinction. But probably didn't suck on a goat's boob as a regular part of their diet.

It's gotten into some deep animal/plant trans fat rabbit hole of crazy. All I know is I don't hit the waffles and liver too hard.

Let's not dwell on what once was; instead on what is.







And Jessica, annihilator of reason.

[xbl0x180]

They're... they're beautiful Worthy of the word: "YAYBIES"

[BryanM]

Oh, I almost forgot about this.

It appears Roberts flip flopped. There's a lot of speculation as to why. I think death threats from the white house / he thought cutting the entire thing down was going too far are the most popular theories.

Both of which I'm : | about.

[louisg]

Oh, I almost forgot about this.

It appears Roberts flip flopped. There's a lot of speculation as to why. I think death threats from the white house / he thought cutting the entire thing down was going too far are the most popular theories.

Both of which I'm : | about.

I think it's obviously either chemtrails or demonic possession. Occam's razor and all. Wake up, sheeple!

[Ex-Cyber]

It's funny that heart disease isn't very prevalent with Mexicans even though their pan dulce has trans fats out the waz00.

Does it? I thought that was generally made with lard (maybe I'm confusing tradition with actual common practice and everybody actually uses Crisco?).

Oh, I almost forgot about this.

It appears Roberts flip flopped. There's a lot of speculation as to why. I think death threats from the white house / he thought cutting the entire thing down was going too far are the most popular theories.

Both of which I'm : | about.

The major theory I've seen is that he sort of traded upholding Obamacare for limiting Commerce Clause authority. The first defends him against accusations of blind partisanship; the second strikes a blow for a long-standing goal of conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

[xbl0x180]

It's funny that heart disease isn't very prevalent with Mexicans even though their pan dulce has trans fats out the waz00.

Does it? I thought that was generally made with lard (maybe I'm confusing tradition with actual common practice and everybody actually uses Crisco?).

In general, bakeries and donut shops use shortening with trans fats; these things come in commercial-sized buckets and boxes (although that has changed in New York and California). Prior to the introduction of trans fats, it coulda been some lard-based shortening, since trans fats have been around for around 100 years. The "trans fat" molecule was deviced to make candles last longer, but - with the advent of electricity - candle usage took a dive

[antron]

Quote:
We do not have the liberty to push our bills on others

Now hold on right there. You have just stated multiple times that:

people without health insurance = unpaid bills that are passed off to others

You have stubbornly resisted acknowledging my hint that a person without insurance COULD conceivably pay their bills. (If not, why does the hospital even bother mailing out the bills?)

well of course they can pay their bills. but on average they don't. it's a fact. I'll reword my statement: you do not have the liberty to get yourself into a position where you could push your bills on others.

WHY? Because legislation allowed it. Government created this particular problem

yes, they did. but to solve another more serious problem: people being left to die outside an ER because they couldn't prove they had insurance. (actually they would transfer them unneededly, endangering them further)

You can`t turn around and blame it on people who are poor or just chose not to buy insurance. These "irresponsible" people were only taking advantage of what the system allowed.

the true poor qualified for medicaid, and got free care if they became seriously ill. some were caught in-between, didn't qualify but couldn't afford. the law has expanded medicaid, and provides assistance for those in-between.

Quote:
a law from which everyone benefits should be paid for by everyone

This sounds nice for about five seconds, until it degrades into a fight about exactly how much each person paid versus how much they gained. That is THE downside of the socialist approach.

sounds like you are describing insurance to me.

[GaijinPunch]

I didn't say those people were blameless. We're all victims of our own bad decisions, except some of us can still - kiiiind of - afford to hold our own. Take for example, what BulletMagnet wrote: Some poor schlub chooses to have kids he cannot take care of, so he has to work two shifts, and, as a result of all of that, he has to resort to feeding his family a buncha garbage while making fast food joints rich in the process.

This is really only true if you eat out. You can still cook healthy food from a super market for the same price or cheaper than you can buy fast food bullshit. It will take time that he likely does not have b/c he's working so much.

This is hardest for single, young people though... most likely men. When I first moved to Japan and got my own job, I ate shit. I had zero time to cook, didn't really know how to, and was pretty broke as I spent all my money on partying. Hey, I was the only one to blame, and lived in Japan even where there it is conceivable to eat healthy food at restaurants. Only in my late 20's did I start getting serious about my health (even quit smoking at 28). The results? Well, just wait for the Burning Man photos. Gotta get those tickets.

[Ed Oscuro]

WHY? Because legislation allowed it. Government created this particular problem

yes, they did. but to solve another more serious problem: people being left to die outside an ER because they couldn't prove they had insurance. (actually they would transfer them unneededly, endangering them further)

That's not exactly the problem. Ronald Reagan signed EMTALA into law back in 1986. What EMTALA does is ensure that other people pay for emergency medical care. "Obamacare" is partly about trying to get costs under control.

Now, yes, if you have some kind of early-stage cancer that will kill you later, EMTALA won't really get you into the emergency ward (but you could try!); it's to ensure that hospitals stabilize patients who are going to die without treatment.

[antron]

And why would they not want to stabilize some patients? No insurance perhaps?

[xbl0x180]

I didn't say those people were blameless. We're all victims of our own bad decisions, except some of us can still - kiiiind of - afford to hold our own. Take for example, what BulletMagnet wrote: Some poor schlub chooses to have kids he cannot take care of, so he has to work two shifts, and, as a result of all of that, he has to resort to feeding his family a buncha garbage while making fast food joints rich in the process.

This is really only true if you eat out. You can still cook healthy food from a super market for the same price or cheaper than you can buy fast food bullshit. It will take time that he likely does not have b/c he's working so much.

This is hardest for single, young people though... most likely men. When I first moved to Japan and got my own job, I ate shit. I had zero time to cook, didn't really know how to, and was pretty broke as I spent all my money on partying. Hey, I was the only one to blame, and lived in Japan even where there it is conceivable to eat healthy food at restaurants. Only in my late 20's did I start getting serious about my health (even quit smoking at 28). The results? Well, just wait for the Burning Man photos. Gotta get those tickets.

I'm in that demographic: Single dude and totally useless in the kitchen. I could buy lotsa cheap ingredients, but I don't know how to make anything I could eat. My monthly food budget is 300 bucks a month and I could easily halve that if I were to stop eating out. However, I consider it a waste of food, money, and time if I were to prepare my own food...

[louisg]

I'm in that demographic: Single dude and totally useless in the kitchen. I could buy lotsa cheap ingredients, but I don't know how to make anything I could eat. My monthly food budget is 300 bucks a month and I could easily halve that if I were to stop eating out. However, I consider it a waste of food, money, and time if I were to prepare my own food...

There are all kinds of easy dishes that can be made that don't require a lot of skill. A lot of times, when I come home from work, I just throw a slab of meat into the pan (seasoned with just salt and pepper, sometimes garlic), stick some frozen vegetables into the microwave, and throw some whole wheat bread into the toaster. It's done in 10 minutes or less.

But, a lot of people don't know cooking basics. It seems like this should be mandatory public school curriculum. It'd certainly be more useful than half the crap they teach you.

[CMoon]

But, a lot of people don't know cooking basics. It seems like this should be mandatory public school curriculum. It'd certainly be more useful than half the crap they teach you.

Quoted for total fucking truth (especially as a teacher frustrated that they have dropped home ec from the schools.) xbl0x180, you should consider investing in a slow cooker. One of the easiest ways to make really cheap food. Sure, you'll be making food in bulk, but this is what your freezer is for. At the very basic level, cooking shouldn't be a big chore. Like you, I used to eat out a lot but I got so tired of it and honestly the justification is pretty weak. There's a lot of ways to cook for very cheap (like $2 a meal), but as louisg points out, most people don't know how to do this, and it isn't taught.

Seriously, this forum needs the lonely videogamer's guide to cheap (and healthy) cooking.

[BryanM]

Can't really fault people for wanting to be able to slap shit in the microwave and then go watch tv. When your work day is 10 hours long, why would you want to work extra to save $4 a day? That's for part-time hippies with weird moral values.

Cooking isn't rocket science either. "As low as possible that the thing will cook through." Thanks Ramsey for stating in one sentence the entire foundation of cooking - it's a crime how culture buries us with its bullshit and gives us nothing that's useful to us. Now perform 10,000 situps before adulthood.

[antron]

from the WSJ:

From now on, Congress can simply regulate interstate commerce by imposing "taxes" whenever someone does or does not do something contrary to its desires.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

what the hell was Roberts thinking? in his attempt to reconcile his personal desire to clear the law with his determination to limit the Commerce Clause, did he throw the baby out with the bath water?

EDIT:
and here is a debunk of this claim:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 14703.html

from the dissent :

The issue [here] is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so."

so, no big deal

[undamned]

You all pay car insurance don't you?

Same thing isn't it?

Haha I was just talking to a friend about this a couple days ago. No, they are not the same. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I only need car insurance if I choose to drive. Health insurance concerns the living. I suppose I could decide one day I don't want to live and cancel my health insurance, but I think the general assumption in this discussion is that being alive is a requirement.
-ud

[BulletMagnet]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. I only need car insurance if I choose to drive. Health insurance concerns the living.

Again, though, for some people it's less of a choice than it is for others: if you live in a city and can take the bus or subway then sure, you can easily choose not to bother with a car, but out in the suburbs or other places where there's little to no public transportation (where I am most places don't even have sidewalks for pedestrians), you'd better own an auto if you want to get anywhere (and yes, technically you could try putting together a carpool for work or something, but I doubt that's much of an option for most people, and that only covers one destination).

Technically you're correct about the distinction between health and auto insurance, but I'd argue it's not nearly as stark a line as it's made out to be, and the same goes for many other things too (please don't make me resurrect my rant about basically being forced to patronize the credit card companies even though I detest their business model).

[Acid King]

I cringe when I read people complaining on the internet about how they don't know how to cook. There isn't a basic question about cooking that can't be solved in 10 seconds with Google. If you have access to the internet, you have a limitless resource when it comes to cooking. There are a ton of videos that show you exactly how to do basic shit like chop an onion or make a roux. It doesn't take a lot of time to make food either. Really, how long does it take to preheat the oven, prep a few vegetables and some kind of protein, and pop them in the oven? 30 minutes total? You can make a stir fry in ~10 minutes if you're lazy or cheap and get frozen veggies. Like Bryan said, it's not rocket science. Ignorance about this stuff isn't an excuse anymore when internet access is so widespread and information is so easily accessible.

[brentsg]

You all pay car insurance don't you?

Same thing isn't it?

Haha I was just talking to a friend about this a couple days ago. No, they are not the same. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I only need car insurance if I choose to drive. Health insurance concerns the living. I suppose I could decide one day I don't want to live and cancel my health insurance, but I think the general assumption in this discussion is that being alive is a requirement.
-ud

I can't say that I'm familiar with auto insurance laws in all states, but in my state I'm only required to obtain liability insurance to cover damage that I might inflict while driving. That's a lot different than being required to obtain insurance on my own health.

Another important distinction is that I can prove that I'm financially responsible for damage/injury that I might inflict while driving, and this eliminates the requirement for me to carry any liability insurance.

[undamned]

I can't say that I'm familiar with auto insurance laws in all states, but in my state I'm only required to obtain liability insurance to cover damage that I might inflict while driving. That's a lot different than being required to obtain insurance on my own health.

Ah, interesting point! The discussion I was having with my friend was the seemingly backwards relationship between required insurance for optional activities (driving) vs. optional insurance for required activities (living), but we never got into what the insurance was actually used for, just weather it was required or not. Which, at the end of the day, what I'm told I'm paying for by insurance companies and what my money is actually used for is likely grossly different.
-ud

[BryanM]

Eh mandatory car insurance is theft.

Ignorance about this stuff isn't an excuse anymore when internet access is so widespread and information is so easily accessible.

Network television still rules us today..

Even huge bumblefuck life-altering decisions are made ignoring that there is an internet. Marry a man, then years later find out your kids are going to be sent to a Jesus Camp, except with more slavery and also It Never Ends? COULD HAVE BEEN MORE PROACTIVE THERE, KATE.

<-- Is worried he knocked the boobies off the last page.

[antron]

I can't say that I'm familiar with auto insurance laws in all states, but in my state I'm only required to obtain liability insurance to cover damage that I might inflict while driving. That's a lot different than being required to obtain insurance on my own health.

Another important distinction is that I can prove that I'm financially responsible for damage/injury that I might inflict while driving, and this eliminates the requirement for me to carry any liability insurance.

the car insurance analogy is a poor one for sure. of course you are not required to insure your property, if it is destroyed in an accident is the public going to buy you a new car? because that's what the public has been doing when disease destroys your body.

that's great that you are allowed to prove you are responsible enough to replace someone's car. imagine trying to prove that you are responsible enough to pay the full costs of your own catastrophic illness. you would have to be a millionaire.

wait, i noticed you said "injury" too in that last sentence. how much total injury were you required to prove you could cover?

[brentsg]

that's great that you are allowed to prove you are responsible enough to replace someone's car.
wait, i noticed you said "injury" too in that last sentence. how much total injury were you required to prove you could cover?

It's a pick one, and this is total (i.e. not injury specific):
-Surety bond of $60,000 or more
-Real estate bond (value greater than or equal to $120,000 property with no liens; must have 2+ individual owners)
-Deposit of $60,000 cash or similar

I listed them out b/c I find the real estate one to be peculiar and I'm not really familiar with that one.

Corporations can be established as self insured as well, but that's different.

Edit: The total seems low, but really so does Missouri's minimum liability coverage requirement. It's:
-$25,000 per person bodily injury
-$50,000 per accident bodily injury
-$10,000 per accident for property

So sum the 50 and 10 for your 60 above.

[Ed Oscuro]

And why would they not want to stabilize some patients? No insurance perhaps?

This is not going to happen, because of EMTALA. Hospitals might have to "eat" the costs but they are required by law to stabilize patients.

undamned makes an interesting point about rights versus privileges, but from the way the laws are written and discussed, you'd almost expect it to be the reverse. You get sick, well, you aren't working any more obviously. Not being able to drive yourself to work is obviously bad for other people. (Of course, I'm trying to stay away from the "we're being milked for corporate overlords" shtick but it is interesting that health care is more controversial than driver's insurance, given the reason you listed that everybody gets sick and health is a more fundamental good.)