EPTThe Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On March 23 2012 23:55 Velr wrote: Isn't the problem like: Obamacare sucks because Reps (and undoubtly some Dems) did not want a real universal healthcare system. Now this leads to the fun fact, that the Reps (and some Dems) attack Obamacare for being inefficient while they themselves where the ones responsible for this bad compromise? Politics at it's best! the conservatives were sabotaging this from the very start yeah. It's kind of funny, a republican added the lines about having a congressional review to determine the necessity of certain procedures. you know the same thing insurance companies do to prevent wasted costs on random elective procedures. the OTHER republicans (like sarah palin) deemed these reviews "death panels" and attacked democrats for it, when a republican was the one who introduced it. | ||
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: What about maintaining a military capable of defending the nation on all fronts around the globe and in all scenarios? What about maintaining the ability to convey foreign policy that avoids wars, promotes trade and growth, etc? "Companys" would do all this stuff better than the gov? Im confused The military uses vehicles and weapons made by private companies. The M16? No, thats actually a AR-15.Stealth Bomber? Private company. Private could do it better. Foreign policy is the governments policy towards other nations. If you want to compare that to international companies, the private does a lot better job. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
The system got so super-inefficient and expensive and such a burden to the whole economy, they had to do something about it eventhough they still don't want universal public health care. Also, Obama had a majority back then. So why did he allow republicans to 'sabotage it'? He just used it as an excuse to again not do what the American people want. | ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:52 Lockitupv2 wrote: Perhaps some insurance expert could explain with proper terms but as far as I know insurance buyer choice normally isn't a large part of the total insurance cost overhead.How does it make any sense to you, what do you think doesnt make sense? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:02 Lockitupv2 wrote: The military uses vehicles and weapons made by private companies. The M16? No, thats actually a AR-15.Stealth Bomber? Private company. Private could do it better. Foreign policy is the governments policy towards other nations. If you want to compare that to international companies, the private does a lot better job. I mean, that's so simplistic. Yes, companies make things. Duh. The government, however, employs these things and implements policy, conveys posture, etc. Can companies do this as well as the gov? Of course not, most people do not think this. Burden's on you. Look the point was not to get into a stupid discussion on companies vs. government, it was supposed to be a simple, to-the-extreme comment, to show why saying "private companies can do everything the government does better" is kinda...extreme, and nonsensical. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
| ||
|
LazyDT
United States71 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: Honestly, this business about criticizing the fact that it might not be constitutional needs to just step aside for a bit. The fact is, without an individual mandate, you have this problem called adverse selection, which entails death spiral, which spells disaster for health care. It spells disaster for healthcare in the sense that you are thinking. Healthcare where everyone is taxed to pay for everyone else's problems. I would rather not have this open trough of money being ladled out to whomever 'needs it', which is really just semantics for 'whoever doesn't work hard enough to earn their own'. And before anyone implies that I'm not in a position to say this, let me clarify. I am an uninsured student paying my own way through college from an extremely poor background. If you work hard enough you can do it WITHOUT government handouts/Social Security/Medicare/aid. We don't want this crap healthcare system, and I don't want to be paying for people that were in my position for the rest of my life, simply because they didn't have the motivation to get out of that position. Because it is more than possible. I would rather have the option to buy my own insurance, not freaking regulated by the government, and certainly not MANDATED by the government on and individual or group basis. I would much rather have my own freedom to do what I like and not be told that I must pay for anything. Edit: And while yes, obviously with a strict and proper interpretation of the Constitution + Amendments Obamacare's Individual AND Group mandate are completely illegal, I would not at all be surprised if they ruled the opposite. The Constitution has been so trampled already. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:02 Miyoshino wrote: The democrats also never wanted a European system. The general public in the US has been in favour of one for like 60 years. But when manufacturing industry began to complain that it was so expensive for them to insure their workers, the democrats started to move a bit. GM could make cars 2000 dollar cheaper if they moved their factory just across the border in Canada. And it's not like Canada's system is above average. The system got so super-inefficient and expensive and such a burden to the whole economy, they had to do something about it eventhough they still don't want universal public health care. Also, Obama had a majority back then. So why did he allow republicans to 'sabotage it'? He just used it as an excuse to again not do what the American people want. the democrats are far more moderate than the republicans at least in the senate. the democrats were split about 20/15/25, moderate/progressive/radical the republicans were split about 5/35 moderate/radical conservative. Democrats in the senate almost never vote strictly along party lines, which means that there has to be compromises with the republican moderates to get the job done, add on to that the massive public smear campaign that happened during the whole thing which caused a large amount of very vocal angry conservative people to tell their congressmen and senators to not vote for the law, this caused an increase in the amount of compromise exhibited in the bill. the bill started out close to 200 pages. it ended up well over 1000. The biggest issue with our system right now is that the people who are best at representing their people, and the people with the best ideas are being beaten out and replace by people who are better politicians, despite their inability to make major decisions about the future | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:09 LazyDT wrote: I would rather have the option to buy my own insurance, not freaking regulated by the government, and certainly not MANDATED by the government on and individual or group basis. I would much rather have my own freedom to do what I like and not be told that I must pay for anything. Well yeah thats all nice and good, but the problem is that without the mandate, you get adverse selection, which entails death spiral, which spells disaster for health care. If no individual mandate, then propose a reasonable solution to adverse selection. In other words, there is a problem here, and something must be done to fix it. If the solution proposed is unacceptable, what do you propose instead? | ||
|
WeeKeong
United States282 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: I mean, that's so simplistic. Yes, companies make things. Duh. The government, however, employs these things and implements policy, conveys posture, etc. Can companies do this as well as the gov? Of course not, most people do not think this. Burden's on you That is true only for certain industries such as the defense of a country, where national security is more important than cost or efficiency. However, in most cases, when the need is a quality product and efficiency, the private sector always does a better job than the government. Industries where government gets involved: education, prices soar and quality plummets. Industries that the government leaves alone: IT, prices fall steadily and the quality of the products rise dramatically. As for healthcare, there's a real world example of what happens in the future after the government takes over healthcare, just look at the NHS, it's not a pretty sight. Does the United States really want its healthcare to go down that road? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:15 WeeKeong wrote: Does the United States really want its healthcare to go down that road? I don't know what it wants. I think the US should go down a road that aims to mitigate over-consumption, which is the primary cause in rising costs of health care. | ||
|
LazyDT
United States71 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:12 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well yeah thats all nice and good, but the problem is that without the mandate, you get adverse selection, which entails death spiral, which spells disaster for health care. If no individual mandate, then propose a reasonable solution to adverse selection. In other words, there is a problem here, and something must be done to fix it. If the solution proposed is unacceptable, what do you propose instead? Adverse selection will always be a part of any kind of insurance industry imo. They need to make a profit, and by charging more or simply denying service (a right for any business), is always going to happen in a free market. However, as far as death spiral goes, this really can only happen when companies are forced to insure people that they know they won't make money on. I'm not the most well versed in this, and I'll be the first to admit that. But I guess what it comes down to, is the world will never be fair, and would you rather be free to make your own way, and then offer help to others on your own. Or would you rather someone take from you to try to make it fair for others? | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: I mean, that's so simplistic. Yes, companies make things. Duh. The government, however, employs these things and implements policy, conveys posture, etc. Can companies do this as well as the gov? Of course not, most people do not think this. Burden's on you. Look the point was not to get into a stupid discussion on companies vs. government, it was supposed to be a simple, to-the-extreme comment, to show why saying "private companies can do everything the government does better" is kinda...extreme, and nonsensical. Its simplistic because it makes sense and is easy to understand. There is competition is the private sector, which insures that the product you get is good or the company will go out of business. The government cant go out of business. There is no pressure to make good things, theres no worry. Everything the government has made has been absolutely terrible. From phones to cars, terrible. Competition increases the quality of items. Government health care will suck. Canadian health care is slow and long, France has protesting doctors. I agree companies arent governments and cant pass governmental policy, thats not what im getting at and im not sure what your trying to say either. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:19 LazyDT wrote: Adverse selection will always be a part of any kind of insurance industry imo. They need to make a profit, and by charging more or simply denying service (a right for any business), is always going to happen in a free market. However, as far as death spiral goes, this really can only happen when companies are forced to insure people that they know they won't make money on. I'm not the most well versed in this, and I'll be the first to admit that. But I guess what it comes down to, is the world will never be fair, and would you rather be free to make your own way, and then offer help to others on your own. Or would you rather someone take from you to try to make it fair for others? From what I learned about this, death spiral is when people start opting out of insurance for whatever reason. As they opt out, it logically follows that costs/premiums rise for those remaining, thereby causing more of those remaining to opt out, and so on. In the end no one remains, costs are high, insurers go out of business, aliens invade, etc. | ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:09 LazyDT wrote: While I don't necessarily disagree with everything you said, I don't agree with the "everyone can do it" part. For one it doesn't feel particularly relevant but mainly that I'm quite sure that everyone can't make it. There would probably be both positive and negative effects if everyone became engineers or whatever but in the end it's still outside the power of the individuals if there are jobs for everyone etc.It spells disaster for healthcare in the sense that you are thinking. Healthcare where everyone is taxed to pay for everyone else's problems. I would rather not have this open trough of money being ladled out to whomever 'needs it', which is really just semantics for 'whoever doesn't work hard enough to earn their own'. And before anyone implies that I'm not in a position to say this, let me clarify. I am an uninsured student paying my own way through college from an extremely poor background. If you work hard enough you can do it WITHOUT government handouts/Social Security/Medicare/aid. We don't want this crap healthcare system, and I don't want to be paying for people that were in my position for the rest of my life, simply because they didn't have the motivation to get out of that position. Because it is more than possible. I would rather have the option to buy my own insurance, not freaking regulated by the government, and certainly not MANDATED by the government on and individual or group basis. I would much rather have my own freedom to do what I like and not be told that I must pay for anything. | ||
|
LazyDT
United States71 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: From what I learned about this, death spiral is when people start opting out of insurance for whatever reason. As they opt out, it logically follows that costs/premiums rise for those remaining, thereby causing more of those remaining to opt out, and so on. In the end no one remains. That would make sense because the people who stay need to stay because they are probably sick and can't afford to not be insured. To be honest, I really just don't think that this mandate will fix this at all. And while I think that I could never be able to sit here and spout any solution because I have virtually no knowledge of the relationship(laws/regulations etc.) between Government and Healthcare Corporations, I think that this is the exact opposite way that the citizens should be looking. Instead of looking at the government to pick up the tab, I think legislators should be looking at options that decrease the demands set on insurers that are some of the reasons that the costs are going up. This will be my last post just because I simply don't know enough about this to really say anymore. I just feel really strongly about this policy and the increased sense of entitlement that it will no doubt cause among the general populace. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
| ||
|
LazyDT
United States71 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:25 Akta wrote: While I don't necessarily disagree with everything you said, I don't agree with the "everyone can do it" part. For one it doesn't feel particularly relevant but mainly that I'm quite sure that everyone can't make it. There would probably be both positive and negative effects if everyone became engineers or whatever but in the end it's still outside the power of the individuals if there are jobs for everyone etc. You are absolutely right, there would be positive and negative effects. However, I don't think I said that 'everyone can do it', I said it can be done. I really think there should be negative effects for people who don't make it out. I mean to be honest, why should I be punished(taxed much more heavily, mandated to pay for others way in life) when I have worked so hard to do the right thing? Whereas the unmotivated get rewarded(virtually no taxes, pretty much free money/groceries/healthcare etc.) for doing the wrong thing. Don't get me wrong. I totally understand the spirit of the legislation, and the idea of healping the needy, but just flat out taking things from hardworking people and giving them to people that don't work does not help them. Everyone knows that you value the things that you earn much much more than the things that are given(in general). To conclude, yes there needs to be failure, and there needs to be success, not this striving for equality. Nature isn't equal or fair, and people aren't either. | ||
|
TanKLoveR
Venezuela838 Posts
Come here if you want to see what socialism is like, spending "your precious" tax paying money on someone else other than you does not make anyone a socialist. | ||
| ||
