On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote: Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.
Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
This is probably one of the most ridiculously laughable comments of the thread (and that's saying something). It's basically the crystallization of Fox news propaganda, to the point that I'm genuinely surprised even you would spout it with a straight face. Seriously, wow.
On June 29 2012 04:43 Defacer wrote: Oh man, this video is just too funny.
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
I actually think it's pretty disgusting how similar they are. Not because I think their policies are bad, but because there is little variation. If this ONE issue was the only difference that separated these two as much as they are publicized to be, then what the hell are we arguing about? If you belong to one of the two main parties (which you either do, don't care, or don't matter), you're only different from an opponent by such a slim margin, because people focus so heavily on their difference more than similiarities. Bi-Partisan my ass
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So because someone is born with pre-existing conditions we should just say "Better luck next life!" and leave them in the dust...!?
Yeah man that's exactly what my post said! I said we should just let people die and leave body bags in bins on the street for them! -_-
No, actually I was arguing against defacers ridiculous statement that they were willing to pay for insurance... Of COURSE they were willing to pay for insurance! If my house were on fire do you honestly think I would not be willing to go out and buy homeowners insurance? It's a ridiculous notion all around. We have to stop calling it insurance because it's not insurance they want, it's socialized medicine. Never said it was good or bad, just want people to call it what it is...
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Where the hell did this idea that tuition increases were based off inflation come from? Tuition was kept artificially low by state governments pumping money into higher education. That's fine and good when the economy is strong but when budgets get tight that money dries up. Hence higher tuition and more fees.
regardless of government artificially lowering the price of tuition and it suddenly springing back up, public tuition has gone up by about 5x which is the same as inflation in the last 40 years.
Here is some relevant data. It's not adjusted for inflation but even after the calculations for inflation the tuition increases are far greater than overall inflation.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
This is utter nonsense with zero basis in the real world. Professors make lots of money? The only people who think this are the ones who've never even been to college. Having looked into employment in higher ed, professors/instructors on a college level are paid less than ever and the job market is horrible. The VAST majority of the national student debt is held in private loans, so the bulk of your post is little more than a Glenn Beck rant.
While I agree with your sentiments and believe that he did go on a rant with no basis in reality, the VAST majority of student loans are federal: $902 bil and $120 bil respectively.
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
Obamacare won't reduce costs. No one who isn't ignorant or putting their head in the sand actually believes that and no analysis supports it.
What a terrible source, that is the gross cost outlays estimated by the CBO for the programs; the estimate does not include reductions in other programs, revenues, or anything other than the spending called for. The CBO still holds the bill will reduce the deficit by billions over the next ten years.
Edit: I'm even going to post the CBO estimate which clearly says on page 2: "the ACA will, on net, will reduce budget deficits over the 2012 to 2021 period." (They haven't done the 2022 estimates on the parts that save money yet.)
You can learn all this and more all by yourself with the help of Google!
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So because someone is born with pre-existing conditions we should just say "Better luck next life!" and leave them in the dust...!?
Yeah man that's exactly what my post said! I said we should just let people die and leave body bags in bins on the street for them! -_-
No, actually I was arguing against defacers ridiculous statement that they were willing to pay for insurance... Of COURSE they were willing to pay for insurance! If my house were on fire do you honestly think I would not be willing to go out and buy homeowners insurance? It's a ridiculous notion all around. We have to stop calling it insurance because it's not insurance they want, it's socialized medicine. Never said it was good or bad, just want people to call it what it is...
In a sense you are correct, but if the "insurance" is mandated from birth it is actually insurance as you have it before any medical problems (let's ignore birth defects,... for simplicity ) arise.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
The whole point of the health insurance industry is that the healthy people pool their money to pay for unhealthy people (and the company skims off the top for their expenses). That's how health insurance works. In fact, that's how all insurance works. There's no such thing as people "paying for their own care," because that defeats the whole idea of insurance to begin with. If they aren't covering sick people, then they aren't doing their goddamn job.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Where the hell did this idea that tuition increases were based off inflation come from? Tuition was kept artificially low by state governments pumping money into higher education. That's fine and good when the economy is strong but when budgets get tight that money dries up. Hence higher tuition and more fees.
regardless of government artificially lowering the price of tuition and it suddenly springing back up, public tuition has gone up by about 5x which is the same as inflation in the last 40 years.
Here is some relevant data. It's not adjusted for inflation but even after the calculations for inflation the tuition increases are far greater than overall inflation.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
The whole point of the health insurance industry is that the healthy people pool their money to pay for unhealthy people. That's how health insurance works. In fact, that's how all insurance works. There's no such thing as people "paying for their own care," because that defeats the whole idea of insurance to begin with. If they aren't covering sick people, then they aren't doing their goddamn job.
Assuming its the job of the health insurance industry to care for sick people...
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
The whole point of the health insurance industry is that the healthy people pool their money to pay for unhealthy people. That's how health insurance works. In fact, that's how all insurance works. There's no such thing as people "paying for their own care," because that defeats the whole idea of insurance to begin with. If they aren't covering sick people, then they aren't doing their goddamn job.
Assuming its the job of the health insurance industry to care for sick people...
Blatantly so. Yes. That is exactly their job. That's their whole purpose for existing. Just like cell phone companies whole purpose is to provide cell phones and cell phone service.
If they aren't doing that, then they do nothing. It's just a scam.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
Who are you people arguing with? The evil stereotypical republicans in your brain? Schizophrenic, hearing voices? Please point me to the part of my post where I stated that my solution was "fuck 'em," or where I even implied as such.
My god TL let's work on our reading comprehension please and not argue against arguments that no one has even made.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
The whole point of the health insurance industry is that the healthy people pool their money to pay for unhealthy people. That's how health insurance works. In fact, that's how all insurance works. There's no such thing as people "paying for their own care," because that defeats the whole idea of insurance to begin with. If they aren't covering sick people, then they aren't doing their goddamn job.
Assuming its the job of the health insurance industry to care for sick people...
Well clearly that should be the job of the government!
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
Who are you people arguing with? The evil stereotypical republicans in your brain? Schizophrenic, hearing voices? Please point me to the part of my post where I stated that my solution was "fuck 'em," or where I even implied as such.
My god TL let's work on our reading comprehension please and not argue against arguments that no one has even made.
Then please provide what you think some guy with a genetic defect is supposed to do to cover their expenses.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
Who are you people arguing with? The evil stereotypical republicans in your brain? Schizophrenic, hearing voices? Please point me to the part of my post where I stated that my solution was "fuck 'em," or where I even implied as such.
My god TL let's work on our reading comprehension please and not argue against arguments that no one has even made.
Then please provide what you think some guy with a genetic defect is supposed to do to cover their expenses.
And there was more to my post, to be fair.
If you read his posts following the one you cited you will understand what he actually said.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
The whole point of the health insurance industry is that the healthy people pool their money to pay for unhealthy people. That's how health insurance works. In fact, that's how all insurance works. There's no such thing as people "paying for their own care," because that defeats the whole idea of insurance to begin with. If they aren't covering sick people, then they aren't doing their goddamn job.
Assuming its the job of the health insurance industry to care for sick people...
Blatantly so. Yes. That is exactly their job. That's their whole purpose for existing. Just like cell phone companies whole purpose is to provide cell phones and cell phone service.
If they aren't doing that, then they do nothing. It's just a scam.
The purpose of an insurance company is to provide a means for HEALTHY people to pool their risk against the potential for becoming unhealthy in the future, not to pay for sick people...
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
Is it bad? Isn't America traditionally christian, and didn't Jesus stress the importance of charity?
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So your solution is "Fuck 'em"? How noble.
Who are you people arguing with? The evil stereotypical republicans in your brain? Schizophrenic, hearing voices? Please point me to the part of my post where I stated that my solution was "fuck 'em," or where I even implied as such.
My god TL let's work on our reading comprehension please and not argue against arguments that no one has even made.
Then please provide what you think some guy with a genetic defect is supposed to do to cover their expenses.
And there was more to my post, to be fair.
If you read his posts following the one you cited you will understand what he actually said.
Oh it was literally a semantic argument???
Well fuck, I think it's perfectly fair for me to get confused on that point. Sheesh.
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
Why don't you actually read the act, read the thread, and then revisit this post. If you can honestly repeat yourself, well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
If you keep making these vague and accusatory responses without actually bringing any real arguments up,
well, any hope of an actual debate is folly.
I did and have been throughout the thread, hence my reference to a need to read the thread. Keeping in that vein, read the thread? This act will reduce costs for every party involved, except maybe insurance companies.
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote: Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.
Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
This is probably one of the most ridiculously laughable comments of the thread (and that's saying something). It's basically the crystallization of Fox news propaganda, to the point that I'm genuinely surprised even you would spout it with a straight face. Seriously, wow.
Agreed. Funny thing about having others pay for you, it also means that you pay for others... Don't be so backwards, socialism isn't evil as much as you might hear, in fact as a country you should be aiming to do anything but what you are doing now because of how much of a failure America has been in the past 30 years.
Ok let me break this down as simple as I possibly can...
It is possible to state that something is a hand out without stating that you are against hand outs....
Hopefully that makes it crystal clear that I never even stated my opinion on the matter. Let me edit my original post so I don't get a fourth confused response.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Where the hell did this idea that tuition increases were based off inflation come from? Tuition was kept artificially low by state governments pumping money into higher education. That's fine and good when the economy is strong but when budgets get tight that money dries up. Hence higher tuition and more fees.
regardless of government artificially lowering the price of tuition and it suddenly springing back up, public tuition has gone up by about 5x which is the same as inflation in the last 40 years.
Here is some relevant data. It's not adjusted for inflation but even after the calculations for inflation the tuition increases are far greater than overall inflation.
yeah, taking in room and board the cost is greater inflation. I was specifically looking just at cost of paying for classes.
The cost of just tuition is there. Also I realized i partially misinterpreted the data. it is adjusted to inflation. Just not adjusted to changes in purchasing power of the dollar.
EPT
