|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:
[quote]
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries.
Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him
|
On June 29 2012 02:10 Linwelin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries. Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him
I also do not see how bringing Greece into the equation will show anything or even relate into matters here.
|
On June 29 2012 02:08 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:59 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever. There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from. How many of those "conservative democrats" who voted for the ACA were voted out at the first opportunity ? There is a difference between a State deciding to implement it's own healthcare and the U.S. Government doing it. Conservatives see it as up to the States to decide. In fact, the SCOTA upheld that view in their decision today. The only reason the mandate was Constitutional was because it is being considered a tax. The 'mandate' as all politicians have defined it, was not as a tax, but a requirement to engage in commerce, which the federal government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution. The Conservative idea was for a State to do it, the Democrats wanted to impose it at the Federal level, which is unconstitutional. Finally, as for the difference between "Republican" and "Libertarian", I understand there is a difference, however, come November, expect the Republican party to move even further to the Right, so Libertarians and the Tea Party will be even more influential, mainly because of this decision. There's a difference between state vs federal in terms of legality. Although the Supreme Court has made that point moot today. But there is no difference in terms of whether or not it is good and effective public policy.
Democrats repeatedly claim to have done nothing but implement something that was a Republican idea in the first place. This is a blatant lie because it mischaracterizes the Conservative position that the individual mandate is up for each State to decide. Romney has said as much. However, Obama and Democrats campaign that they implemented Romney's health care. It's just dishonest. States rights is a big issue with Conservatives. Taking a decision from the States and applying it at the federal level, then attributing it to Conservatives is retardedly dishonest, but something Liberals and Democrats do as a matter of routine.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:
And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
For an european, this is basically the most hilarious statement in this complete thread. Totally ivory tower opinion. For $400/month, I don't get "basic" health care, I get "the most uber imba, everything" health care.
|
On June 29 2012 01:28 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:
[quote]
Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA.  You already had to buy car insurance. How do you know he drives ?
If you are in a situation where your driving can put a financial burden on someone else, you are forced to buy insurance. The thinking is that people shouldn't be allowed to just do what they want if it means they might fuck someone else over. Its the *exact* same situation here. The fact is, as long as you are living, you are a potential burden if you don't have health care. When you get sick, someone else is going to pick up the bill when you suddenly need a $50,000 surgery. Just because it applies to more situations does not in any way hamper the logic applied.
Why do you think someone should be able to shift the burden to someone else in the case of health, but not in the case of driving a car? Or do you not think people should need car insurance? The core of the issue is making sure people are covered and making sure that other people aren't forced to pick up the tab. Its exactly the same thinking that goes into mandatory car insurance.
|
On June 29 2012 01:55 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:
[quote]
'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'
How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. My friend cannot afford health insurance, but also does not qualify for Medicaid. What does she do? She makes about 15k a year. Well, I'll tell you what happens: She has severe back problems, which eliminates her from most companies as a pre-existing condition, so even if she could afford it, she gets denied. Two years ago she went to the hospital and they did emergency surgery. She now owes the bank over 120 THOUSAND dollars. It will never be paid back, ever. This is just one example of our broken system. Personally, I do not make enough money to afford insurance, and I also do not fall under medicaid, but luckily for me, I'm 23 and I live at home and I'm under their plan (for now). My father pays something like 750 a month for three people to be under the plan, and yet I still managed to receive a bill for almost 2 thousand dollars because our deductible went up. Well, how the hell am I going to afford this 2k bill now? You want to know how? I can't, not at least until I've graduated and found a decent paying job. Unfortunately for me, that 2k bill will be 4k because of interest and fees by the time I get around to it, but I pay shit back unlike most.
Well besides the individual mandate, Obamacare addresses a lot of the issues you are bringing up. For example, Obamacare makes it impossible for an insurance company to deny you insurance due to a pre-existing condition. So under Obamacare, insurance companies would not be able to deny your friend insurance. Also, because she only makes 15K a year she would qualify for assistance in paying for the insurance through vouchers and tax credits. Not having health insurance in this day and age is just silly considering how high healthcare costs are.. the reason costs and premiums are so high in this country is due to people who have no health insurance yet when they need to go to the ER and receive thousands of dollars in healthcare they can't pay it back (so taxpayers end up footing the bill through increased premiums, so your friends 120K bill does get paid, the cost gets passed along to the rest of us)
Also, under Obamacare, you would be able to be covered under your parents health insurance until you are 27 (you wouldn't need your own insurance, I think it's 27, maybe its 26). So you wouldn't be forced to buy insurance for yourself until you are that age. Right now this isn't the case. Obamacare also makes it impossible for an insurance company to just drop your coverage or raise your premiums for no reason, which can happen now and does all the time. People forget there are other really good aspects of Obamacare and focus just on the individual mandate..
|
On June 29 2012 02:10 Linwelin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries. Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him
The only reason I mentioned Greece was to get an understanding of what people consider "Affordable" to mean. Because clearly it's not Affordable for Greece. I argue the term "Affordable" should not only related to the individual receiving the benefit, but to the affordability for the government providing that service as well. I don't consider it affordable when viewed from that perspective, and it's a joke that the law is named, in part, "Affordable".
|
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
|
On June 29 2012 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. You already had to buy car insurance. How do you know he drives ? If you are in a situation where your driving can put a financial burden on someone else, you are forced to buy insurance. The thinking is that people shouldn't be allowed to just do what they want if it means they might fuck someone else over. Its the *exact* same situation here. The fact is, as long as you are living, you are a potential burden if you don't have health care. When you get sick, someone else is going to pick up the bill when you suddenly need a $50,000 surgery. Just because it applies to more situations does not in any way hamper the logic applied. Why do you think someone should be able to shift the burden to someone else in the case of health, but not in the case of driving a car? Or do you not think people should need car insurance? The core of the issue is making sure people are covered and making sure that other people aren't forced to pick up the tab. Its exactly the same thinking that goes into mandatory car insurance.
Don't read into the SCOTA's decision something that isn't there. They specifically held that what you are describing is unconstitutional. The Federal Government can't mandate that people buy insurance. They upheld the 'penalty' for not buying insurance as a tax. Constitutionally, the government, according to this decision, can't force people to engage in commerce. The example of car insurance is different because you enter the market by driving a car. If you don't drive a car, you aren't required to have car insurance.
|
4065 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 01:59 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]My point was that I have no problems doing it.
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever. There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from. How many of those "conservative democrats" who voted for the ACA were voted out at the first opportunity ? There is a difference between a State deciding to implement it's own healthcare and the U.S. Government doing it. Conservatives see it as up to the States to decide. In fact, the SCOTA upheld that view in their decision today. The only reason the mandate was Constitutional was because it is being considered a tax. The 'mandate' as all politicians have defined it, was not as a tax, but a requirement to engage in commerce, which the federal government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution. The Conservative idea was for a State to do it, the Democrats wanted to impose it at the Federal level, which is unconstitutional. Finally, as for the difference between "Republican" and "Libertarian", I understand there is a difference, however, come November, expect the Republican party to move even further to the Right, so Libertarians and the Tea Party will be even more influential, mainly because of this decision. There's a difference between state vs federal in terms of legality. Although the Supreme Court has made that point moot today. But there is no difference in terms of whether or not it is good and effective public policy. Democrats repeatedly claim to have done nothing but implement something that was a Republican idea in the first place. This is a blatant lie because it mischaracterizes the Conservative position that the individual mandate is up for each State to decide. Romney has said as much. However, Obama and Democrats campaign that they implemented Romney's health care. It's just dishonest. States rights is a big issue with Conservatives. Taking a decision from the States and applying it at the federal level, then attributing it to Conservatives is retardedly dishonest, but something Liberals and Democrats do as a matter of routine.
You've completely missed the point, and now you're arguing something completely tangential to your previous post.
None of this has anything to do with the healthcare and economic effects of Obamacare.
Again you're arguing about legal matters, and I agree with you the that these issues are different when looking at state vs federal.
But what about the impact of Obamacare as a piece of public policy? They took a conservative idea and applied it to the country. It makes no difference in terms of real effects on people that the idea was originally implemented at a state level. So it's not all dishonest as essentially all of the idea was conservative originally, with the part that you claim wasn't (that it be state level, not federal level) being completely immaterial and irrelevant on the effects that Obamacare has on the healthcare of the people.
|
Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
|
On June 29 2012 02:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 01:59 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]My point was that I have no problems doing it.
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever. There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from. How many of those "conservative democrats" who voted for the ACA were voted out at the first opportunity ? There is a difference between a State deciding to implement it's own healthcare and the U.S. Government doing it. Conservatives see it as up to the States to decide. In fact, the SCOTA upheld that view in their decision today. The only reason the mandate was Constitutional was because it is being considered a tax. The 'mandate' as all politicians have defined it, was not as a tax, but a requirement to engage in commerce, which the federal government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution. The Conservative idea was for a State to do it, the Democrats wanted to impose it at the Federal level, which is unconstitutional. Finally, as for the difference between "Republican" and "Libertarian", I understand there is a difference, however, come November, expect the Republican party to move even further to the Right, so Libertarians and the Tea Party will be even more influential, mainly because of this decision. There's a difference between state vs federal in terms of legality. Although the Supreme Court has made that point moot today. But there is no difference in terms of whether or not it is good and effective public policy. Democrats repeatedly claim to have done nothing but implement something that was a Republican idea in the first place. This is a blatant lie because it mischaracterizes the Conservative position that the individual mandate is up for each State to decide. Romney has said as much. However, Obama and Democrats campaign that they implemented Romney's health care. It's just dishonest. States rights is a big issue with Conservatives. Taking a decision from the States and applying it at the federal level, then attributing it to Conservatives is retardedly dishonest, but something Liberals and Democrats do as a matter of routine.
Wait, so are you claiming that a state mandate that requires people to buy health insurance is a conservative idea??? Like conservative in principle???
|
On June 29 2012 02:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. You already had to buy car insurance. How do you know he drives ? If you are in a situation where your driving can put a financial burden on someone else, you are forced to buy insurance. The thinking is that people shouldn't be allowed to just do what they want if it means they might fuck someone else over. Its the *exact* same situation here. The fact is, as long as you are living, you are a potential burden if you don't have health care. When you get sick, someone else is going to pick up the bill when you suddenly need a $50,000 surgery. Just because it applies to more situations does not in any way hamper the logic applied. Why do you think someone should be able to shift the burden to someone else in the case of health, but not in the case of driving a car? Or do you not think people should need car insurance? The core of the issue is making sure people are covered and making sure that other people aren't forced to pick up the tab. Its exactly the same thinking that goes into mandatory car insurance. Don't read into the SCOTA's decision something that isn't there. They specifically held that what you are describing is unconstitutional. The Federal Government can't mandate that people buy insurance. They upheld the 'penalty' for not buying insurance as a tax. Constitutionally, the government, according to this decision, can't force people to engage in commerce. The example of car insurance is different because you enter the market by driving a car. If you don't drive a car, you aren't required to have car insurance.
You enter the health market by living in the US. You choose to live here, not somewhere else. By doing so, you become a potential burden, JUST like when you decide to drive a car.
|
On June 29 2012 02:15 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:10 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:
[quote]
I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law.
And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries. Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him The only reason I mentioned Greece was to get an understanding of what people consider "Affordable" to mean. Because clearly it's not Affordable for Greece. I argue the term "Affordable" should not only related to the individual receiving the benefit, but to the affordability for the government providing that service as well. I don't consider it affordable when viewed from that perspective, and it's a joke that the law is named, in part, "Affordable".
This is absurdly simplistic. You're basically saying that Greece's health care scheme is the reason their country is bankrupt right now. You haven't even brought up the notion of the problems presented by the Euro, which by itself should tell you you're on the wrong path with your thinking.
You enter the health market by living in the US. You choose to live here, not somewhere else. By doing so, you become a potential burden, JUST like when you decide to drive a car.
In this case, Kaitlin is actually right - the Court has ruled that living in the US does not constitute a willful act, (this is less absurd than I made it sound, my phrasing is off) and therefore the law cannot, by the Commerce Clause, compel a regulated, commerce-based response. That is, you can't force somebody to buy something unless it is as a result of a willful act. You decide to drive a car (a willful act) so you are forced to buy insurance.
|
On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
|
4065 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote:
Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
Why weren't you bankrupted by a terminally ill spouse or born with leukemia or Down's syndrome?
To take all the credit for being healthy as if you're a completely self-made man is disingenuous.
|
On June 29 2012 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:21 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Actually, you don't. The supreme court upheld the ACA. You already had to buy car insurance. How do you know he drives ? If you are in a situation where your driving can put a financial burden on someone else, you are forced to buy insurance. The thinking is that people shouldn't be allowed to just do what they want if it means they might fuck someone else over. Its the *exact* same situation here. The fact is, as long as you are living, you are a potential burden if you don't have health care. When you get sick, someone else is going to pick up the bill when you suddenly need a $50,000 surgery. Just because it applies to more situations does not in any way hamper the logic applied. Why do you think someone should be able to shift the burden to someone else in the case of health, but not in the case of driving a car? Or do you not think people should need car insurance? The core of the issue is making sure people are covered and making sure that other people aren't forced to pick up the tab. Its exactly the same thinking that goes into mandatory car insurance. Don't read into the SCOTA's decision something that isn't there. They specifically held that what you are describing is unconstitutional. The Federal Government can't mandate that people buy insurance. They upheld the 'penalty' for not buying insurance as a tax. Constitutionally, the government, according to this decision, can't force people to engage in commerce. The example of car insurance is different because you enter the market by driving a car. If you don't drive a car, you aren't required to have car insurance. You enter the health market by living in the US. You choose to live here, not somewhere else. By doing so, you become a potential burden, JUST like when you decide to drive a car.
Your position was rebuked by the SCOTA today, my friend. Otherwise, it would have been upheld on the Commerce Clause. It was specifically stricken as Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but Constitutional under the Congress's power to tax.
|
On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
I'm still not sure which part of obamacare is a "massive tax increase." My taxes haven't budged, nor has my income.
|
4065 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
You can call it a tax, a penalty, theft, a loaded gun pointed to your head, you can even call it a rice cooker or a hobbit. In the end, your ethereal definitions makes zero difference to how Obamacare affects people's health.
|
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote:
Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it. If not everyone pays insurance, insurance would be unpayable for most.
An American in this thread said 400 dollars is a basic insurance. There is no way in hell that normal people can pay that. I pay 135 dollars monthly for my insurance, and why? Because everyone in my country pays insurance so that it can be affordable by all. If you cannot pay the bill, you get extra money from the government.
If my insurance cost 400 dollars a month, with no help from the government and no obligation for everyone to have insurance, I and many others would not be able to have insurance.
For 400 dollars a month I could get an insurance that pays for every cosmetic procedure possible and delivers my bills written in gold per helicopter to my house...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
