|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On July 01 2012 01:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 01:47 farvacola wrote:On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 00:24 JingleHell wrote:Here's something I just typed up and put on Facebook, I'm going to copy it here, verbatim. Dear The Extreme Right,
I know you're all angry about "socialized health care", and all that whatnot. I know you're probably too busy writing angry letters to senators and congress about that to read this. But, just in case you aren't, I'm going to write it.
Every soldier, and every retired soldier has access to Tricare and/or the VA. Paid for by tax dollars, to offset medical costs for those who were in the military. Now, last I checked, the majority of the Right wing likes the military, yes? Even if we get socialized health care? Or does that make us Commie scum that should be deported to Canada?
So, while I say thanks for my socialized health care you didn't try to stop, I feel obliged to ask... why were you discriminating against everyone else?
Signed, a medically retired ex-grunt. VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. That VA hospitals are inefficient and inflate costs is actually an antiquated perspective, especially since the reforms under Kizer during the 90s. Many VA hospitals are actually better at balancing a budget due to congressional budget constraints. Here's a slightly dated article which tells the tale of a Minn. VA hospital that cuts costs, provides cutting edge treatment, and implements one of the most thorough systems of electronic record keeping in the US. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/17/va-clinic-care/ From the story itself: Show nested quote +Drucker said the money to build the center came from a Congressional grant and some local fundraising. The truth is that VA hospitals, while very good, recieve lots of support in may other ways: volunteers, donations, special attention for events, etc. They also have the benefit of having the entire VA working with the same vision as them (which is not directly balanced on the budget sheet (that I'm aware, not 100% on this)). VA caseworkers are constantly doing a lot of the work that is done by normal hospitals, such as screening, helping vets with paperwork, etc.
That a hospital or medical center is constructed partially by local interest or donation is nothing new. In fact, in terms of anecdotal evidence, I can remember huge numbers of local benefactors taking part in the construction of OSU's new James cancer center. Furthermore, construction costs are one thing, the budget of the VA hospital in question is still almost entirely funded through a federal allocation.
In regards to the solvency of the government run veterans hospitals, please read this.
http://www.himss.org/foundation/docs/rachelmayo.pdf
"The VHA has seen several measured benefits as a result of its reengineering process. Some of these benefits include (Kizer, 1999):
• From October 1995 to September 1998, bed-days of care per 1000 patients decreased 62% • Annual inpatient admissions decreased 32% in 1998, ambulatory care visits increased 43% • Systemwide staffing reduction of 11% between December 1994 and September 1998 • Over 2700 paperwork forms eliminated"
Again, that VA hospitals are pits of inefficiency is an outdated perspective.
|
On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different?
You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance.
|
On July 01 2012 02:03 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 01:52 JingleHell wrote:On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 00:24 JingleHell wrote:Here's something I just typed up and put on Facebook, I'm going to copy it here, verbatim. Dear The Extreme Right,
I know you're all angry about "socialized health care", and all that whatnot. I know you're probably too busy writing angry letters to senators and congress about that to read this. But, just in case you aren't, I'm going to write it.
Every soldier, and every retired soldier has access to Tricare and/or the VA. Paid for by tax dollars, to offset medical costs for those who were in the military. Now, last I checked, the majority of the Right wing likes the military, yes? Even if we get socialized health care? Or does that make us Commie scum that should be deported to Canada?
So, while I say thanks for my socialized health care you didn't try to stop, I feel obliged to ask... why were you discriminating against everyone else?
Signed, a medically retired ex-grunt. VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. How have veterans "earned" it? Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm not complaining, but the fact is, it's socialized health care. What makes one person more deserving than another? Is our society purely based on personal merit? If that's the case, maybe we should put a cap on inheritances? Maybe anything above $10k going to someone besides a spouse goes to reduce the national debt instead? This isn't about efficiency. It's about the fact that people scream about the fabric of society being threatened by socialized healthcare, but the cases where we already have it are ignored completely. While not a veteran, I served some time in the military. I personally think veterans make sacrifices that deserve our respect. The assume a large amount of risk for little reward. I have no qualms with giving them certain special treatment. And we do have a large tax on inheritances, and it's debatable. I would have no problem increasing death taxes, but the owners and their lawyers can always find another way around it. For example, they could buy a 10 million dollar house and gift it to the kid: do you force the kid to sell his family home to pay the tax for his parent passing away? My grandparents just did that this year -- I was gifted my inheritance for Christmas to avoid this tax should they pass away. Nothing large by any means, but even on the low ends it makes a huge difference because gifts are tax-exempt under certain amounts (and for good reasons). As much as I would like to see a more egalitarian system, there are problems that are created for EVERYONE when you try to take away the riches of the rich systematically. It's just not that simple.
You sound like you have a vested interest in veterans getting respect for the time. I only want the respect I earn, and my military time shouldn't be worth that much to anyone who didn't know me while I was in. If they don't know what I did, why I did it, why should they respect it? It's their right NOT to respect it.
I'm not saying it's easy to change the inheritance system. I'm pointing out that if "X deserves Y because Z", it leaves plenty of room for counter arguments. How about "People with pre-existing conditions deserve healthcare because they're humans"?
The people who are violently opposed to socialized medicine are, by and large, the same people who violently oppose abortion, for theoretically humanitarian reasons. Once they're born, however, tough shit? I don't buy it.
As someone who got medically retired out of the Army, I'm greatful for my healthcare. Especially since I was retired for having Crohn's that was brought out and exacerbated by service. I'd be royally fucked if I hadn't been in the Army, because the same people who are all for socialized medicine for me because I was military don't want it for people who drew a short straw.
|
On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance.
If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages.
If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything.
In both scenarios you're a expense to society.
|
On July 01 2012 02:10 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:03 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 01:52 JingleHell wrote:On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 00:24 JingleHell wrote:Here's something I just typed up and put on Facebook, I'm going to copy it here, verbatim. Dear The Extreme Right,
I know you're all angry about "socialized health care", and all that whatnot. I know you're probably too busy writing angry letters to senators and congress about that to read this. But, just in case you aren't, I'm going to write it.
Every soldier, and every retired soldier has access to Tricare and/or the VA. Paid for by tax dollars, to offset medical costs for those who were in the military. Now, last I checked, the majority of the Right wing likes the military, yes? Even if we get socialized health care? Or does that make us Commie scum that should be deported to Canada?
So, while I say thanks for my socialized health care you didn't try to stop, I feel obliged to ask... why were you discriminating against everyone else?
Signed, a medically retired ex-grunt. VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. How have veterans "earned" it? Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm not complaining, but the fact is, it's socialized health care. What makes one person more deserving than another? Is our society purely based on personal merit? If that's the case, maybe we should put a cap on inheritances? Maybe anything above $10k going to someone besides a spouse goes to reduce the national debt instead? This isn't about efficiency. It's about the fact that people scream about the fabric of society being threatened by socialized healthcare, but the cases where we already have it are ignored completely. While not a veteran, I served some time in the military. I personally think veterans make sacrifices that deserve our respect. The assume a large amount of risk for little reward. I have no qualms with giving them certain special treatment. And we do have a large tax on inheritances, and it's debatable. I would have no problem increasing death taxes, but the owners and their lawyers can always find another way around it. For example, they could buy a 10 million dollar house and gift it to the kid: do you force the kid to sell his family home to pay the tax for his parent passing away? My grandparents just did that this year -- I was gifted my inheritance for Christmas to avoid this tax should they pass away. Nothing large by any means, but even on the low ends it makes a huge difference because gifts are tax-exempt under certain amounts (and for good reasons). As much as I would like to see a more egalitarian system, there are problems that are created for EVERYONE when you try to take away the riches of the rich systematically. It's just not that simple. You sound like you have a vested interest in veterans getting respect for the time. I only want the respect I earn, and my military time shouldn't be worth that much to anyone who didn't know me while I was in. If they don't know what I did, why I did it, why should they respect it? It's their right NOT to respect it. I'm not saying it's easy to change the inheritance system. I'm pointing out that if "X deserves Y because Z", it leaves plenty of room for counter arguments. How about "People with pre-existing conditions deserve healthcare because they're humans"? The people who are violently opposed to socialized medicine are, by and large, the same people who violently oppose abortion, for theoretically humanitarian reasons. Once they're born, however, tough shit? I don't buy it. As someone who got medically retired out of the Army, I'm greatful for my healthcare. Especially since I was retired for having Crohn's that was brought out and exacerbated by service. I'd be royally fucked if I hadn't been in the Army, because the same people who are all for socialized medicine for me because I was military don't want it for people who drew a short straw.
To answer these in order:
1. I have no vested interest, I am not a veteran and am not qualified to receive any sort of benefit. I said that I, personally, respect veterans and that I, personally, agree with supporting disabled veterans.
2. I have nothing against people with pre-existing conditions -- but any such mandate would have to be accompanied by a systemwide change to prevent freeloaders. I support a system-wide change through higher taxes and a universal voucher system with many of the same stuff in the ACA. I think it's preferable to the current plan because it's more favorable to the poor, it permits full competition, it empowers individual choice, and it disassociates medical benefits from employers (one of my biggest pet peeves).
3. I oppose socialized medicine, and support early abortions. Generalize more?
4. That is a condition that you got while you were covered by insurance. In the private sector, if you had private insurance you also would be covered -- and I would oppose any law that would allow private insurers to drop coverage for a sick individual. It's not like Crohn's isn't treated by private insurers if the person was responsible and had insurance.
|
On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society.
The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill.
That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit.
|
On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit.
One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance.
|
On July 01 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit. One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance.
That's exactly the argument, and exactly what is happening.
|
On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end.
Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly?
|
On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly?
"shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others.
|
On July 01 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit. One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance.
That's exactly the conundrum and part of the reason why there is a push for reform in the USA. THe debate isn't whether or not we fix the system, but rather HOW do we fix it.
|
On July 01 2012 05:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly? "shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others.
I quoted the wrong respone, what I actually wanted to quote was this:
"Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy."
However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale?
Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable.
|
On July 01 2012 05:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit. One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance. That's exactly the conundrum and part of the reason why there is a push for reform in the USA. THe debate isn't whether or not we fix the system, but rather HOW do we fix it.
It seems to be that options are very limited though. Considering how much the GOP has attacked Obamacare, can you imagine what they would do if the Democrats tried to introduce national/public healthcare?
The only over obvious option is to make insurance a requirement, which is basically what the mandate does.
|
so glad it was ruled constitutional 
|
On July 01 2012 05:39 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit. One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance. That's exactly the conundrum and part of the reason why there is a push for reform in the USA. THe debate isn't whether or not we fix the system, but rather HOW do we fix it. It seems to be that options are very limited though. Considering how much the GOP has attacked Obamacare, can you imagine what they would do if the Democrats tried to introduce national/public healthcare? The only over obvious option is to make insurance a requirement, which is basically what the mandate does.
honestly? i'm not sure how they're going to do it. i have a feeling we'll see a lot of the ACA in the republican version though.. I think the main point will be how you force someone to get health care. there are a few different ways of doing it. Personally I prefer the tax/rebate method, but i'm not sure about others.
|
On July 01 2012 06:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:39 hzflank wrote:On July 01 2012 05:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 03:33 Hertzy wrote:On July 01 2012 02:29 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 02:20 SpiffD wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. If you crash without auto insurance you have to pay the damages yourself. If you can't pay, someone else has to cover the damages. If you get sick without health insurance you have to pay for treament. If you can't you'll still be sick or dead and since you're not working you're not producing anything. In both scenarios you're a expense to society. The problem is when you have insurance, and the other person does not. If someone without insurance hits your car and you are injured, under American tort law, he owes you for your care. However, when you go to collect, he may have no money. In this scenario, you were responsible and he wasn't -- yet you, the responsible one, is left holding the bill. That is why car insurance is required by every single state. It's not just for you, but for the person you might hit. One could also argue that if you get taken to the emergency room without insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital is forced to pass the costs on to other patients, and that is why everyone should have medical insurance. That's exactly the conundrum and part of the reason why there is a push for reform in the USA. THe debate isn't whether or not we fix the system, but rather HOW do we fix it. It seems to be that options are very limited though. Considering how much the GOP has attacked Obamacare, can you imagine what they would do if the Democrats tried to introduce national/public healthcare? The only over obvious option is to make insurance a requirement, which is basically what the mandate does. honestly? i'm not sure how they're going to do it. i have a feeling we'll see a lot of the ACA in the republican version though.. I think the main point will be how you force someone to get health care. there are a few different ways of doing it. Personally I prefer the tax/rebate method, but i'm not sure about others.
Yep, Romney's version is almost identical to Obama's, sans the mandate.
|
On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance.
That is not correct. If you do not posses car insurance, you could go to jail if an officer asks for your insurance and you are unable to provide it.
|
I don't like the health care bill period, but I won't go into why. My problem, right now, is that while it was being tossed about, it was sold, specifically, as "not a tax." which then allows it to somehow be pushed through the Supreme Court as a tax.
I suppose the Supreme Court isn't the place to finally call people out on the double speak, but it has to stop somewhere. You can't sell me a bill that you say isn't a tax, but then make it a tax when it benefits you.
I do not like the precedent at all though. This makes it such that anything you do, even just living, means you can be penalized without any action on your part. You can be penalized for not doing things.
Though I suppose, now that I think about it, with the draft, that already existed. Still hate it.
|
On July 01 2012 09:40 carloselcoco wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. That is not correct. If you do not posses car insurance, you could go to jail if an officer asks for your insurance and you are unable to provide it.
you can choose to not drive. and therefore you wouldn't have to buy it.
|
The whole smokers and fat people should pay more than others thing isn't quite as cut and dried as people think. There's this:
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
"The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars."
Of course this is just one newspaper talking about one study. But it does show that posters need to be more careful about their assumptions.
If you're arguing that we should make people pay more who cost more and it turned out that people who lived healthy cost more due to longer lives and the accompanying expensive to treat/care-for diseases like Alzheimer's would you keep your position and argue that those who live healthy should pay more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
