|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use."
Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies).
Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system.
PS:
Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2
Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought
Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA
|
On March 27 2015 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates. If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive. For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs. This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up. Well the excuse the given before the ACA, was that they needed to charge that much to cover all the uninsured people they have to treat. So if they were telling the truth and they have to do that less, prices should fall accordingly. Hence another part of the ACA Republicans want to repeal but never said they wanted to replace, which requires insurance companies spend (more of) the money they get on providing the services they promise. You can no longer run an insurance company with huge %age profits and despicable payout practices just because you have slick salesmen and lawyers.
I don't recall insurance profits ever being a legit problem. I think that always was playing to the left's irrational fear of 'evil corporations', like complaints of 'death panels' on the right.
On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system.
Yeah, some people lost insurance they liked or had their insurance costs go up or were taxed more to pay for everything. Overall costs don't seem to have been affected by the law, which is a missed opportunity. There are claims that healthcare inflation slowed due to the law, but healthcare inflation slowed before the law went into affect, making that claim pretty dubious. Maybe there's some better data on that now, I haven't looked at it in a year or so.
Edit:
PS:
Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2
Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought
Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA
Job growth has been miserable and the left was pissed about deficit reduction.
|
On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates.
yeah, shit is stupid expensive, and there's a huge variable in costs from hospital to hospital.
one of the stupidest shit, is if you go in for a simple outpatient procedure, and if the anesthesiologist (usually is a contracted, not employee of hospital) isn't contracted with your insurance company, you have to pay full cost of the anesthesiologist fee, regardless of your procedure being covered. That shows how stupid the current system is. Not to mention inflated cost of every fucking thing, from socks you get from hospital, all the way to procedures.
I'll be glad when single payer, or some form of it exists in america.
source:currently working as clinical lab tech, and have been around the healthcare seen for a bit.
|
On March 27 2015 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates. If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive. For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs. This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up. Well the excuse the given before the ACA, was that they needed to charge that much to cover all the uninsured people they have to treat. So if they were telling the truth and they have to do that less, prices should fall accordingly. Hence another part of the ACA Republicans want to repeal but never said they wanted to replace, which requires insurance companies spend (more of) the money they get on providing the services they promise. You can no longer run an insurance company with huge %age profits and despicable payout practices just because you have slick salesmen and lawyers. I don't recall insurance profits ever being a legit problem. I think that always was playing to the left's irrational fear of 'evil corporations', like complaints of 'death panels' on the right. Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. Yeah, some people lost insurance they liked or had their insurance costs go up or were taxed more to pay for everything. Overall costs don't seem to have been affected by the law, which is a missed opportunity. There are claims that healthcare inflation slowed due to the law, but healthcare inflation slowed before the law went into affect, making that claim pretty dubious. Maybe there's some better data on that now, I haven't looked at it in a year or so. Edit: Show nested quote +
PS:
Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2
Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought
Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA
Job growth has been miserable and the left was pissed about deficit reduction.
And to address "Coverage" -- People are being forced to sign up for insurance or they face a penalty, so of course the numbers are going to go up.
|
On March 27 2015 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 27 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 04:59 Velr wrote:
Just one thing about Healthcare cost.
If you don't work with the numbers in it, you have no idea how expensive it is even for "small" stuff.
Its also not just the Pharmacy companies... Basically EVERY single thing health related is expensive.
You can save up however much you want, if you get illness X or Accident X that requires Treatment XYZ, it won't be enough, assuming your not Bill Gates. If you buy anything related to physical therapy, it's insanely expensive. For instance, those big, rubber yoga balls are 3-4 times more expensive in physical therapy catalogs than in a more general market. A foam exercise mat might go for $100 in one of those catalogs. This is clearly insane, and can only be because insurance is artificially propping the prices up. Well the excuse the given before the ACA, was that they needed to charge that much to cover all the uninsured people they have to treat. So if they were telling the truth and they have to do that less, prices should fall accordingly. Hence another part of the ACA Republicans want to repeal but never said they wanted to replace, which requires insurance companies spend (more of) the money they get on providing the services they promise. You can no longer run an insurance company with huge %age profits and despicable payout practices just because you have slick salesmen and lawyers. I don't recall insurance profits ever being a legit problem. I think that always was playing to the left's irrational fear of 'evil corporations', like complaints of 'death panels' on the right. Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. Yeah, some people lost insurance they liked or had their insurance costs go up or were taxed more to pay for everything. Overall costs don't seem to have been affected by the law, which is a missed opportunity. There are claims that healthcare inflation slowed due to the law, but healthcare inflation slowed before the law went into affect, making that claim pretty dubious. Maybe there's some better data on that now, I haven't looked at it in a year or so. Edit: Show nested quote +
PS:
Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2
Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought
Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA
Job growth has been miserable and the left was pissed about deficit reduction.
People "lost" their insurance can/should just sign up for a different plan. No one is without insurance who previously had it as a result of ACA. Of course plans changed, or different plans were offered. That is the very nature of 1 year insurance contracts. But ACA has guaranteed that anyone, even the terribly sick and cancerous, can get insurance at market rates. You are overcounting a few complainers who thought they had great insurance because it fits your biases. Look at the aggregates, coverage is up. The uninsured rates are down.
And if you choose to discount 5 years of unbroken positive job months, well that is just your bias bro, not my fault. I can't change your mind if you won't accept the numbers. I can draw a line on the chart below showing right where the Stimulus and ACA were passed. Right at the point where the numbers turn around.
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/images/DPCCPrivateSectorPayroll030615.png
Look at the health care inflation chart. You can see ACA kicking in.
http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_health_care_inflation_rate
|
That chart doesn't show that the ACA is reducing health care inflation. I mean it doesn't even let you adjust the x-axis to see further back in time to look at the trend prior to the ACA.
|
TBH it's going to take awhile before we can measure the effect of the ACA on healthcare spending inflation. The increased enrollment number is good, but we need a few more years/ datapoints before we can draw other conclusions from the other results.
|
On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind “in the coming days,” a spokesman said Wednesday.
Rick Tyler, national spokesman for the Texas Republican senator’s newly launched presidential campaign, also defended Cruz against charges of hypocrisy for suggesting that he might enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges.
“Senator Cruz and his wife are still weighing options for their family,” Tyler wrote in an email to POLITICO when asked about the senator’s current thinking on enrolling in an ACA health insurance exchange, adding that the senator would make a decision shortly.
Tyler said that Cruz — who has vigorously opposed and vowed to repeal Obamacare — was subject to a law with which he disagrees. “That’s like saying he’s not going to pay the taxes he voted against,” he wrote.
Cruz, meanwhile, slammed the media coverage of his family’s health care dilemma, saying the mainstream media is playing “gotcha games.” Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA
How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy.
The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics.
|
On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy.The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics.
Supreme Court already went over this, it can be considered a tax (if you aren't signed up).
|
On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me. It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics.
Are you also against auto insurance?
Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA.
|
On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me.
It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA.
tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live...
the real problem is ACA has it framed as if you're purchasing a "product", when in reality a singlepayer system would frame the argument as gov't utilities similar to road projects, or social security, etc etc.
tl;dr, why no single payer yet?
|
On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me.
It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance? Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA.
philisohpically its complicated. social contract theory doesn't necessarily because there are forms of it where you have no rights (Hobbes' and the Leviathen for example.) utilitarianism yes most likely. Rawls, definitely. I want to hear more about how his property rights are violated however since legally thats incorrect and I find it hard to believe he can convince me that he has sufficient moral rights to property such as the ACA is a violation of his rights
On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live...
the flipside to that is that everyone is going to be using the American health care system whereas you don't have to use a car.
|
There is a difference between Auto/Life Insurance. If I don't want to pay for auto-insurance I can not buy a car. If I don't want to pay for life insurance I'm going to have to kill myself.
Auto-insurance is partly to help protect other people because I'm choosing to do an activity that frequently causes large amounts of harm to others/their property. Life insurance is purely to protect myself.
|
On March 27 2015 09:30 Chewbacca. wrote:
There is a difference between Auto/Life Insurance. If I don't want to pay for auto-insurance I can not buy a car. If I don't want to pay for life insurance I'm going to have to kill myself.
Auto-insurance is partly to help protect other people because I'm choosing to do an activity that frequently causes large amounts of harm to others/their property. Life insurance is purely to protect myself.
actually, life insurance is there to protect your loved ones. ain't nothing protecting you if you dead.
|
On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
[quote]
Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance?Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA. tbf, you can also choose not to purchase an automobile.. you can't really choose to not live...
True
Your tax analogy is better then. But that just falls under social contract-- we all agree (in principle) to certain table stakes to play, or rather, live in the US and reap the numerous benefits of modern society and infrastructure (I say that with only minimal irony).
On March 27 2015 09:30 Chewbacca. wrote:
There is a difference between Auto/Life Insurance. If I don't want to pay for auto-insurance I can not buy a car. If I don't want to pay for life insurance I'm going to have to kill myself.
Auto-insurance is partly to help protect other people because I'm choosing to do an activity that frequently causes large amounts of harm to others/their property. Life insurance is purely to protect myself.
It's wrong to say that your own health doesn't affect anyone but you. First and most prominent example is vaccines-- if you don't get vaccinated, you are a potential carrier or host for a certain germ and you could hurt others who have compromised immunity or ruin herd immunity. It's also been shown that shitty behaviors are contagious (ex. obesity. Finally, if you get sick and don't have insurance and cant pay for it, everyone else has to.
|
On March 27 2015 09:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me.
It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy. The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Are you also against auto insurance? Can you explain the philosophical demerits? I'm not too well-versed, but it seems that social contract theory as well as utilitarianism would support the ACA.
Yes, I'm also against mandatory auto insurance.
I feel I already have explained the philosophical demerits. Social contract theory neither supports or contradicts the ACA. All it says is that every culture has a social contract, it's own morality. It doesn't really say anything about how any individual social contract works. That's up to the members of that society to decide. As for utilitarianism, that also neither supports nor contradicts the ACA. Utilitarianism just says an action with positive results is a moral one. There's two problems with this. First, is the whole "ends justify the means" thing. Just about anything can be defended from a utilitarian point of view. Second, who decides what results are positive? Like I said, I care about rights, not economics. I personally care far more about the loss of rights than any economic gains it might bring.
As for the ACA being a tax, how can you pay a tax to a private company? That doesn't make any sense.
|
On March 27 2015 09:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:30 Chewbacca. wrote:
There is a difference between Auto/Life Insurance. If I don't want to pay for auto-insurance I can not buy a car. If I don't want to pay for life insurance I'm going to have to kill myself.
Auto-insurance is partly to help protect other people because I'm choosing to do an activity that frequently causes large amounts of harm to others/their property. Life insurance is purely to protect myself.
actually, life insurance is there to protect your loved ones. ain't nothing protecting you if you dead.
Ok, yes I misspoke and put life insurance instead of health insurance. But since the entire conversation has been about health insurance, you probably could have figured that out.
|
On March 27 2015 09:17 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:14 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:28 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 08:10 Livelovedie wrote:On March 27 2015 07:45 Chewbacca. wrote:On March 27 2015 03:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 03:30 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 03:25 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 27 2015 02:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how following the law is hypocrisy. If anything, taking advantage of the fact that he's a senator and is thus exempt from having to enroll seems more hypocritical to me.
It really does seem like the media is playing gotcha games. Cruz describes ACA as the worst policy mistake in America since slavery. If he signs up for private health insurance on the ACA exchange, and he doesn't burst into flames, then all that bad stuff he said about ACA would be undone by his own relatively positive experience. Do you not understand how a smooth enrollment for private insurance through the ACA exchange website would undercut all of his doom and gloom exaggerations about ACA? Like I said though, wouldn't it be worse to take advantage of his senator status to avoid the exchange? This way he goes through the exact same stuff the common man does. Even if he doesn't have a bad time of it, that doesn't invalidate his statement that the ACA is horrible. Not all bad decisions have immediate negative consequences. What? Of course it invalidates (maybe just undercuts) his arguments that ACA is horrible. Presuming he signs up, ACA then would have provided him with the ability to pick up insurance when his wife left work (without having to worry about pre-existing conditions) from a marketplace of private insurance options. News: "Senator, how was it signing up for private insurance through the ACA exchange website?" Cruz: "It went fine" News: "If it went fine for you, and millions like you, why is it so bad?" Cruz: "..." ...The opposition to the ACA isn't due to the difficulty/lack of difficulty signing up for it. There was a lot of opposition to the ACA for awhile for that exact reason... Because those arguments make better 15 second soundbytes on CNN. There are legit arguments against it beyond "It is hard to use." Any legit arguments that the statistics actually bore out? The Republicans have arguments, but none with numbers to back them up. The Republicans can't actually show real people suffering from Obamacare, but Democrats can point to massive sign ups and a slowdown in healthcare cost inflation. Also all the goodies (no pre-existing conditions, donut hole, minimum coverge, exchange website, subsidies). Moreover, the best arguments I have seen in this thread are along the lines of: "But ACA didn't cure ALLLL of the ills of America's private insurance system". But that argument doesn't help the Republicans because they are trying to sell a total repeal of ACA instead of actual fixes to the American private insurance system. PS: Jobs - every month since ACA we have seen job growth, better than Clinton/Reagan and laughably far ahead of Bush2 Coverage - millions more signed up than we thought Costs - deficit fallen every year since ACA How about the philosophical merits of the system? The big problem I have with it is that it is a gross violation of property rights. You are being forced to buy a service you may not want. The government is telling you what to buy.The numbers don't mean much to me. You could have 100% of people totally insured with amazing coverage at low cost, and it'd still be bad to me. I care about rights, not economics. Supreme Court already went over this, it can be considered a tax (if you aren't signed up).
Let me just remind you that 5 out of 9 justices thought that was a good enough explanation. It prevailed as a challenged and affirmed law of the land, but its not like a thin majority wins and the other side recants their story.
It was also simultaneously not considered a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction act. Further, Congress knows how to write tax language into laws, should they have wanted to pass a new law on taxation. That also presented some difficulties politically, considering Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. The ACA was saved with a little slick footwork from Roberts, and we were treated to a government lawyer playing his own devil's advocate, as Alito noted.
Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?
|
All it says is that every culture has a social contract, it's own morality.
This isn't exactly relevant but thats not really what it says. social contract does not equal morality. all the social contract says is that theirs an implicit agreement between people and the state. Morality is an entirely different issue altogether.
also I think you making utilitarianism sound more arbitrary than it is. (although to be fair those are legitimate arguments against utilitarianism the question then becomes how valid are they as arguments and whether they can be responded to.) But I'm not informed enough about utilitarianism to go much deeper than that.
You could make an argument from Reoussaue's general will/ Rawl's veil of ignorance/original position but of course that automatically assumes that its whats best for everyone (which at this point without sufficient data cant' really be shown too much one way or the other, and your opinion is probably based on your core values and beliefs)
(sorry for any misspellings, I have horrible spelling.)
also as its been ruled currently. it's not a violation of your legal rights so the issue to me seems to be wholly on a moral level which there really probably isn't a definitive objective answer to.
|
On March 27 2015 09:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:This isn't exactly relevant but thats not really what it says. social contract does not equal morality. all the social contract says is that theirs an implicit agreement between people and the state. Morality is an entirely different issue altogether. also I think you making utilitarianism sound more arbitrary than it is. (although to be fair those are legitimate arguments against utilitarianism the question then becomes how valid are they as arguments and whether they can be responded to.) But I'm not informed enough about utilitarianism to go much deeper than that. also as its defined legally its not a violation of your legal rights so the issue to me seems to be wholly on a moral level which there really probably isn't a definitive objective answer to.
Well, nothing is a violation of your legal rights if the supreme court says it's not. If for some reason they had a drastic change of heart and decided that the constitution didn't protect black people's right to vote, disenfranchising them wouldn't be a violation of their legal rights.
If you accept that legal rights are a thing people have, they must be based on something more fundamental, or whatever body decides what your legal rights are can basically decide on a whim to take some away. Meaning natural rights are fundamental to a rights-based society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
