krugers oh-9 senseless rants

 

#1    this year i’m declaring war on capitalization.  what the hell good does it do anyway except slow you down.  capitalizing every fucking first word in a sentence, every proper noun, every title, and every fuck knows what else is for pussies.  i suggest everyone ban capitals too from their posts- enough of this fucking tyranny!  in fact, just take a screwdriver and pop that stinking shift key right the fuck out.  life on the internets will be much easier and more enjoyable without any punctuation at all so fuck you jane strauss- fucking die!

#2    the coal industry is still pissing me off to no end.   i firmly believe these guys were spawned from satan’s excrement.   they are nothing less than psychopathic.  determined to pollute, contaminate, and  shit on every last square mile of the earth until all little babies are born with three heads, ten dicks and twenty tits.  they are like mad demons descending from toxic clouds spewing rivers of flesh-eating effluence onto landscape creating new diseases, destroying crops, wiping out entire communities with mercurial disregard.  these people are sub-human soul-less dangerous and mad with greed.  they need to be rounded up and locked in the barn where they can eat on each other with savage abandon until the last one melts away in vaporous pile of toxic fecal matter.

#3   health care- i spent ten years getting fist fucked by several insurance companies before i was able to get a coveted “state” plan.  no less than a third of my annual salary went to various private plans that had 3k deductibles for cancer screenings and mri’s, no coverage for emergency rooms, prescriptions, or anything they decided they didn’t want to pay for.  not one fucking penny of all that money did me any good.  the u.s. health care system is a fucking racket and insurance lobby dick-smoking scumfuckers like lieberman and nelson should fucking die!!  i’m single and healthy – no big deal but for families and others with disabilities and diseases this fucking world must be an absolute fucking nightmare.  the health care industry is nothing less than a stinking rot of federally sanctioned extortion experts that need to be exterminated.  tax payer money should be extracted from lobbying firms and their corporate clients and used to establish a national foundation that will give every citizen access to equal health care.  done -do it- over- fuckers!

#4    something no one here will understand a word of (in the meantime here’s a pic) but has to be said:  i’m done with camber.   well, not really i’m still keeping one camber board.  but really, why should i go back when everything i can do on camber i can do a little better on rocker and have more fun doing it?  its just as stable landing icy park kickers and back country cornice drops,  it has just as much pop, it locks on to rails and boxes like a freaking magnet, you don’t have to worry about catching an edge when buttering, you can carve just as good (well almost), and you can shred pow like a motherfucker with it.  it’s done.  i’m going full-on rocker this year and jib the shit out of that horrorscope 51.

#5    redskins:  i have nothing to say about this.  just……  nothing

#6    tiger woods:  no one really gives a shit what you do off the green.  stop pretending to be a sad fucking sack for the media circus like some kind of tool.   larry fucking  king?  really dude.

#7    my girlfriend’s cat:  you will not fuck with me anymore in the morning because i am going to punch you in the fucking face the next time you bite my ear when i’m passed out.  i don’t give a shit if you think i’m moving in on your stinking territory.  i’m fucking your owner- i’m all over that piece like a fat kid on cake.   i’m a hella lot bigger than you.  i can boot your stinking ass down the hallway like a fucking tennis ball.  get it??

 

Comments

[Vandelay]

Golf clap.

Wel done, Kruger. Your disdain is impressive.

Unfortunately, I think people actually do care what T Woods does off the green otherwise it wouldn't be in my face everywhere I turn.

[Assman]

...until all little babies are born with three heads, ten dicks and twenty tits.

Twenty, you say?

...you don’t have to worry about catching an edge when buttering, you can carve just as good (well almost), and you can shred pow like a motherfucker with it.

How long does your hair have to be before you can say this sentence without people looking at you funny?

[Mr. Kruger]

How long does your hair have to be before you can say this sentence without people looking at you funny?

the hair thing does not compute. but any boarder would find it boringly coherent- if that makes sense.

[Jack Klompus]

"the health care industry is nothing less than a stinking rot of federally sanctioned extortion experts that need to be exterminated. tax payer money should be extracted from lobbying firms and their corporate clients and used to establish a national foundation that will give every citizen access to equal health care."

National foundation? Will the feds be responsible for sanctioning themselves? Great idea. Let's find an institution really known for its integrity - government. While we're at it, maybe we can get the the WWE involved.

[Mr. Kruger]

Let's find an institution really known for its integrity - government.

yep thank god for allstate, aig, state farm, united, liberty mutual, unum, on & on & on.....

retarded.

[Jack Klompus]

"yep thank god for allstate, aig, state farm, united, liberty mutual, unum, on & on & on....."

No, not thank god for insurance companies. Do you I have any sympathy for insurance companies? Absolutely not. But they aren't the only villains in the whole health care circus. You also have hospitals, doctors, equipment manufacturers, and of course patients that are all looking for ways to take advantage of the system. The idea that simply removing insurance companies from the equation will somehow magically make everything better is childish.

[Mr. Kruger]

most of the new rules and regulations are centered on barring the insurance companies from draconian policies like denying coverage for ppl with disabilities and chronic illnesses, charging outlandish rates for routine visits, having doctors over prescribe meds or perform unnecessary procedures. there's no mention anywhere of a single payer system although given the history of insurance companies in this country it would be unwise to assume that they will not continue to seek ways to fuck ppl over.

[Jack Klompus]

"most of the new rules and regulations are centered on barring the insurance companies from draconian policies like denying coverage for ppl with disabilities and chronic illnesses,"

It's insurance. The whole premise of the business model is betting that most people in the pool won't actually need their coverage. If insurance companies are only forced to take unsafe bets, they either raise costs through the roof to cover guaranteed losses, or they cease to exist. Now if you want argue their common practices in denying CLAIMS -- I'm with you. They are slimy cocksuckers when it comes to that. Even still, they can make a case for it given the huge amount of fraudulent claims that get passed from the patients and/or doctors.

In my opinion, the major flaw in the system is that it is overregulated in the wrong areas and underregulated in others -- that's what ultimately drives the costs up. Furthermore, there's this misconception that the uninsured are uninsured simply because they can't afford it. Why is it necessary to change the entire system to help those with chronic conditions? There has to be a more targeted way.

[Mr. Kruger]

The whole premise of the business model is betting that most people in the pool won't actually need their coverage. If insurance companies are only forced to take unsafe bets, they either raise costs through the roof to cover guaranteed losses, or they cease to exist.

and this is the crux of the problem: you don't bet on people's health. all health care should be run on non-profit status where revenues shares are allowed to collect returns thus building a foundation for payouts on a need to need basis with emphasis on preventative care through incentives and cost reductions- i don't know what the fuck i'm saying but i firmly believe this whole health care insurance thing is intrinsically flawed from conception. you shouldn't be making bets that some kid with cystic fibrosis will die before you have to pay what the plan provisions. the whole system is based on a flawed model.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

It's flawed because health care shouldn't be something which can be bought (or lost, as the case may be). Rich people get sick, poor people get sick; everyone needs a lung transplant or an X-ray now and again. It just makes sense (to me, anyway) that health care should be something the government provides for you, just like roads, environmental standards, a court system, rules on what frequencies radio can broadcast on, and other stuff which we just take for granted. But then again, I'm a socialist, right?

[Jack Klompus]

@Kruger
"you shouldn't be making bets that some kid with cystic fibrosis will die before you have to pay what the plan provisions. the whole system is based on a flawed model."

I agree to the extent that the system is inherently flawed. Insurance has no place in the system when you're dealing with prexisting conditions/chronic illnesses. #1, humanity. #2, because the whole concept of insurance is to fund the unexpected. Treating a chronic illness obviously is no longer unexpected. Conversely, people that are healthy should not need insurance to cover basic maintenance like physicals or OBGYN visits. Those are normal, expected occurrences. Paying $50 to $100 per year to see the doctor shouldn't be a big deal --People spend more on tobacco per month. That's about two hours worth of Whatley's bar tab at Applebee's. Thus, what's really flawed is that people don't want to spend money maintaining/fixing their health, but have no problem spending money on things that will destroy it. In short, people should pay their own way wherever possible. I have no problem with tax payer money going toward those who truly can't afford it by no fault of their own (i.e., chronic disease). However, I don't think taxpayer money should fund health care for people who chose not to invest in their own health and for those who have been reckless with it (smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, etc.). As citizens we have a duty to care for the unable and willing -- but not the unwilling.

@Pennypacker
It's flawed because health care shouldn't be something which can be bought (or lost, as the case may be). Rich people get sick, poor people get sick; everyone needs a lung transplant or an X-ray now and again.

Cost will always play a role in health care -- even in a single-payer system. The reason so many people can't afford it right now in the U.S. is because the government intrudes where it shouldn't and doesn't intervene where it should. For example, the fed mandates that health insurance be purchased only in the state in which you reside. Meanwhile, each state gets to decide whether or not insurers are allowed to deny coverage or not (in which case no healthy people enroll in those pools thereby forever keeping costs high). So you end up with some states having affordable insurance and others having unreasonable premiums. The fed should be eliminating monopolies and collective bargaining; instead, through this structure they have been promoting it. As a side result, this fosters the perfect environment for fraud and abuse. The combination of not giving patients options and making everything "insurable" (even the expected) offers no incentive to make health care affordable. Patients have no reason to shop for the best price because there are so few options; and doctors have no incentive to only prescribe was is necessary since everything is insured. Even still, with or without insurance companies, you still have costs to manage. And while it's true that every income level gets sick, they are still individuals with individual needs (which is why queue jumping has become such a problem in your country).

"It just makes sense (to me, anyway) that health care should be something the government provides for you, just like roads, environmental standards, a court system, rules on what frequencies radio can broadcast on, and other stuff which we just take for granted."

Why not food, clothes, and shelter, then? Every comrade needs those, but still takes them for granted. Don't forget, nobody is ever denied health care in the U.S. The issue is about who pays for it. I agree with the premise that a persons's ability to pay should not determine his or her access to expedient medical treatment. On the same token, I don't believe someone should be prevented from paying extra if they want something faster or better. No more do I think government should be inolved in telling us what we can and cannot eat, drink, or smoke -- do I think they should tell us when and where we can seek medical treatment.

[Assman]

As citizens we have a duty to care for the unable and willing -- but not the unwilling.

To be fair, we do anyway. We all pay for police, even if some people run up that tab more than others through negligence and jackassitude. Yet, people rarely complain about how some folks use more of our police resources than others.

I support the idea that health care should not be a for-profit industry, but I also think that some of the solutions that we're seeing proposed would fix one part of the problem and make others worse.

And I remain convinced that the only way you're ever going to have a sustainable health care system is through education. Look at where in the country we're least healthy. Look at where we all have diabetes and AIDS. These are the same places where people aren't educated about how to care for themselves or tooled with resources to make lives for themselves worth living for.

If everyone was taught why and how to give a shit about themselves, either system would work just fine.

My 2 cents would be to get health care nationalized to keep the power barons honest for now, but to do it without investing in education is a waste of energy.

[Jack Klompus]

@Assman
"To be fair, we do anyway. We all pay for police, even if some people run up that tab more than others through negligence and jackassitude. Yet, people rarely complain about how some folks use more of our police resources than others."

Yes, but the public still benefits in some way from the police paying extra attention to these knuckleheads. The idea of a progressive tax is that because you make more, you have more that needs protecting. It doesn't translate the same way when you are paying premiums for chain-smoking meth-heads to have $5 office visit co-pays they'll never use.

"I support the idea that health care should not be a for-profit industry,"

Why? The idea that non-profit health care will be more morally present or more fiscally responsible is ludicrous. Many large insurers now are (and have been) operating as not-for-profit organizations. Just because they say not-for-profit, it doesn't mean a surplus somehow benefits customers. Employee bonuses are directly proportional to the size of the surplus. In addition, much like the government, they have a concept known as 'acceleratted spending' (similar to 'pork barrel spending'). In order to qualify for the tax exempt staus, they can't show too much surplus, and they certainly can't leave any part of their budgets unspent. One would think that any part of a surplus from a not-for-profit health insurer would go towards lowering premiums. Not the case. It goes towards, reserves, bonuses, growth, marketing, etc. just like the evil for-profit companies.

"These are the same places where people aren't educated about how to care for themselves or tooled with resources to make lives for themselves worth living for."

True, but is that more because of health insurers, or public school systems?

"My 2 cents would be to get health care nationalized to keep the power barons honest for now"

By "keep honest," you mean, "put out of business." Which I suppose would make them more honest. However, you'd have new power barons in the form of government bureaucrats. And they aren't exactly known for their honesty, either.

[Assman]

Yes, but the public still benefits in some way from the police paying extra attention to these knuckleheads.

And the public doesn't benefit from having healthier workers that aren't collecting PTO? More kids in school and not out on sick time? Hospital systems that aren't taxed?

Why? The idea that non-profit health care will be more morally present or more fiscally responsible is ludicrous.

This is why I love you. The healthy cynicism.

The support of a non-profit health care industry has nothing to do with morality. It has more to do with the product being more important than the industry. By removing executive mandates to make coin, the workers can focus on quality rather than the bottom line. This is the case in every single capitalist industry known to man. Every worker faces the same dilemma. 'Should I take time to do this the right way, or should I make the company some short term money?'

Your issues with non-profit health care now stem from the fact that they compete with for-profit industries. They have to do too much ridiculous money management to qualify for the status and they have to offer bonuses to keep quality workers out of the arms of their for-profit competitors. In a vacuum (or relative vacuum), this bullshit would occur a lot less frequently.

True, but is that more because of health insurers, or public school systems?

Public school systems. I'm saying the cause of the problems of one industry lie in another. If you want to fix hospitals, then start fixing schools. Cure the disease, not the symptoms.

By "keep honest," you mean, "put out of business."

No - I mean it's their responsibility to adjust their business models accordingly. Just because they use the same profit models as a casino doesn't mean they shouldn't have the flexibility to adjust to a new market. You think Blockbuster likes having RedBox and NetFlix around? They've got to find ways to compete just like everyone else.

Offer a better product than the government and the government's product suffers. UPS and FedEx know that.

[Jack Klompus]

"And the public doesn't benefit from having healthier workers that aren't collecting PTO? More kids in school and not out on sick time? Hospital systems that aren't taxed?"

But that assumes that if more people have health insurance, less will be sick. It also assumes that less people will seek medical treatment at the moment they need it. Or it assumes a shitload more hospitals will be created.

The support of a non-profit health care industry has nothing to do with morality. It has more to do with the product being more important than the industry."

Sounds swell and all, but that's not reality.

By removing executive mandates to make coin, the workers can focus on quality rather than the bottom line. This is the case in every single capitalist industry known to man. Every worker faces the same dilemma. 'Should I take time to do this the right way, or should I make the company some short term money?'

Do you really think government agencies are slow and inefficient because employees are taking their time to do the job right? No. It's because of resource management. They suck because so many levels of bureaucracy dilute the agency's actual purpose. And most workers in the private sector, unless on commission, are not concerned with making short-term (or long-term) money for the company. People in HR, IT, Logistics, Accounting, etc. -- could give a fuck. They are concerned about the same two things government employees are: 1. Getting their employer to pay them more; 2. Working less. Some people sacrifice one for the other, but ultimately they want both at the same time.

Your issues with non-profit health care now stem from the fact that they compete with for-profit industries. They have to do too much ridiculous money management to qualify for the status and they have to offer bonuses to keep quality workers out of the arms of their for-profit competitors.

Wait, if the prodct is more important than the industry for non-profits -- then why would they even be competing? No, my issue is not with non-profits, per se. It is more with the misleading moniker. It gives people the notion that they are not driven by profit. In reality, the only real difference between them and for-profits is that not-for-profits don't have shareholders. Thus, they only qualify themselves for that status in the first place BECAUSE it helps them be more profitable in their respective market. They are no more concerned with quality-before-sale than the for-profits. Take them both away and you have government. They are neither concerned with profit nor quality. Only market share.

In a vacuum (or relative vacuum), this bullshit would occur a lot less frequently.

Only if that vacuum excludes insurance (in general) and is focused only on people that really need assistance. Otherwise, the bullshit is exponential.

No - I mean it's their responsibility to adjust their business models accordingly. Just because they use the same profit models as a casino doesn't mean they shouldn't have the flexibility to adjust to a new market. You think Blockbuster likes having RedBox and NetFlix around? They've got to find ways to compete just like everyone else. Offer a better product than the government and the government's product suffers. UPS and FedEx know that.

Blockbuster is having a hard time competing because technology has made their business model less relevant, much like newspapers and travel agents. They are inefficient relative to NetFlix and RedBox. That said, nothing is preventing Blockbuster from competing on fair ground.

On the other hand, the US goverment getting into the health insurance underwriting business is not the equivalent of a more efficient business model entering the market. They are already partially responsible for the health insurance industry's inefficiences through their misdirected regulation. Unless they allow insurances companies to sell across state lines, I don't see how insurers could have a reasonable chance. Even still, this has nothing to do with using competition to drive product quality. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, it's about power.

[Mr. Kruger]

Unless they allow insurances companies to sell across state lines, I don't see how insurers could have a reasonable chance.

all the private plans i had were from companies established in other states. there's only two big enough to cover health expenses based in RI and their plans were far far beyond my financial reach. so i'm sure what you mean when you say the government bars companies from doing business outside of their respective states.

No matter which side of the aisle you're on, it's about power.

it's about power for the parties but for people who can't get coverage for themselves and/or family it's about life and death.

i agree with pennypacker if we can get behind a federal highway system and public education we can sure as hell find the will to make sure people have basic health care available to them. the u.s. is the only country in the world that doesn't have a program for health care. if there is some great reason for why this is it's certainly not apparent to me.

also, the gov't consists of elected officials. if they are under performing it's because their constituents haven't properly motivated them. in a way i see it more as a battle between regional ideologies. throw in political fear mongering and lies by the media, corporations and politicians; corporate lobbying and huge campaign contributions; lear jets and golf vacations- there's little wonder why something so obvious like this takes 40+ years to even make it out of the senate.

[Jack Klompus]

"there's only two big enough to cover health expenses based in RI and their plans were far far beyond my financial reach."

What % of your income would you consider to be "beyond financial reach" for health insurance?

"so i'm sure what you mean when you say the government bars companies from doing business outside of their respective states."

McCarran Ferguson Act of 1945. It exempts the insurance industry from federal anti-trust laws so long as they play within state regulations. There are a few minor loopholes, but otherwise it keeps insurers within state lines.

"i agree with pennypacker if we can get behind a federal highway system and public education"

Do we really have a choice? And I'm not so sure everyone is 100% behind public education.

"we can sure as hell find the will to make sure people have basic health care available to them."

Most people do have basic health care. Of those who don't, most do so by choice. The remainder is where the subsidies should go. It shouldn't be subsidized for everyone.

"also, the gov't consists of elected officials. if they are under performing it's because their constituents haven't properly motivated them.

No, most of our government does not consist of elected officials. Voting reps in or out will do little to change the efficiency of government agencies (other than the ones in military or law enforcement).

"there's little wonder why something so obvious like this takes 40+ years to even make it out of the senate."

So obvious? Do you even know what's in the two bills?

[Mr. Kruger]

What % of your income would you consider to be "beyond financial reach" for health insurance?

the percentage that makes me choose between putting gas in the car and eating.

Do we really have a choice?

that's the point- is not being able to pay for insulin because you can't get a policy that covers it without going bankrupt really a choice?

Most people do have basic health care. Of those who don't, most do so by choice. The remainder is where the subsidies should go. It shouldn't be subsidized for everyone.

there's a world of difference between an insurance policy that robs you blind and an affordable one that covers what you need covered. again, that's the issue.

So obvious? Do you even know what's in the two bills?

i don't that's why i haven't even brought it up. i know some of the main provisions and i know it accommodates certain states that have unique problems and not others. the point is that things need to change now and whatever it takes to stop the insurance industry from fucking ppl over should've been done 40 years ago. this is about taking the special interests out of the health care equation.

[Jack Klompus]

"that's the point- is not being able to pay for insulin because you can't get a policy that covers it without going bankrupt really a choice?"

Is insurance really the problem then? They don't determine the cost of insulin. That's a prescription. Again, regulations (mostly coveted by Republicans) that curry favor with Big Pharma are the main reason why prescriptions are so high. People rail about insurance company profits because they are an easy target, but they have no clue how much higher a margin pharmaceutical companies boast.

Once again, there's this hangup with insurance companies fuckin people over. Well they aren't the only ones. Insurance premiums are largely determined by the costs of medical devices, procedures, and prescriptions. It's not the other way around.

Yes, reform the health insurance industry. But there is far more that needs to happen first.