|
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 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee.
We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror.
|
On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee.
What is the military? rofl
|
On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee.
It's more like living in a society, which usually comes with certain duties. I really do not understand this hermit logic.
|
On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror.
If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured?
On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl
We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company.
|
On March 27 2015 10:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. It's more like living in a society, which usually comes with certain duties, I really do not understand this hermit logic.
I think the issue is he's framing the health insurance bit as a "product", and thus gov't is tellign you buy a "product" from said private company.
which is what I mentioned earlier, it's entrenching private companies even more into the healthcare system, when in reality (if single payer is the goal), you want to remove them as much as possible from the healthcare system (especially in regards to patient billing). So if it was a single payer gov't ran system, it could be considered tax, as opposed to "buying"On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured?
because accidents happen, regardless of how young and health you are.
and that risk, also affects society. You becoming bankrupt doesn't just affect you, it affects your entire circle of connections.
If you have financial issues, chances are you get shit forclosed on, your credit goes to shit, you lose your job, etc etc. not getting insurance is a risk to other people, not just you.
Not to mention, your inability to pay your fat bills, falls on the Gov't. so essentially people are paying for your coverage even more.
|
On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company.
while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it.
also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before.
|
On March 27 2015 10:07 wei2coolman wrote:
I think the issue is he's framing the health insurance bit as a "product", and thus gov't is tellign you buy a "product" from said private company.
Yeah, that's a valid point I guess. Obviously it would be better if were completely public but that seems probably very far away.
On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:
If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured?
1.Young healthy adults can actually get sick or have an accident, which actually happens rather frequently. 2. Young healthy adults paying into the system is what will actually make it affordable for sick old people. As nearly everyone will turn into a sick old person at some point, this should be considered a very basic form of solidarity.
|
On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before.
I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off.
That should be a risk you let people take.
I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is.
|
On March 27 2015 10:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. It's more like living in a society, which usually comes with certain duties. I really do not understand this hermit logic.
Beyond that there is no point in arguing over it unless you have an alternative to cover people with pre-existing conditions (should of mentioned it when it was written), or your willing to say your solution leaves them without coverage. The same goes for all the other aspects.
The people who originally put their face to actually being hurt by the ACA were mostly found to be bs. That congresswoman posted a request for horror stories and all she got was positive ones from real people. Most people can point to someone they know who the ACA has directly helped. Very few people can point to any real people the ACA has hurt in any significant way.
There is no point in talking about repeal of the ACA. If one has specific problems (the mandate), one has to provide an alternative. Because without it real people will have real life or death problems. Something even the most ridiculous ACA opponents wouldn't claim is happening to the people 'hurt' by the mandate.
|
On March 27 2015 10:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before. I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off. That should be a risk you let people take. I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is.
I don't think the system exactly works like that in reality but I admit that its not my area of expertise. anyway I see your points even If I don't necessarily agree with you. I have stuff to do so see you guys.
|
On March 27 2015 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:12 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before. I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off. That should be a risk you let people take. I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is. I don't think the system exactly works like that in reality but I admit that its not my area of expertise. anyway I see your points even If I don't necessarily agree with you. I have stuff to do so see you guys.
yeah, tha'ts not how it works.
this is how it works in reality. Let's say you get into a bad accident. Have a couple day hospital stay with surgery. Let's say this runs close to 50k~ without insurance.
What happens is you get this fat 50k bill, you talk to the finance people at the hospital, saying you have no insurance. Maybe you can get this down to 40k? maybe 35k? But if you can't pay that straight up. The hospital ends up selling your bill to a debt collector for maybe like a tenth or a 5th of your actual bill. So now the hospital misses out on like 80-90% of the money they would have gotten from your insurance (if you had it), and is a net loss. Meanwhile you're paying off the debt collectors, who profit from this, and tax payer money is still being used to pay for the hospitals loss for dealing with you.
|
On March 27 2015 10:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before. I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off. That should be a risk you let people take. I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is.
Really? You have a few 100.000 lying around incase you suffer a serious illness?
Heck you would struggle to pay for a serious broken bone if your plan is to save money for it yourself.
Why is this utterly unrealistic image stuck in American heads that they can get themselves out of anything just because their real men or some shit...
|
On March 27 2015 09:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
...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). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again? The military, NSA, all that other stuff you listed are government organizations. They really are taxes. How can you pay taxes to private companies though? That doesn't make any sense.
I dunno about the US. I pay taxes to private companies all the time.
1. Toll roads. The government outsources the building and maintaining of certain roads to private companies and puts a maximum amount on the toll the company can then charge for usage of that road. Essentially toll is nothing more than a tax on road usage.
2. Plenty of the services you list as government stuff are then payed to private contractors. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater for instance, are private companies that get a fairly large part of the military budget, payed from by your taxes.
|
On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company.
Taken to the other extreme, is no health insurance for anybody, which means you have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for your cancer treatment.
If only the people at a high risk of getting sick are going to get themselves insured, that means the insurance cost is going to be so high that most people can´t afford it. And not only rich people get cancer.
Additionally, what happens if as a young healthy guy you get hit by a car and need serious surgery. Are you putting money aside for that eventuality? Consider your health insurance as that saving pot. Except you aren´t saving just for you, at the risk of that money sitting there for years and "going to waste". Instead you are paying that X% chance that at some point in the future you will get cancer, hit by a car or need a double coronary bypass.
|
On March 27 2015 08:52 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.pngLook at the health care inflation chart. You can see ACA kicking in. http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_health_care_inflation_rate
Try to be objective and not just another partisan cheerleader. People had their plans changed due to the ACA even though they were promised that wouldn't happen. Everything else I mentioned is a negative too.
The job growth over the past 5 years has been objectively bad. Job growth hasn't been as robust as in previous recoveries. The only post war recovery this slow was from the 2000's recession, which wasn't as painful because unemployment didn't go nearly as high.
As for healthcare costs, they slowed down with the last recession before the ACA took affect. Also, inflation has been low generally which affects the numbers you are looking at.
|
On March 27 2015 10:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:12 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before. I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off. That should be a risk you let people take. I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is. Really? You have a few 100.000 lying around incase you suffer a serious illness? Heck you would struggle to pay for a serious broken bone if your plan is to save money for it yourself. Why is this utterly unrealistic image stuck in American heads that they can get themselves out of anything just because their real men or some shit...
It's crazy, I don't think most of these people understand just how huge these bills can be even off just a single surgery. There are plenty of stories of pretty damn rich people who have sent packing down to the poorhouse in just a few weeks because of mentalities like this. Even something simple like a broken leg is commonly $16,000 - $35,000 if it requires surgery.
The American health system is extremely messed up, its a commercial enterprise which will extort you of every dollar they can legally get out of you, regardless of your health, it's a textbook example of market failure. Based on an FCO report US medical care is the most expensive in the world, costing OVER TWICE as much as the second most expensive country, Singapore, nevermind hundreds or thousands of percent more than most european countries. Just get the damn insurance, having your life destroyed by such insanity is not worth the moral stand.
On March 27 2015 11:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 09:50 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 09:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:28 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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). I can understand teh whole "gov't making me purchase health insurance, stop violating my rights!". but, the gov't already makes you purchase a fuckton of things that are even more egregious, such as a military that's overly sized, supporting the spending habits of politicians, NSA surveillance, "military intelligence", etc etc. Health insurance is such a small plip on the map of retarded gov't spending, that it really is insignificant, especially considering implementing a singlepayer system also means reduced cost in healthcare, making it actually less of a burden for each citizen in the USA, than it is now. Also, on the framing of "muh personal freedoms". Even if you don't buy into my "taxes spent on stuff" point, the point of having ACA and eventually singlepayer, means lower cost per individual. If everyone is paying less for healthcare, that also means more money in their pocket. More money = more options. More options to do stuff with your money = more freedom. So in reality, single payer system = more freedom. tl;dr, seriously, why don't we have single payer again? The military, NSA, all that other stuff you listed are government organizations. They really are taxes. How can you pay taxes to private companies though? That doesn't make any sense. I dunno about the US. I pay taxes to private companies all the time. 1. Toll roads. The government outsources the building and maintaining of certain roads to private companies and puts a maximum amount on the toll the company can then charge for usage of that road. Essentially toll is nothing more than a tax on road usage. 2. Plenty of the services you list as government stuff are then payed to private contractors. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater for instance, are private companies that get a fairly large part of the military budget, payed from by your taxes.
Common here too, we have several massive companies that seem to largely exist just from being an efficient outsourcer of government process. Capita comes to mind, half my post seems to be from them regardless of what its about.
|
|
|
On March 27 2015 10:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 27 2015 10:06 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. We also pay taxes for a variety of things that we unavoidably benefit from. Oh the horror. If I am a healthy young adult, why should I be forced to buy health insurance? I get practically nothing from the healthcare industry if I'm healthy. Shouldn't it be up to me if I want to risk going uninsured? On March 27 2015 10:03 wei2coolman wrote:On March 27 2015 10:00 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 27 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:On March 27 2015 09:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
Various philosophers have their own ideas of the rights and roles of individuals and society in SCT, but I think that the US resembles Locke more than Hobbes.
Your (Millitron) definition of utilitarianism is wrong btw, it's not about solely positive results. It's about increasing the maximum number of "utils", which means bringing the maximum number of people to an acceptable level. Example: one guy with a billion dollars and 10 poor people would have less utils than 5 people all making 100k a year (assuming that 70k is the happy point, 40k or whatever is poverty, so forth).
IIRC the tax definition is applied to the penalty is you have no insurance, not the premium you pay if you sign up. So to you, "utils" are solely based on wealth? That's kinda ridiculous. There's more to life than money. I'm sure there are some nomadic Mongolians who are happier than some rich people here in the US. Ever see Citizen Kane? Good god, are you really going to argue that? I was using that as an example. But anyway, applying it to the ACA: 16 million people now have insurance and some sort of healthcare. A few others lost a weird plan that was kinda good or had their premiums go up a little. But overall everyone looks to be benefiting. Is that good enough for you? Also, everyone is being coerced into buying insurance. That's a big negative to me. It's like some kind of mafia protection fee. What is the military? rofl We've been over this a few times just in the last page. A government organization. Not some private company. while if you get sick who's going to pay for it? I mean the government will still be paying for emergency room visits and probably finding out whats wrong with you at the least. I mean I guess if you signed a form saying in the event of getting ill you want to refuse all services that were in anyway provided by the government I;d be okay with it. also like I said earlier the government tried to have a partially government run option and everyone said no to it so this is kind of the compromise. Is it a great compromise? no, but I still think its better than what we had before. I'll pay for it. Either I've been smart and had money saved (especially considering I haven't been paying an insurance premium), or I end up in debt and have to work it off. That should be a risk you let people take. I'm not totally opposed to a single-payer plan, it does make way more sense than whatever half-assed system the ACA is.
Medical debt is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy...
Source
Couple bonus numbers:
-Bankrupt people with insurance are on average 18K in debt
-Bankrupt people without insurance are on average 27K in debt
|
~14000$ on average for a simple appendectomy? Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yCJQarB.jpg)
EPT
