|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you have the reach of govt healthcare cover only insurance and leave the hospitals and various medical equipment and services players free to do whatever, increasing govt subsidy won't do much for cost control, at least temporarily. with how government contractors and cost usually goes, expecting costs to rise would be reasonable.
the mechanism for cost control, when works, is supposed to introduce cost control and efficiency into the provider side as a concern, when it's totally lacking right now because of how oblivious the patient is to the cost and efficiency of her healthcare so there's no normal market mechanism for "consumer wants the best service at the best price."
taking the politics out of the situation, you'd expect a hybrid healthcare system where public heathcare can deliver the basics at a fairly high level of efficiency, and then you have all the research hospitals etc doing their thing privately. the u.s. system is built up organically through time to be this gnarly conglomerate of interests. potentially changing how heathcare works insofar as drastically reshaping the cake through political means would be fairly amazing if it happens.
|
 So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism).
Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails.
|
On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails.
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
"having individuals decide their own healthcare option" is a joke surely. the entire problem resides in the lack of consumer choice in the way the 'market' is already set up. (due to lack of info, how healthcare is delivered through insurance and costs are determined by feudalistic kingdoms operating with impunity in their little piece of territory)
you can't give consumers the choice in a market that doesn't have choice. it's just doublespeak for doing nothing at all. when there's no choice in the market letting people do whatever without interference in that market won't lead you to freedom land
|
On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is.
I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs.
Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what?
The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion.
Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really.
|
On October 30 2013 15:11 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is. I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs. Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what? The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion. Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really.
Your responses are still ridiculously general. My last point was, why bring up Europe? You asserted that I don't support healthcare (in not so many words), then you bring up the European countries whose policies have nothing to do with Obamacare. I just don't know the point you were trying to make.
Wait, are you saying that unless I am a subscriber to an "exotic" ideology I must be forced to see the greatness of the European system? I'm trying to see what you meant, because as far as I can tell it's not relevant.
None of your last two replies have been relevant to the topic, you've just mocked my position. What I've been saying in response is just that: that your posts don't have anything to do with the topic.
I'm just confused, I guess.
|
On October 30 2013 15:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 15:11 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is. I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs. Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what? The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion. Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really. Your responses are still ridiculously general. My last point was, why bring up Europe? You asserted that I don't support healthcare (in not so many words), then you bring up the European countries whose policies have nothing to do with Obamacare. I just don't know the point you were trying to make. Wait, are you saying that unless I am a subscriber to an "exotic" ideology I must be forced to see the greatness of the European system? I'm trying to see what you meant, because as far as I can tell it's not relevant. None of your last two replies have been relevant to the topic, you've just mocked my position. What I've been saying in response is just that: that your posts don't have anything to do with the topic. I'm just confused, I guess.
Yes you are. We better leave it at that.
|
On October 30 2013 15:36 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 15:26 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 15:11 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is. I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs. Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what? The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion. Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really. Your responses are still ridiculously general. My last point was, why bring up Europe? You asserted that I don't support healthcare (in not so many words), then you bring up the European countries whose policies have nothing to do with Obamacare. I just don't know the point you were trying to make. Wait, are you saying that unless I am a subscriber to an "exotic" ideology I must be forced to see the greatness of the European system? I'm trying to see what you meant, because as far as I can tell it's not relevant. None of your last two replies have been relevant to the topic, you've just mocked my position. What I've been saying in response is just that: that your posts don't have anything to do with the topic. I'm just confused, I guess. Yes you are. We better leave it at that.
Care to explain the point you were trying to make? Or was there no point?
Edit:
Ahaha, then you leave. Guess your point really was irrelevant. Why else comment and then refuse to explain/go in-depth?
|
On October 30 2013 15:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 15:36 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 15:26 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 15:11 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is. I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs. Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what? The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion. Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really. Your responses are still ridiculously general. My last point was, why bring up Europe? You asserted that I don't support healthcare (in not so many words), then you bring up the European countries whose policies have nothing to do with Obamacare. I just don't know the point you were trying to make. Wait, are you saying that unless I am a subscriber to an "exotic" ideology I must be forced to see the greatness of the European system? I'm trying to see what you meant, because as far as I can tell it's not relevant. None of your last two replies have been relevant to the topic, you've just mocked my position. What I've been saying in response is just that: that your posts don't have anything to do with the topic. I'm just confused, I guess. Yes you are. We better leave it at that. Care to explain the point you were trying to make? Or was there no point?
I miss a certain interest from your side. And already made my point. Have a good night sir, I have to commute now.
|
On October 30 2013 14:46 oneofthem wrote:
"having individuals decide their own healthcare option" is a joke surely. the entire problem resides in the lack of consumer choice in the way the 'market' is already set up. (due to lack of info, how healthcare is delivered through insurance and costs are determined by feudalistic kingdoms operating with impunity in their little piece of territory)
you can't give consumers the choice in a market that doesn't have choice. it's just doublespeak for doing nothing at all. when there's no choice in the market letting people do whatever without interference in that market won't lead you to freedom land
And by taking away more choices through regulation, even the choice to go without and save money for other things while you're young, government helps create choice.
Love it.
|
On October 30 2013 15:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 15:36 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 15:26 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 15:11 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 14:44 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 14:31 Doublemint wrote: So what would be your perfect solution? Let's set aside practicality and comparisons to other states that do it better, and focus on your philosophical needs(and american exceptionalism). Don't seem to recall saying you oppose health care, but I guess it's your prerogative to read into stuff whatever you like. So freedom prevails. + Show Spoiler +
The mockery is thick here.
We were talking about Obamacare and its failures. Now I know that every time someone brings this up they fall back on the things I first mentioned that you responded to.
I could spend hours laying out my political philosophy, or we could focus on this bill that's screwing things up right now.
Obamacare is a failure. That is the topic under discussion. I make one comment about philosophy and now you would rather talk about that. How much do you know about Obamacare, or, since I see you are in Austria, do you now actually know anything about it except it involves the government more? (thus must be better?)
I didn't say anything about American Exceptionalism. But please, continue to throw out catch phrases. You brought up Europe, I didn't.
You said "Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie."
You seem to imply that I am against solidarity or the whole idea behind healthcare (shared risk).
You said I made some good points, but only focused on my last two bullet points. Was everything I said above that correct?
The only point I made that directly applied to what you said was the first part, up until my general point. Perhaps it should have been put in a separate post.
It is. I know a great deal about Obamacare or the ACA, but like most(all?) congressman I did not read the bill. And even if I read it I probably would not understand it to the fullest extent since it's way too complex with a shitton of loopholes and corporate blowjobs. Why should I respond to every little bit you said? Praise you for the "good" and spank your for the "bad" or what? The EU and its ways in social policy are the thorn in many conservative's/libertarian's eyes, that's why. And you are hardly a liberal so I guess if you aren't preaching/subscribing to some very exotic political ideology, there won't be all that much left. That's why I brought it into the discussion. Obamacare has flaws, yes. Nothing to add here really. Your responses are still ridiculously general. My last point was, why bring up Europe? You asserted that I don't support healthcare (in not so many words), then you bring up the European countries whose policies have nothing to do with Obamacare. I just don't know the point you were trying to make. Wait, are you saying that unless I am a subscriber to an "exotic" ideology I must be forced to see the greatness of the European system? I'm trying to see what you meant, because as far as I can tell it's not relevant. None of your last two replies have been relevant to the topic, you've just mocked my position. What I've been saying in response is just that: that your posts don't have anything to do with the topic. I'm just confused, I guess. Yes you are. We better leave it at that. Care to explain the point you were trying to make? Or was there no point? Edit: Ahaha, then you leave. Guess your point really was irrelevant. Why else comment and then refuse to explain/go in-depth?
+ Show Spoiler +
2 internet points for you good sir. Me living like on another continent is completely without consequences.
What exactly are you so confused about?
|
People that find it "outrageous" that certain insurance plans are not allowed anymore and have to be changed don't seem to get what public healthcare is about...
The whole point of "socialised" healthcare is that everyone, including the young and healthy, has to pay a part of the total costs, no matter how healthy or likely to actually need insurance a person is.
Just to give you an example, in Switzerland (the probably most similar system to Obamacare in the world) it goes like this (simplified to the max):
KVG - Assurance (~Obamacare)--> Mandatory general coverage, the goverment decided which treatments each (private!) insurance company has to pay for illness/condition/preemptive treatment XYZ.
People insured at the same insurance company, living in the same area and being in the same age group (iirc there are 3) pay the same premiums but prices between insurance companies can and do differ (insurance companies can charge whatever they want within certain borders). Your only allowed to switch your insurance company twice a year. There are also subsidies for people with low incomes and all that stuff.
This covers basically everything you really need.
VVG - Assurances --> Additional, not mandatory, insurance, here the insurance companies are basically free to offer whatever they want and make prices however they want. They can also exclude people for preexisting conditions or due to big risks.
These are basically "luxury" choices (Special treatment X, free hospital choice, guaranteed 1 or 2 person room in a Hospital or alternative medicine... Whatever you can imagine), obviously there are no subsidies or anything like that at all to help you pay for this.
Now, if I understand you right, you see it as something bad, that people which are insured worse than the minimum standards Obamacare set are forced to change their insurance plan to one that actually is worthy to be called "general coverage" (that it might gets more expensive doesn't even matter here)....
This can only mean one of two things:
1: That you don't understand what public healthcare is about at all --> Which kinda makes it "ok" for you to be against it, your against it for a terrible reason but well....
2: That you are still just angry that public healthcare became the law and take whatever inconvenience that comes with it to voice your dissatisfaction with it --> This is just sad.
|
On October 30 2013 19:12 Velr wrote:
People that find it "outrageous" that certain insurance plans are not allowed anymore and have to be changed don't seem to get what public healthcare is about...
The whole point of "socialised" healthcare is that everyone, including the young and healthy, has to pay a part of the total costs, no matter how healthy or likely to actually need insurance a person is.
Just to give you an example, in Switzerland (the probably most similar system to Obamacare in the world) it goes like this (simplified to the max):
KVG - Assurance (~Obamacare)--> Mandatory general coverage, the goverment decided which treatments each (private!) insurance company has to pay for illness/condition/preemptive treatment XYZ.
People insured at the same insurance company, living in the same area and being in the same age group (iirc there are 3) pay the same premiums but prices between insurance companies can and do differ (insurance companies can charge whatever they want within certain borders). Your only allowed to switch your insurance company twice a year. There are also subsidies for people with low incomes and all that stuff.
This covers basically everything you really need.
VVG - Assurances --> Additional, not mandatory, insurance, here the insurance companies are basically free to offer whatever they want and make prices however they want. They can also exclude people for preexisting conditions or due to big risks.
These are basically "luxury" choices (Special treatment X, free hospital choice, guaranteed 1 or 2 person room in a Hospital or alternative medicine... Whatever you can imagine), obviously there are no subsidies or anything like that at all to help you pay for this.
Now, if I understand you right, you see it as something bad, that people which are insured worse than the minimum standards Obamacare set are forced to change their insurance plan to one that actually is worthy to be called "general coverage" (that it might gets more expensive doesn't even matter here)....
This can only mean one of two things:
1: That you don't understand what public healthcare is about at all --> Which kinda makes it "ok" for you to be against it, your against it for a terrible reason but well....
2: That you are still just angry that public healthcare became the law and take whatever inconvenience that comes with it to voice your dissatisfaction with it --> This is just sad.
The way I've been reading the posts in this thread the problem seems to be that "Obama has been lying". Which to me is completely irrelevant. The effects of the policy (what you are discussing) is what matters, not whether Obama is a lying piece of shit or not. But if I must address Obama's seemingly obvious lying on the issue of being able to keep your old plan, I don't think there's any way he could explain to people why they "need to drop their old plan". The new plan will be better (See Velrs quoted post) but how would Obama ever communicate that in the land of misrepresentation and disinformation? And that is assuming he even knew he was lying to begin with. Still, perhaps the end doesn't justify the means, but I don't really care since the effects of the policies are what's important, not who says what. Point scoring does nothing to solve real issues, but it seems to be what the American media, and the American public, does best.
|
On October 30 2013 22:19 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 19:12 Velr wrote:
People that find it "outrageous" that certain insurance plans are not allowed anymore and have to be changed don't seem to get what public healthcare is about...
The whole point of "socialised" healthcare is that everyone, including the young and healthy, has to pay a part of the total costs, no matter how healthy or likely to actually need insurance a person is.
Just to give you an example, in Switzerland (the probably most similar system to Obamacare in the world) it goes like this (simplified to the max):
KVG - Assurance (~Obamacare)--> Mandatory general coverage, the goverment decided which treatments each (private!) insurance company has to pay for illness/condition/preemptive treatment XYZ.
People insured at the same insurance company, living in the same area and being in the same age group (iirc there are 3) pay the same premiums but prices between insurance companies can and do differ (insurance companies can charge whatever they want within certain borders). Your only allowed to switch your insurance company twice a year. There are also subsidies for people with low incomes and all that stuff.
This covers basically everything you really need.
VVG - Assurances --> Additional, not mandatory, insurance, here the insurance companies are basically free to offer whatever they want and make prices however they want. They can also exclude people for preexisting conditions or due to big risks.
These are basically "luxury" choices (Special treatment X, free hospital choice, guaranteed 1 or 2 person room in a Hospital or alternative medicine... Whatever you can imagine), obviously there are no subsidies or anything like that at all to help you pay for this.
Now, if I understand you right, you see it as something bad, that people which are insured worse than the minimum standards Obamacare set are forced to change their insurance plan to one that actually is worthy to be called "general coverage" (that it might gets more expensive doesn't even matter here)....
This can only mean one of two things:
1: That you don't understand what public healthcare is about at all --> Which kinda makes it "ok" for you to be against it, your against it for a terrible reason but well....
2: That you are still just angry that public healthcare became the law and take whatever inconvenience that comes with it to voice your dissatisfaction with it --> This is just sad. The way I've been reading the posts in this thread the problem seems to be that "Obama has been lying". Which to me is completely irrelevant. The effects of the policy (what you are discussing) is what matters, not whether Obama is a lying piece of shit or not. But if I must address Obama's seemingly obvious lying on the issue of being able to keep your old plan, I don't think there's any way he could explain to people why they "need to drop their old plan". The new plan will be better (See Velrs quoted post) but how would Obama ever communicate that in the land of misrepresentation and disinformation? And that is assuming he even knew he was lying to begin with. Still, perhaps the end doesn't justify the means, but I don't really care since the effects of the policies are what's important, not who says what. Point scoring does nothing to solve real issues, but it seems to be what the American media, and the American public, does best.
100% agreed.
Why are they trying to nail Obama on this bullshit lie, when there are SO many violations of actual rights and campaign promises... WAY more important and shocking than this one. Drone strikes, spying abroad and inside the US and the inevitable and seemingly uncontested corrosion of people's freedom.
Also Sebelius taking quite the beating for the team in her hearing. Though I would say she does quite alright.
for a livestream
|
What do you guys think about the recent vote in the UN in which 188 countries called for the sanctions against Cuba to be lifted? Only country other that the US supporting sanctions is Israel. Don't really know if this subject is on topic but what is the stance of the American people towards Cuba?
|
On October 30 2013 22:44 zeo wrote:
What do you guys think about the recent vote in the UN in which 188 countries called for the sanctions against Cuba to be lifted? Only country other that the US supporting sanctions is Israel. Don't really know if this subject is on topic but what is the stance of the American people towards Cuba?
The un in america is this huge failure that most people don't think is worth following let alone give its shit any credit. Most of it just ends up being passive aggressive america bashing despite us being the only reason it exists or has any teeth at all.
There isnt really much of a stance. The left doesn't care and the right needs cuban votes in Florida (who dont like the govt in cuba) to be relevant on a national stage.
|
I think it's way past time that we warm relations with Cuba, or anyone else who wants to turn a new leaf.
|
Castro isn't even the leader anymore. Why do we still have sanctions against Cuba?
|
On October 30 2013 23:28 heliusx wrote:
I think it's way past time that we warm relations with Cuba, or anyone else who wants to turn a new leaf.
Why ? circumstances change and it will only help the civilians of Cuba.
|
On October 31 2013 00:05 DoubleReed wrote:
Castro isn't even the leader anymore. Why do we still have sanctions against Cuba?
Raul castro is the leader of cuba so your wrong. And raul was always the more ruthless of the bunch.
We can warm relations all we want but Im still not for a communist dictator that close to us. At the least we should expect free and fair elections even if raul stays in power with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/81949/Internet_High_Five.jpg)
