|
On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:02 Consolidate wrote:That's a pretty stretching application of moral hazard. So you claim that universal health care encourages people to be unhealthy? I have difficulty believing that. Medical costs are rising in the United States and yet people aren't living any healthier.
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
Take smoking verse non-smoking or drinker verse non-drinker for examples and how universal health care handles the costs associated with differing lifestyles.
The systems in Europe have huge bureaucracies dedicated to mitigating this moral hazard. The bureaucracy also comes with plenty of collateral damage.
|
If the voters are against the healthcare, ok, their choice, no healthcare it is.
I just don't understand the problem with it? We have it here in Belgium and it works fine. Nobody should be able to go broke, just because they get ill. I mean, you sacrifice some people with"bad luck" with the current system.
Also, current healthcare coöperations in America just sound flawed. But maybe that's just because I'm a lefty who like Michael Moore 
|
On January 26 2011 05:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Uhh.... but didn't the supreme court judges rule that it does pass Constitutional muster? And don't they know a hell of a lot more about law, the constitution, and executive power than both of us?' Though, is there any kind of dissenting opinion or anything that would support you?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on it. And for the record, I am a lawyer.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:08 Treemonkeys wrote:
You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford.
It is already not affordable. The red tape is there to reduce moral hazard. Insurance would be more expensive without the red tape. It is the only reason it exists.
|
On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
|
On January 26 2011 04:27 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:54 goiflin wrote:Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works. Actually, you have car insurance to pay Tom Hanks 200,000 dollars if you t-bone his brand new car. Many states make it illegal to drive without insurance even if you completely own your car and have the money to pay for liability in case of accidents. For some people, the most compelling reason to have insurance is not to have car towed or going to jail. The same is true for Massachusetts and health insurance. People are forced into buying affordable health insurance in Massachusetts or face paying an equally daunting fine.
Yeah, including my state. If I had all the money I have paid in car insurance, and invested it, I would have more than enough to cover the chance of me being responsible for an accident. Insurance is a poor way to handle it, unless you own an insurance company. It's basically a scam.
|
On January 26 2011 05:07 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:52 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:
I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote]
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there? The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/judge_rules_health-insurance_m.htmlTry again, scooter. And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges. Let me reiterate:You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision. How are you missing the fact that the federal judge was ruling on the precise provision that you claim does not exist? The provision states that citizens must be covered under health insurance. It does not in anyway state that citizens must buy private health insurance as you so implied. The ruling is completely political. I don't see how the mandate in any way exceeds the power of Congress of regulate commerce.
You're completely missing the point. Yes, the law technically only says that you must have health insurance without reference to the source. However, what if you work for an employer that does not give health insurance benefits? What if you don't work at all? Do you really need me to connect the rest of the dots for you?
|
On January 26 2011 05:11 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:08 Treemonkeys wrote:
You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford. It is already not affordable. The red tape is there to reduce moral hazard. Insurance would be more expensive without the red tape. It is the only reason it exists.
Yeah "already" after decades of government run healthcare.
How does it make sense to go to the doctor to get help with your health and well being and then at the same time trust bureaucrats to enforce that the doctor is doing things correctly? If you don't trust the doctor, why fucking see him at all?
|
On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
EDIT: Just to be clear, the constitutionality of a law is incredibly important. It's not something that should ever be presumed just for the sake of accomplishing some end.
|
On January 26 2011 03:45 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost. Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise. Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more): - doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
|
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote:
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
[EDIT]: Btw the true cost of pretty much everything is disguised by sheer complexity. Nobody thinks about the true cost of not doing regular check ups and the true cost of a large amount of people not being vaccinated is rarely considered by the individual etc.
|
On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, and that's a retarded counterexample. Also, I fucking told you I really don't care whether it's constitutional or not because it arguably is or is not.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expect it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
|
On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now?
You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it?
It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example...
|
On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:
I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote]
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
|
On January 26 2011 05:18 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote:
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it. So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
I don't know if you've met many people from England, but they have teeth as nasty as it gets
|
On January 26 2011 05:11 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah, including my state. If I had all the money I have paid in car insurance, and invested it, I would have more than enough to cover the chance of me being responsible for an accident. Insurance is a poor way to handle it, unless you own an insurance company. It's basically a scam.
If you killed someone in an accident and it was your fault, you would probably have to pay several million dollars. I have a very hard time believing you've paid several million dollars in car insurance premiums.
Anyway, it seems you don't understand the concept of risk aversion. People would much rather pay $1,000/year for 100 years than face a 10% chance of paying $1 million. That's where the insurance company profits come from.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:18 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote:
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it. So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
There are moral hazards in the US system. There are other extraneous contributing factors beyond the health care sectors, most notably a subsidized and distorted food market.
|
On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:
[quote]
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
|
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
People with unhealthy habits.
