|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 09:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:58 MethodSC wrote:On June 29 2012 08:30 Kukaracha wrote:On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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? Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently? On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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. Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between. Really, your post is confusing. so just because they're already in loads of debt more debt isn't something to worry about? it's just another drop in the bucket then? disgusting. Corporatism won today, and it will continue to win unless people smarten up. Smarten us up then, oh wise one. What exactly are you trying to say?
See condescending posts like this being acceptable is exactly why no real debate can ever happen on TL.
|
On June 29 2012 09:05 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 09:00 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 08:58 MethodSC wrote:On June 29 2012 08:30 Kukaracha wrote:On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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? Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently? On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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. Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between. Really, your post is confusing. so just because they're already in loads of debt more debt isn't something to worry about? it's just another drop in the bucket then? disgusting. Corporatism won today, and it will continue to win unless people smarten up. Smarten us up then, oh wise one. What exactly are you trying to say? See condescending posts like this being acceptable is exactly why no real debate can ever happen on TL. I felt a single line post in retort to your declaration that this is all "disgusting" was fitting. Even those with strong opposition to the act have put time and effort into making their position clear, while you just wanted to spit and leave. I am serious though, what are you referring to when you say "corporatism won"?
|
I seriously do not understand why there are some college students who say that this law should have been repealed... They must be stupid and not worthy of being in college simply because this law favors them! If this law was struck down, then they would not be able to have health insurance starting from when they turn 19. Thanks to this law however, they will be able to remain under their parent's insurance until they turn 26!
|
On June 29 2012 08:38 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:35 NexRex wrote:
To people saying, "I'm not paying for my neighbor's healthcare." I'm not paying for my neighbor's education. I'm not sure what side you're even on, but you're clearly paying for your neighbor's education because the education raises its money through taxation.
Let's see if I can elaborate on the point; The point of having a society is providing for members that can't provide for themselves, and being secure in the knowledge that if you are ever unable to provide for yourself, somebody will lend you a hand. If you can decide that you don't want to pay for your poorer neighbor's healthcare, why should a richer neighbor not decide they don't want to pay to put your children through school? For that matter, if your house is on fire, why should the government bail you out if you are too poor to pay the fire brigade to put it out?
|
Just because the College tuition system is fucked doesn't mean this law is shit...
|
"The general pattern of the expansion works like this: advocates point to some group in real or alleged dire need and declare that Washington has a duty to act; Washington eventually does. It started with the poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare). Then came the uninsured in need of emergency care (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). Then came middle-class parents (S-CHIP)."
Now ObamaCare... The incremental steps to Statism
Source
|
On June 29 2012 08:35 NexRex wrote:
To people saying, "I'm not paying for my neighbor's healthcare." I'm not paying for my neighbor's education.
add to that "I'm not paying to bailout the failed businesses"
|
On June 29 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
1) Well yes, equality. The government's goal is not to maximize profit, but to apply American values and create social context. Besides, if you have kids one day, you can tell your wife that she can just handle everything on her own because, well, she's the one carrying that baby, but I'm not sure she'll appreciate that point of view.
2) You're promoting luck here*. If you're born unlucky then should things remain that way? Is that how empires were built? Is that what Jesus thought? I've worked in an insurance company and the logic of the contracts was to minimize payments no matter what. The concept of fairness was absent, so I hope you're not bringing this into this discussion.
3) Do you need a loan to borrow a hundred bucks? Are you living in Detroit?
On June 29 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
"Lol" is not an argument past the early teens.
So you talked about "bad luck", then speak of "personal reponsibility and action", but right before that you said
In fact, saying people have control over something assumes free will, which I am not even convinced of.
and here I am once again confused, left is right and right is left. I hope I don't need to explain the contradiction.
However, if we dismiss this logical oddity, socialism does reduce personal responsability and action indeed. In fact, society has done the same thing : it's the very principle of the zoon politikon.
NB : from the dictionnary : "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system."
Now stop calling carrots "bananas", carrots are one thing and bananas are another thing, otherwise you'll sound even more confusing.
|
On June 29 2012 08:58 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 08:30 Kukaracha wrote:On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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? Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently? On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote:
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. Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between. Really, your post is confusing. so just because they're already in loads of debt more debt isn't something to worry about? it's just another drop in the bucket then? disgusting. Corporatism won today, and it will continue to win unless people smarten up.
Technically yes, if I pour a drop of water in a tub, it's not going to change a single thing. I'd wager that it's a good thing if that can allow your roomate to live a happier life. Alas, solidarity is nowhere to be found!
To go even further, I would say that the drop of water isn't really the problem. The problem is the tub that is already full. How come? Because "everyman for theyself".
|
|
|
I find it hilarious that people still cling to the constitution like it's somehow infallible. I'm not saying this is unconstitutional or anything, but I cannot accept "this law doesnt match a piece of paper from 200 years ago!" as an argument for anything.
If you can actually argue about whether or not Obamacare is great or not then go for it, but dont bring it irrelevant info.
|
On June 29 2012 09:45 Slakter wrote:
I find it hilarious that people still cling to the constitution like it's somehow infallible. I'm not saying Obamacare is unconstitutional or anything, but I cannot accept "this law doesnt match a piece of paper from 200 years ago!" as an argument for anything.
If you can actually argue about whether or not Obamacare is great or not then go for it, but dont bring it irrelevant info.
User was warned for this post
|
Man, if you are going to quote yourself at least make sure it was a good post...
|
"Hi this is Peter Schiff; it is Thursday June 27th, 2012 [...]".
I like how he's already wrong after one sentence, since this Thursday was/is the 28th :-D And it only gets worse after that.
|
On June 29 2012 09:50 kwizach wrote:"Hi this is Peter Schiff; it is Thursday June 27th, 2012 [...]". I like how he's already wrong after one sentence, since this Thursday was/is the 28th :-D And it only gets worse after that.
Obviously you've failed to notice that todays Supreme Court decision is tantamount to the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor, only this time its a sneak attack on the CONSTITUTION!
|
1019 Posts
The problem is not a lack of healthcare reform. The problem is a cultural and societal failure among American citizens to eat a healthy and balanced diet, which is the main reason why so many people get diabetes and cancer and run up healthcare costs. Until we do something about all the dumb fat people who don't know how to take care of themselves, healthcare will continue to cost the US a lot of money.
|
On June 29 2012 09:53 white_horse wrote:
The problem is not a lack of healthcare reform. The problem is a cultural and societal failure among American citizens to eat a healthy and balanced diet, which is the main reason why so many people get diabetes and cancer and run up healthcare costs. Until we do something about all the dumb fat people who don't know how to take care of themselves, healthcare will continue to cost the US a lot of money.
The brand of healthcare provided for via Obamacare covers and encourages preventative treatments, and I think it could be argued that the over-emphasis on individualism in the US has led to segmented public health policy that ends being totally ineffective. With collective health in the hands of the government and the population via a universal healthcare system, it would make sense that societal health policy might be more effectively applied. (Keep in mind I'm not advocating NYC brand public health, but obesity is certainly a collective issue that needs attention.)
|
On June 29 2012 09:53 white_horse wrote:
The problem is not a lack of healthcare reform. The problem is a cultural and societal failure among American citizens to eat a healthy and balanced diet, which is the main reason why so many people get diabetes and cancer and run up healthcare costs. Until we do something about all the dumb fat people who don't know how to take care of themselves, healthcare will continue to cost the US a lot of money.
You sir are the most medically uneducated person I have seen in this page...
That is not a reason why people get cancer... Please educate yourself before posting senseless stuff again. Also, most people who suffer from diabetes do not have it due to eating unhealthy!!! Lastly, fat people at are a higher risk of developing diabetes, however, most of them do not develop it...
Next time you decide to post something related to medicine, please educate yourself.
|
The Constitution is for the living, not the dead. It's not a timeless, perfect document, and the framers understood this.
The Supreme Court party-lined this issue like many others. The courts aren't meant to be an arena for partisan politics, but you couldn't really tell with how they acted here.
|
On June 29 2012 09:50 kwizach wrote:"Hi this is Peter Schiff; it is Thursday June 27th, 2012 [...]". I like how he's already wrong after one sentence, since this Thursday was/is the 28th :-D And it only gets worse after that.
Man, i thought it was pretty baseless to attack a man for simply getting the date wrong... but then i heard the whole "should live in infamy part". That's pretty bad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
