| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18002 Posts
That is taking douchebaggery to a new level. We hate this law, so we will do everything we can to make anybody who doesn't hate it yet, hate it! In fact, we will, instead of doing our jobs properly and making sure the law was well written in the first place, exploit the loopholes we left in there to make ourselves look like fucking assholes (but it will also hurt the ACA, so puuuhhhhhhhh). | ||
KwarK
United States42752 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 08 2014 06:23 KwarK wrote: Not saying it is a bad thing. I agree with socialised healthcare. But insurance is a way of paying for yourself, this is redistribution and calling it insurance is dishonest if they're being forced to pay over their risk so someone else can pay under their risk. no that's exactly insurance : you pay for others. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Energy officials and environmentalists are making conflicting statements about the human and environmental safety of water in North Carolina’s Dan River, in which tens of thousands of tons of coal ash spilled from a defunct energy plant earlier this week. Test results released late on Thursday by plant owner Duke Energy and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources showed slightly elevated levels of arsenic and other toxins, but not at levels that would be harmful to human health. But testing done closer to the spill site by a lab hired by environmental group The Waterkeeper Alliance showed arsenic levels almost nine times above the state’s results, and far above levels considered safe for human consumption. Asked by The Associated Press why the state didn’t test closer to the spill site, Tom Reeder, head of North Carolina’s Division of Water Resources, said the results further downstream would provide more accurate results. "Obviously, if we took it directly underneath where the discharge is entering the water, particularly in a case like this, you might find some exceedances," Reeder said. "But what we're really interested in is finding out what the actual impact is in the environment, and in order to do that you have to allow for some mixing so you get an accurate picture." Activists said they believed the state and Duke Energy’s results, but questioned why testing wasn’t being done closer to the spill site. “To me it sounds like they’re cutting Duke a break by going downstream where there’s going to be a dilution factor,” said Amy Adams, the North Carolina campaign coordinator at environmental group Appalachian Voices. Source | ||
|
sc2holar
Sweden1637 Posts
| ||
|
sc2holar
Sweden1637 Posts
On February 08 2014 06:26 WhiteDog wrote: no that's exactly insurance : you pay for others. Its called giving back to your country. remember what JFK said? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8538 Posts
On February 08 2014 06:38 sc2holar wrote: Its called giving back to your country. remember what JFK said? not even that... it's basically a societal consensus to pool your health insurance risks - with a lot of people not counting themselves (yet) into that society. I too would have major problems subsidizing a broken system - if Obamacare turns out as broken as Conservatives claim - by all means, gather, protest and muster as much political pressure to repeal it as humanly possible. But now it's too soon to call, and the opposition basically uses ideology to vilify it. The biggest problem for Republicans will be if people like it, assuming Dems don't crash and burn it themselves by sheer incompetence like they did with healthcare.gov. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42752 Posts
On February 08 2014 06:26 WhiteDog wrote: no that's exactly insurance : you pay for others. Okay. You're not getting this so I'll explain it to you. Say you have 10 people and each of them have a 10% chance of costing $100. If you charge each of them $10 for insurance against that cost then they have not paid for anyone else, they have each individually made a bet that the event does not happen and made a payment based upon the cost multiplied by the likelihood. It's no different than if one person did it. So, that's insurance. You pay for your own statistical risk. Now insurance providers make their money by selling this to a bunch of people and then using the money they make from the bets they win to cover the bets they lose. But that doesn't mean that the healthy people are paying for the sick, that's not how numbers work. You can't say "these are numbers, and those over there are numbers too, therefore they're the same numbers". Now, how Obamacare works is that it drives down premiums on people who are statistically very expensive by letting them beat the house. They are allowed to bet $10 despite having a 10% chance of costing $200. Now no casino (or insurance company as we'll know them) would normally allow them to take that bet because they'd run out of money. So to make up for those losses the government forces people who only have a 5% chance of costing $50 to pay the same $10 premium, even though that bet is very strongly weighed in favour of the house. In this case it is no longer insurance, they are now paying significantly over their own statistical costs. Rather it is redistribution, no different to if the healthy people were simply paying the medical bills of the unhealthy out of pocket. Hopefully that clears it up for you. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21696 Posts
Another 'awesome' move in trying to destroy the ACA so far that people are forced to hate it. "We couldnt convince you it was bad, so now we're making sure it will screw you over so we can say we were right all along!" | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On February 08 2014 06:56 KwarK wrote: Okay. You're not getting this so I'll explain it to you. Say you have 10 people and each of them have a 10% chance of costing $100. If you charge each of them $10 for insurance against that cost then they have not paid for anyone else, they have each individually made a bet that the event does not happen and made a payment based upon the cost multiplied by the likelihood. It's no different than if one person did it. So, that's insurance. You pay for your own statistical risk. Now insurance providers make their money by selling this to a bunch of people and then using the money they make from the bets they win to cover the bets they lose. But that doesn't mean that the healthy people are paying for the sick, that's not how numbers work. You can't say "these are numbers, and those over there are numbers too, therefore they're the same numbers". Now, how Obamacare works is that it drives down premiums on people who are statistically very expensive by letting them beat the house. They are allowed to bet $10 despite having a 10% chance of costing $200. Now no casino (or insurance company as we'll know them) would normally allow them to take that bet because they'd run out of money. So to make up for those losses the government forces people who only have a 5% chance of costing $50 to pay the same $10 premium, even though that bet is very strongly weighed in favour of the house. In this case it is no longer insurance, they are now paying significantly over their own statistical costs. Rather it is redistribution, no different to if the healthy people were simply paying the medical bills of the unhealthy out of pocket. Hopefully that clears it up for you. That's not how it works and you are omitting several key factors like the length of time a given person is paying into the system. The risk is also not assigned to an individual but rather pooled together, the calculations you are performing are illegal for an insurance company in the united states to use. What you are describing is some weird savings account, if everyone just paid their exact risk level that would not be insurance at all. Think about life insurance, if I am paying exactly my risk level as I aged my premium would approach my benefit over time. In life and health insurance the young pay for the old with the added benefit of being covered in case a young person somehow needs it. edit- also, that's not how they make money, they make most of their money when people drop their coverage. | ||
|
sc2holar
Sweden1637 Posts
Last year i spent 4 months in a hospital bed with a fatal heart disease i picked up abroad. As a lucky "Rich Yuppie", i would defenitely have survived even if i lived in a country without universal healthcare. But i know for a fact that the man in the room next to me would never have afforded the medical procedures in the US. And im very happy that i live in a country were i was able to save this great guy's life by paying a few extra bucks in taxes. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8538 Posts
On February 08 2014 07:13 sc2holar wrote: Free Universal healthcare is a cornerstone of a stable, safe society. Last year i spent 4 months in a hospital bed with a fatal heart disease i picked up abroad. As a lucky "Rich Yuppie", i would defenitely have survived even if i lived in a country without universal healthcare. But i know for a fact that the man in the room next to me would never have afforded the medical procedures in the US. And im very happy that i live in a country were i was able to save this great guy's life by paying a few extra bucks in taxes. And that is exactly what Conservatives/Libertarians/Republicans are arguing against. The(ir) concept of freedom does not include this kind of stability - at least not as a necessity, and especially not provided by the government. | ||
|
sc2holar
Sweden1637 Posts
On February 08 2014 07:20 Doublemint wrote: And that is exactly what Conservatives/Libertarians/Republicans are arguing against. The(ir) concept of freedom does not include this kind of stability - at least not as a necessity, and especially not provided by the government. This concept of "freedom" is nothing but a false Ayn Rand-ian illusion. I have been to the US, and there is nothing a wealthy person can do there that i cant do at home, were we do have this kind of stability. How does free healthcare and free education for everyone limit or infringe on the individuals freedom to pursue their happines and dreams? It just means that anyone, regardless of the size of their parents wallets, can achieve this. Conservative Americans live in a black-and-white bubble where the slightest tax raises for better social security and healthcare=stalinism. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8538 Posts
On February 08 2014 07:31 sc2holar wrote: This concept of "freedom" is nothing but a false Ayn Rand-ian illusion. I have been to the US, and there is nothing a wealthy person can do there that i cant do at home, were we do have this kind of stability. How does free healthcare and free education for everyone limit or infringe on the individuals freedom to pursue their happines and dreams? It just means that anyone, regardless of the size of their parents wallets, can achieve this. Conservative Americans live in a black-and-white bubble where the slightest tax raises for better social security and healthcare=stalinism. Not gonna argue, just saying how I see it  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is not an empirical approach and thus the result of this system of rights can become drastically divergent from the perfect idealization some envisions. let's be reality based and ask the question, is it desirable to have a society in which 1. healthcare is available to most people in need of it 2. healthcare cost is probably less than the current system because 1 and 2 are the result of a well run social healthcare system, and one already exists in the same united states of america in the form of the VA system. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 08 2014 08:00 oneofthem wrote: the rightwing vision of society is not one based on end results. it's built up from a system of rights and spheres of sovereignty. this is not an empirical approach and thus the result of this system of rights can become drastically divergent from the perfect idealization some envisions. let's be reality based and ask the question, is it desirable to have a society in which 1. healthcare is available to most people in need of it 2. healthcare cost is probably less than the current system because 1 and 2 are the result of a well run social healthcare system, and one already exists in the same united states of america in the form of the VA system. Did you just use well run and VA in the same breath? Don't make me chuckle too hard. :p Also, there are a lot of consequentialist libertarians (as many as there are deontological!), so your first statement is a half-truth at best (if you consider libertarians 'right wing' that is...). I know this my sound wild to you, but you can have a better market-healthcare system that is cheaper and better quality than State-run. Just throwing money and guarantees towards any particular service, good, or industry, via Government-writ doesn't make something better, it only makes it a pawn in political conflicts. People wonder why politics is so dominating in modern-society, well...if you run to the Government to achieve your every pet issue, that brings you into a lot of conflict with a lot of people and it gives such institution tremendous power to wield and sledge you over the head with. Whether it is the social con's on one side (who are in the same breath as the Progressive safety-nutters), and the Neo-con taskmasters who are on par with the Progressive Wilsonians on the other (War uh-ah, Socialism yeah-boy, etc.), there are hardly any issues not fought over to impose on the entire country. This state of affairs is abysmal. Any efforts to curtail it, results in you being called a 'Confederate' or some apopletic rendition of you buying and selling slaves, because you know, any solutions other than DC, or centralized power means you're Jefferson Davis. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Former President Bill Clinton will be traveling to Louisville, Ky. later this month to campaign for Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for his U.S. Senate seat in November. “We are very excited to have President Clinton coming into town to make his first campaign stop of this election cycle,” Grimes said in an interview with the Courier-Journal Friday. “I was elated when he called and said he wanted to make this race his top priority.” Clinton, who won over the Bluegrass State in his 1992 and 1996 presidential bids, will attend a Feb. 25 campaign event to rally support for the 35-year-old Democrat. Clinton’s first public endorsement of Grimes came in July, when he filmed a two-minute YouTube video launching her campaign to oust McConnell. Although Clinton didn’t mention McConnell by name, he urged viewers to “just say no for the sake of saying no” and described Grimes as “smart and strong, compassionate and effective, and Kentucky through and through.” Clinton’s support “speaks volumes about the momentum behind my candidacy and our campaign,” Grimes told the Courier-Journal. Source | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8538 Posts
On February 08 2014 08:18 Wegandi wrote: Did you just use well run and VA in the same breath? Don't make me chuckle too hard. :p Also, there are a lot of consequentialist libertarians (as many as there are deontological!), so your first statement is a half-truth at best (if you consider libertarians 'right wing' that is...). I know this my sound wild to you, but you can have a better market-healthcare system that is cheaper and better quality than State-run. Just throwing money and guarantees towards any particular service, good, or industry, via Government-writ doesn't make something better, it only makes it a pawn in political conflicts. People wonder why politics is so dominating in modern-society, well...if you run to the Government to achieve your every pet issue, that brings you into a lot of conflict with a lot of people and it gives such institution tremendous power to wield and sledge you over the head with. Whether it is the social con's on one side (who are in the same breath as the Progressive safety-nutters), and the Neo-con taskmasters who are on par with the Progressive Wilsonians on the other (War uh-ah, Socialism yeah-boy, etc.), there are hardly any issues not fought over to impose on the entire country. This state of affairs is abysmal. Any efforts to curtail it, results in you being called a 'Confederate' or some apopletic rendition of you buying and selling slaves, because you know, any solutions other than DC, or centralized power means you're Jefferson Davis. That statement is about in the same category as " we can have a more just system than capitalism - REAL COMMUNISM - It's just never been tried, I promise!" Show me one real life example. Just one, where that wishful thinking brought actual results. Though I will not deny the last part. Partisan bullshit does that to people wanting to discuss things openly. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich told the Bergen Record Thursday that Gov. Chris Christie (R) made an extensive push to get his endorsement including lunch at the governor's mansion and favors from officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Sokolich is a central figure into the investigation into September's lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, which some Democrats have alleged were ordered because Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid. The lane closures led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee. Sokolich told the newspaper he had lunch with Christie at the governor's residence, Drumthwacket, along with Hoboken, N.J. Mayor Dawn Zimmer. In January, Zimmer accused the Christie administration of threatening to withhold Hurricane Sandy aid from her city unless she approved a real estate project. He also said officials at the Port Authority, which oversees the bridge, lavished Fort Lee with attention prior to the closures including providing pothole repair and shuttle bus service. According to Sokolich, his main contact at the Port Authority was the agency's former deputy executive director, Bill Baroni, a Christie appointee who resigned in December as questions about the closures mounted. Sokolich also said his cousins from Croatia were given a tour of the 9/11 Memorial Plaza by David Wildstein, the Port Authority's director of interstate capital projects. Wildstein also resigned in December and documents subpoenaed by a committee investigating the lane closures indicate he was involved in discussions about shutting the lanes with a top aide in Christie's office. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but yea there are consequentialist libertarians, but they also tend not to be absolute jokers unlike other libertarians | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
