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...
I completely disagree. Is your argument simply based on the semantics of insurance? Because it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Here we have a system in place where healthy people are pooling their money in to pay for sick people that have the same insurance. That is literally how it works. I don't quite know why people are always looking at it purely from the consumer perspective. Are you implying that we should maybe have a separate system to deal with people who are already sick? That just sounds completely impractical.
On June 29 2012 06:37 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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.
"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"
You're saying that you weren't saying you're against handouts? Someeeeone might be a bit of a liar you basically stated that people are trying to be poor to get benefits. What a stup... Nvm, I'm done with this thread, can't handle comments like yours, it's getting embarrassing.
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...
I completely disagree. Is your argument simply based on the semantics of insurance? Because it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Here we have a system in place where healthy people are pooling their money in to pay for sick people that have the same insurance. That is literally how it works. I don't quite know people are always looking at it purely from the consumer perspective. Are you implying that we should maybe have a separate system to deal with people who are already sick? That just sounds completely impractical.
Honestly the whole system itself is impracticle but changing the whole system is hard and would require a ridiculous majority (around 65 senators) from one party to change it either way.
Insurance companies do not want to cover the sick and more importantly they will fight every step of way to not pay for you even if they do cover you.
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...
I completely disagree. Is your argument simply based on the semantics of insurance? Because it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Here we have a system in place where healthy people are pooling their money in to pay for sick people that have the same insurance. That is literally how it works. I don't quite know people are always looking at it purely from the consumer perspective. Are you implying that we should maybe have a separate system to deal with people who are already sick? That just sounds completely impractical.
The point you are missing is that the sick people who are being paid for were healthy when they signed onto the policy. I really don't know how else to explain this, except to say that the purpose of insurance is to insure healthy people against future risk, not to pay for presently sick individuals.
A separate system? I'm saying it's not even insurance anymore if you take on sick people. I keep using home owners insurance analogy to clarify things here.... Suppose you had a house and you never bought insurance on it, and then when it caught on fire you demanded that the insurance company pay for your house. Well obviously if you could do that the insurance company would either go bankrupt, or would be forced to charge ever higher and higher and more ridiculous premiums to all the people who didn't presently have their home on fire until you reached a point where no one could pay for it. And no one SHOULD pay for insurance if you can get covered for free.
In other words it's not insurance anymore. The moment you forced the insurance company to pay for uncovered victims, it stopped being insurance and started being charity. Insurance companies should not be forced to be charity. If you want government mandated charity then the government should pay for it directly.
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.
You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Obamacare is a massive chain of taking money from one group to give to another, giving the illusion that eventually health care\insurance can become a free lunch. It can't.
There are plenty of things that can be done for people who do not have much culpability in their illness and lack of insurance not involving government. Charity health care is still widespread if declining. My state has a number of non-profit hospitals that do not charge people below the poverty line and will give reduced costs and long term payment plans to those slightly above. Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
On June 29 2012 06:37 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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.
"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"
You're saying that you weren't saying you're against handouts? Someeeeone might be a bit of a liar you basically stated that people are trying to be poor to get benefits. What a stup... Nvm, I'm done with this thread, can't handle comments like yours, it's getting embarrassing.
So you assumed that I was lying when I said I was poor and that I could receive handouts if I wanted them? I wasn't lying. I said it sucks for the people who are actually trying to succeed, that's all.
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...
I completely disagree. Is your argument simply based on the semantics of insurance? Because it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Here we have a system in place where healthy people are pooling their money in to pay for sick people that have the same insurance. That is literally how it works. I don't quite know people are always looking at it purely from the consumer perspective. Are you implying that we should maybe have a separate system to deal with people who are already sick? That just sounds completely impractical.
The point you are missing is that the sick people who are being paid for were healthy when they signed onto the policy. I really don't know how else to explain this, except to say that the purpose of insurance is to insure healthy people against future risk, not to pay for presently sick individuals.
A separate system? I'm saying it's not even insurance anymore if you take on sick people. I keep using home owners insurance analogy to clarify things here.... Suppose you had a house and you never bought insurance on it, and then when it caught on fire you demanded that the insurance company pay for your house. Well obviously if you could do that the insurance company would either go bankrupt, or would be forced to charge ever higher and higher and more ridiculous premiums to all the people who didn't presently have their home on fire until you reached a point where no one could pay for it. And no one SHOULD pay for insurance if you can get covered for free.
In other words it's not insurance anymore. The moment you forced the insurance company to pay for uncovered victims, it stopped being insurance and started being charity. Insurance companies should not be forced to be charity. If you want government mandated charity then the government should pay for it directly.
I understand fine. You're saying that it doesn't fall under "insurance," because it's not about future risk. That's the semantic argument.
From a practical standpoint, do you think government paying for it directly would be better/more efficient than going through the insurance company? I suppose that would be fine, but that is the "separate system" that I was talking about.
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...
If your house was on fire would you expect that as a reasonable argument why you couldn't be insured against theft? And while the fire was small, why not allow an insurance where you paid a bit more than the average cost of fire damage. In that case you would not be ruined if the fire burned the whole house down, and the insurance would get some money if it turned out the fire did practically no damage.
If I have a preexisting condition then I can't get health insurance. This means that if I need treatment for OTHER things I am out of luck. You may be willing to pay for the treatment of your preexisting condition, but it is nice to be covered for other things.
Also for many preexisting conditions, the treatments may potentially be expensive, but are not always. So if in 10% of the cases treatment costs 5k a year, but in the last 90% treatment costs 100 a year, then you should be able to insure yourself for about 600 a year and the insurance company would still on average make a profit.
I am not against higher premiums for preexisting conditions, but feel insurance companies should be forced to give options, and in the cases where the options are ridiculously expensive it is the government's job to help such people (whether this is payed through taxes, or slightly higher insurance premiums for everyone doesn't really matter much). In a developed nation we shouldn't just abandon people to their fate, especially when it is something out of their hands such as a preexisting condition. Police protection, fire fighting, maintenance of roads, clean water, etc. are part of a civilized society even though some people and some areas are disproportionately costly, and in the same way a certain level of health coverage really should be seen as mandatory in a country like the US even though some people will cost a bit more.
Even if at some point the mandate to buy health insurance is somehow overturned, I hope Americans at least keep the part about not excluding people with preexisting conditions.
On June 29 2012 06:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Thank god it was passed 5-4 -.- Imagine if it hadn't? Poor people would be on there own again, living the "American" dream.
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.
Really? You're going to use an op-ed by Jennifer Rubin of all people as your source?
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:
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.
So despite managing to more than quintuple our GDP and the impressive list of military interventions found in the spoiler text we've been a failure for 30 years? You're just America bashing.
1980–1989 1980 – Iran. Operation Eagle Claw. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran. 1980 - U.S. Army and Air Force units arrive in the Sinai in September as part of "Operation Bright Star". They are there to train with Egyptians armed forces as part of the Camp David peace accords signed in 1979. Elements of the 101st Airborne Division, ( 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry) and Air Force MAC (Military Airlift Command) units are in theater for four months and are the first U.S. military forces in the region since World War II. 1981 – El Salvador. After a guerrilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional US military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.[RL30172] 1981 – Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.[RL30172] 1982 – Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.[RL30172] 1982 – Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 800 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.[RL30172] 1982–83 – Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.[RL30172] 1983 – Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.[RL30172] 1983 – Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. invades the island nation of Grenada.[RL30172] 1983–89 – Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.[RL30172] 1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.[RL30172] 1984 – Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172] 1985 – Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.[RL30172] 1986 – Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.[RL30172] 1986 – Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.[RL30172] 1986 – Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.[RL30172] 1987 – Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War killing 37 US Navy sailors. 1987 – Persian Gulf. Operation Nimble Archer. Attacks on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces on October 19. The attack was a response to Iran's October 16, 1987 attack on the MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, with a Silkworm missile. 1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Earnest Will - After the Iran-Iraq War (the Tanker War phase) resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[5] 1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will. 1988 – Persian Gulf. Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship. 1988 – Honduras. Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans. 1988 – USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655 1988 – Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.[RL30172] 1989 – Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.[RL30172] 1989 – Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 1,000 U.S. forces already in the area.[RL30172] 1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50–100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2–12 persons to train troops in the three countries.[RL30172] 1989 – Philippines. Operation Classic Resolve. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1, Air Force fighters from Clark Air Base in Luzon had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to protect the United States Embassy in Manila.[RL30172] 1989–90 – Panama. Operation Just Cause. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered US military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.[RL30172] Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S. [edit]1990–1999 1990 – Liberia: On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172] 1990 – Saudi Arabia: On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he launched Operation Desert Shield by ordering the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172]American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172] 1991 – Iraq and Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm: On January 16, 1991, in response to the refusal by Iraq to leave Kuwait, U.S. and Coalition aircraft attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. In February 24, 1991, U.S.-led United Nation (UN) forces launched a ground offensive that finally drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait within 100 hours. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991, when President Bush declared a ceasefire.[RL30172] 1991–1996 – Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort: Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq during the 1991 uprising, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey which began in April 1991. 1991 – Iraq: On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172] 1991 – Zaire: On September 25–27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172] 1992 – Sierra Leone. Operation Silver Anvil: Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President Joseph Saidu Momoh, a United States European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force evacuated 438 people (including 42 third-country nationals) on May 3 .Two Air Mobility Command (AMC) C-141s flew 136 people from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany and nine C-130 sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar, Senegal.[RL30172] 1992–1996 – Bosnia and Herzegovina: Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.[6] 1992 – Kuwait: On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172] 1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi no-fly zones: The U.S., United Kingdom, and it's Gulf War allies declared and enforced "no-fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. Oftentimes, Iraqi forces continued throughout a decade by firing on U.S. and British aircraft patrolling no-fly zones.(See also Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch) [RL30172] 1992–1995 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War: On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution in support for UNITAF. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II).(See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172] 1993-1995 - Bosnia. Operation Deny Flight: On April 12, 1993, in response to a United Nations Security Council passage of Resolution 816, U.S. and NATO enforced the no-fly zone over the Bosnian airspace, prohibited all unauthorized flights and allowed to "take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with [the no-fly zone restrictions]." 1993 – Macedonia: On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172] 1994: Bosnia. Banja Luka incident: NATO become involved in the first combat situation when NATO U.S. Air Force F-16 jets shot down four of the six Bosnian Serb J-21 Jastreb single-seat light attack jets for violating UN mandated no-fly zone. 1994–1995 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy: U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 U.S. military troops were later deployed to Haiti to restore democratically-elected Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from a military regime which came into power in 1991 after a major coup.[RL30172] 1994 – Macedonia: On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the U.S. contingent in Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172] 1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force: In August 30, 1995, U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing campaign of Bosnian Serb Army in response to a Bosnian Serb mortar attack on a Sarajevo market that killed 37 people in August 28, 1995. This operation lasted until September 20, 1995. The air campaign along with a combined allied ground force of Muslim and Croatian Army against Serb positions led to a Dayton agreement in December 1995 with the signing of warring factions of the war. U.S. and NATO dispatched the IFOR peacekeepers to Bosnia to uphold the Dayton agreement.[RL30172] 1996 – Liberia. Operation Assured Response: On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172] 1996 – Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response: On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22. 1996 - Bosnia. Operation Joint Guard: In December 21, 1996, U.S. and NATO established the SFOR peacekeepers to replace the IFOR in enforcing the peace under the Dayton agreement. 1997 – Albania. Operation Silver Wake: On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172] 1997 – Congo and Gabon: On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172] 1997 – Sierra Leone: On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172] 1997 – Cambodia: On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172] 1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox: U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172] 1998 – Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture: On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the U.S. Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172] 1998–1999 – Kenya and Tanzania: U.S. military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[RL30172] 1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach: On August 20, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172] 1998 – Liberia: On September 27, 1998, America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 U.S. military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] [RL30172] 1999–2001 - East Timor: Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172] 1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force: U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing of Serbia and Serb positions in Kosovo in March 24, 1999, during the Kosovo War due to the refusal by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to end repression against ethic Albanians in Kosovo. This operation ended in June 10, 1999, when Milosevic agreed to pull out his troops out of Kosovo. In response to the situation in Kosovo, NATO dispatched the KFOR peacekeepers to secure the peace under UNSC Resolution 1244.[RL30172] [edit]2000–2009 2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172] 2000 - Nigeria. Special Forces troops are sent to Nigeria to lead a training mission in the county.[7] 2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172] 2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172] 2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident. 2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172] 2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172] 2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172] 2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[8] [RL30172] 2003–2011 – War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172] 2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 US Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172] 2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[9] 2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172] 2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[10] 2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan 2005–06 – Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake. 2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[11][12] 2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[13] 2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[14] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia. [edit]2010–Present 2010-11 War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000. 2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces. 2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of Operation Neptune Spear. 2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[15] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.[citation needed] 2011 - Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda.[16]
You could call Americans imperialist capitalist pigs and I'd kind of shrug and sort of want to agree with you, but we're pretty damn good at what we do, regardless of if you agree with it or not.
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.
You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Obamacare is a massive chain of taking money from one group to give to another, giving the illusion that eventually health care\insurance can become a free lunch. It can't.
There are plenty of things that can be done for people who do not have much culpability in their illness and lack of insurance not involving government. Charity health care is still widespread if declining. My state has a number of non-profit hospitals that do not charge people below the poverty line and will give reduced costs and long term payment plans to those slightly above. Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
??? Obamacare is not socialized healthcare, so I'm incredibly confused.
Of course, if it was, that would be great, because socialized healthcare costs way way way less than the shitty, awful system that we have. We pay way more, and get way less than countries with socialized healthcare. So I have no idea why you think that would raise premiums because if you look at other countries the exact opposite is true.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the subsidizing other people's healthcare costs. We already do that. Again, this is the entire point of insurance to begin with. There is no such thing as "paying for your own care" with health insurance. It's a nonsensical statement.
I have nothing against charity healthcare if that is what you're implying. I think it has practical issues, namely developing a system that is large enough and uniform enough to deal with the problem. But it's true that getting rid of social programs can encourage a "giving culture."
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...
So your argument is basically make college unaffordable to most people again so that college costs will go down for the few who can afford it. No, you're totally not against educating the next generation, just those with the means.
Perhaps the point is to place stricter legislation so that federal money isn't going to wasteful educational spending, like for profit colleges, as well as curb wasteful educational expenses at other institutions. It works well in other countries. It's astounding that someone would not see restricting degrees to less people as something inherently backwards. I don't fault people for choosing not to go to college and pursuing some other path to success, but I sure fault people trying to withhold college education from others.
Anyways, back on topic, cool, ACA is constitutional. It restricts congress's powers a bit, but it certainly helps out a lot of people who couldn't previously get health insurance. Now that Romney adopted the position to hinder ACA as president, he certainly decided to make it another election partisan battleground. I'm not sure how the moderates will react though.
Well, I'm glad it got passed. It's not quite socialized health care, but it's a step in the right direction, and a firm finger to the face of selfish neocons.
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...
If your house was on fire would you expect that as a reasonable argument why you couldn't be insured against theft? And while the fire was small, why not allow an insurance where you paid a bit more than the average cost of fire damage. In that case you would not be ruined if the fire burned the whole house down, and the insurance would get some money if it turned out the fire did practically no damage.
If I have a preexisting condition then I can't get health insurance. This means that if I need treatment for OTHER things I am out of luck. You may be willing to pay for the treatment of your preexisting condition, but it is nice to be covered for other things.
Also for many preexisting conditions, the treatments may potentially be expensive, but are not always. So if in 10% of the cases treatment costs 5k a year, but in the last 90% treatment costs 100 a year, then you should be able to insure yourself for about 600 a year and the insurance company would still on average make a profit.
I am not against higher premiums for preexisting conditions, but feel insurance companies should be forced to give options, and in the cases where the options are ridiculously expensive it is the government's job to help such people (whether this is payed through taxes, or slightly higher insurance premiums for everyone doesn't really matter much). In a developed nation we shouldn't just abandon people to their fate, especially when it is something out of their hands such as a preexisting condition. Police protection, fire fighting, maintenance of roads, clean water, etc. are part of a civilized society even though some people and some areas are disproportionately costly, and in the same way a certain level of health coverage really should be seen as mandatory in a country like the US even though some people will cost a bit more.
Even if at some point the mandate to buy health insurance is somehow overturned, I hope Americans at least keep the part about not excluding people with preexisting conditions.
Depending on the insurance company, you may be able to purchase a plan with "riders" that does just that -- covers your other expenses, but not the ones related to your pre-existing condition.
I can see the logic if you're a 35 year old who was perfectly healthy in his 20s and waited until he developed a serious condition, then tried to get insurance. That's gaming the system. (of course, with the current system, if said person winds up going to the ER, then the hospital is forced to pay for their care. In response they raise prices on everything else, and it still ends up costing the rest of us more in our insurance premiums)
But what if you're born with leukemia or something like that, you pretty much can't get insurance, even if you would have responsibly bought insurance had you been healthy. You have no chance.
People who are aginst obamcare believe humanity is evil and egoistic by nature. They think that if we somehow manage to establish a giving culture, everybody will stop dooing shit, because deep in their hearts they know that they're arrogant little fucks who wouldn't give a shit and stop working if they could. But I believe humanity is better than that. People do good shit for no reason whatsoever all the time. If we were all bad guys, why do people still throw their garbage in the garbage can, and not on the ground, knowing someone else will clean up for the if they don't? People are good, you believe otherwise, get the fuck out of society, we don't want you and don't need you. You only cost us and are the reason we can't have nice things like spaceships and sexy hot nurses every time we're ill.
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.
You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Obamacare is a massive chain of taking money from one group to give to another, giving the illusion that eventually health care\insurance can become a free lunch. It can't.
There are plenty of things that can be done for people who do not have much culpability in their illness and lack of insurance not involving government. Charity health care is still widespread if declining. My state has a number of non-profit hospitals that do not charge people below the poverty line and will give reduced costs and long term payment plans to those slightly above. Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
I would tell the healthy young people (myself) that we live in a society with a social contract and instead of seeing a few charities, assuming that's solving the problem and then throwing them a couple of dollars, smiling and pretending I've done something, the government should be collecting revenues from all citizens so that other citizens are not brought to absolute financial ruin by health care costs, ever. We really should not allow that to happen, but it does all the time to people who have health issues that stem from genetics, exposure to environmental factors, or any cause that they have no control over.
"Why don't you just give them money yourself?" is ridiculous rhetoric that implies my actions are in any way equivalent to the policy decisions of the US. A lot like comparing the federal government's budget to a family budget.
The german system essentially prevents certain problems currently discussed here. Here you are required by law to be insured, starting with your birth. 85% of the population are insured by compulsory health insurance companies which have to take anyone and whose premiums are based on ones income (if you have one, otherwise you do not pay). At a certain level of income you have the option to go to a private insurance company.
This way only in the case of private insurance companies you have the problem of someone having to pay more based on his conditions.
What I found interesting is the fact that the institutions who run this compulsory health insurance have administration costs that amount to about 5 to 6 per cent of their expenses, while the private insurance companies are at about 15 per cent. (Might have something to do that the top executives at the compulsory health insurance companies have salaries of about 260k € a year, while I doubt it's that low for the private companies.)
Imho the way our compulsory system works is the way an insurance is supposed to work. You pay according to how much you can afford and everyone gets to whole package, no questions asked. It surely has a huge social component in it. But fortunately our constituion says in article 20 that germany is among other things a social state. I'm happy to have a lower net income, even though I do not really need much health care apart from preventive care right now. What I do not get is, how it seems (at least to an outsider) that there are a lot more active christians than in germany, which essentially promotes giving ones own to support less fortunate people, but on the other hand seem to be way more averse to social (or welfare) security laws.
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.
You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Obamacare is a massive chain of taking money from one group to give to another, giving the illusion that eventually health care\insurance can become a free lunch. It can't.
There are plenty of things that can be done for people who do not have much culpability in their illness and lack of insurance not involving government. Charity health care is still widespread if declining. My state has a number of non-profit hospitals that do not charge people below the poverty line and will give reduced costs and long term payment plans to those slightly above. Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
I would tell the healthy young people (myself) that we live in a society with a social contract and instead of seeing a few charities, assuming that's solving the problem and then throwing them a couple of dollars, smiling and pretending I've done something, the government should be collecting revenues from all citizens so that other citizens are not brought to absolute financial ruin by health care costs, ever. We really should not allow that to happen, but it does all the time to people who have health issues that stem from genetics, exposure to environmental factors, or any cause that they have no control over.
"Why don't you just give them money yourself?" is ridiculous rhetoric that implies my actions are in any way equivalent to the policy decisions of the US. A lot like comparing the federal government's budget to a family budget.
Just as a general statement of principle; lots of people are disadvantages in ways they cannot control. I do not find that to be justification for massive government taxes and spending and regulation to "fix" their disadvantages. I could argue people predisposed to addictive personalities deserve free money because they didn't choose the genes that encourage binge drinking or cig consumption or eating too much or being addicted to watch Starcraft streams. I just don't accept the general principle, it is too murky. In fact, saying people have control over something assumes free will, which I am not even convinced of.
You might say I am being silly, but I equally think justifying such massive programs on the basis that some people have genetic diseases is equally silly and on the margins.
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
The idea for an individual mandate originally came from conservatives but was not adopted by all conservatives nor was it adopted as part of the Republican platform.
Republicans / conservatives are not monolithic in their ideas / beliefs.
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
The idea for an individual mandate originally came from conservatives but was not adopted by all conservatives nor was it adopted as part of the Republican platform.
Republicans / conservatives are not monolithic in their ideas / beliefs.
Right, just pointing out that Romney fought for and defended what he is essentially running his campaign against right now.
On June 29 2012 08:08 Mohdoo wrote: Right, just pointing out that Romney fought for and defended what he is essentially running his campaign against right now.
Romney probably only cares about a few issues (deregulation of the financial industry, eliminating campaign finance laws) and on everything else is willing to go with whatever will give him support from a) his party and b) winnable moderates. So I don't doubt that, in the current atmosphere, he would overturn PPACA.
But it's true, the man does not have many principles.
EPT
