On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
On June 29 2012 11:34 Epocalypse wrote: Romney's take on the decision: http://bit.ly/N9wWMr
He lists some stats... but obviously does not cite himself.\ Says he still wants to introduce reform but in his style. He even claims that people with pre-existing insurance will laws ensuring that they have access to insurance. Promises to make sure every American, with job or not, with savings or not, responsible or not, will have access to affordable health care. Then claims he will lower the cost of health care... but all of history shows that when government gets involved, costs go up.
How does he pretend to make these things possible? How knows... What is known is that neither candidate has any clue what "rights" mean. Example: Both are happy to dictate how you should live your life, what you should do with your money instead of leaving that decision with you.
On June 29 2012 11:37 OptimusYale wrote: I loved the picture that was about people saying they're moving to canada....where social healthcare is standard.
Look, you may have to pay extra taxes, you may have a slight drop in healthcare (though the private option is still there), but I thought most of america were christians. What happened to love thy neighbor? What happened to helping people because it's the christian thing to do?
When people are protesting that gay marriage is against christian morals, they then say that healthcare that EVERYONE is entitled to is unconsitutional even though helping the poor when you're in a better situation is a CHRISTIAN value, not socialist, but CHRISTIAN. I mean, think of the story of the good samaritan. he helped that guy, picked him up off the ground and gave him free health care, got him back up off his feet and helped him survive. That's a christian parable taught by Jesus christ (obviously if you believe that)....in America the good samaritan would have taken him to the hospital, pushed him in saying he was found on the road, no ID and not sure if he has insurance. The hospital would take him in, wait till the samaritan leaves and then wheel him out the fire escape to die on the streets.
Don't be so hypocritical America.
I have no problem with beign a samaritan, but I do have a problem with government forcing people to be a "samaritan" even though the guy who needs helping in question is using the money to buy cigarettes and gamble.
If the guy was using the foodstamps to actually buy food for his family sure. not if the guy is using it to buy drugs or something.
But if government forces you to give money no matter what, then the guys who use it to buy drugs have become a real drain on society.
HONESTLY THE GOVERNMENT SUCKS AT GIVING MONEY OUT.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
I reject all your points as not even being factual, or even addressing the central issue.
But ask why so many Canadians travel to the US for care? Answer: It's there when they need it vs the 3-6 month wait period in Canada.
And why do American not travel to Canada for care? ---> they don't.
This is dated 2008, however, as far as I know it's still pretty much the case (although this should soon change thanks to the movement to destroy the health care in USA) http://onforb.es/MaIyo7
And from personal experience living in Canada. It is terrible. And I know over 20 people that have traveled to the US to get care... Even basic stuff like MRIs. And it's a common story that people travel to the US for care. One of my friends was with cancer and had to go there for treatment because if he had waited here, he might not be alive today.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
That is what the government is doing to you, it forces you to believe that the free market sucks so you have to rely on the gov't for everything. Bread and circuses, thats where we are going, and thats what killed the Roman republic
On June 29 2012 10:49 STYDawn wrote: What I have to say about Healthcare can be summarized in this video.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
Here's an example of what can happen under socialism. "Sentenced to death for being old: The NHS denies life-saving treatment to the elderly, as one man's chilling story reveals" http://bit.ly/LyftNf
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.
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?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
I reject all your points as not even being factual, or even addressing the central issue.
But ask why so many Canadians travel to the US for care? Answer: It's there when they need it vs the 3-6 month wait period in Canada.
And why do American not travel to Canada for care? ---> they don't.
This is dated 2008, however, as far as I know it's still pretty much the case (although this should soon change thanks to the movement to destroy the health care in USA) http://onforb.es/MaIyo7
And from personal experience living in Canada. It is terrible. And I know over 20 people that have traveled to the US to get care... Even basic stuff like MRIs. And it's a common story that people travel to the US for care. One of my friends was with cancer and had to go there for treatment because if he had waited here, he might not be alive today.
America has the best hospitals in the world and that wont change no matter what health care we get but to say that the US has the best health care in the world would be a stretch.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
I reject all your points as not even being factual, or even addressing the central issue.
But ask why so many Canadians travel to the US for care? Answer: It's there when they need it vs the 3-6 month wait period in Canada.
And why do American not travel to Canada for care? ---> they don't.
This is dated 2008, however, as far as I know it's still pretty much the case (although this should soon change thanks to the movement to destroy the health care in USA) http://onforb.es/MaIyo7
And from personal experience living in Canada. It is terrible. And I know over 20 people that have traveled to the US to get care... Even basic stuff like MRIs. And it's a common story that people travel to the US for care. One of my friends was with cancer and had to go there for treatment because if he had waited here, he might not be alive today.
Medical tourism is something that people with money do if they don't want to wait in line (IE, Canadians) or if they can't afford an operation or procedure in their own country and can find it cheaper elsewhere (Americans).
Yes, there we have GREAT health care in the US if you have money. But the fact that a few people choose to skip the lines and pay extra for procedures does not make a health care system where uninsured people either die or face bankruptcy a 'better' sytem for everyone.
Here is handy chart on our health care costs in comparison to other countries:
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.
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?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
Yes, that would pretty much be the definition of taxes. At least this time my money is being spent on helping poor people.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
I reject all your points as not even being factual, or even addressing the central issue.
But ask why so many Canadians travel to the US for care? Answer: It's there when they need it vs the 3-6 month wait period in Canada.
And why do American not travel to Canada for care? ---> they don't.
This is dated 2008, however, as far as I know it's still pretty much the case (although this should soon change thanks to the movement to destroy the health care in USA) http://onforb.es/MaIyo7
And from personal experience living in Canada. It is terrible. And I know over 20 people that have traveled to the US to get care... Even basic stuff like MRIs. And it's a common story that people travel to the US for care. One of my friends was with cancer and had to go there for treatment because if he had waited here, he might not be alive today.
America has the best hospitals in the world and that wont change no matter what health care we get but to say that the US has the best health care in the world would be a stretch.
The U.S. spends 2x more than any other well developed country on health care and still has 30 million uninsured, so yeah saying that would be more than a stretch
I am glad we are finally going to change from the fucking status quo
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.
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?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
I reject all your points as not even being factual, or even addressing the central issue.
But ask why so many Canadians travel to the US for care? Answer: It's there when they need it vs the 3-6 month wait period in Canada.
And why do American not travel to Canada for care? ---> they don't.
This is dated 2008, however, as far as I know it's still pretty much the case (although this should soon change thanks to the movement to destroy the health care in USA) http://onforb.es/MaIyo7
And from personal experience living in Canada. It is terrible. And I know over 20 people that have traveled to the US to get care... Even basic stuff like MRIs. And it's a common story that people travel to the US for care. One of my friends was with cancer and had to go there for treatment because if he had waited here, he might not be alive today.
America has the best hospitals in the world and that wont change no matter what health care we get but to say that the US has the best health care in the world would be a stretch.
The U.S. spends 2x more than any other well developed country on health care and still has 30 million uninsured, so yeah saying that would be more than a stretch
I am glad we are finally going to change from the fucking status quo
The number of uninsured has very little to do with the amount of healthcare spending...
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.
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?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
Service that I need? hmmm, where have I heard that b4??? Oh right in those TV commercials that advertise completely useles shit and say i "need" it.
So what are you, the government's salesman? Are you going to get a million dollars and a warm pat on the shoulder by some government bureacrat?
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
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.
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?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif)
