|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:
[quote]
Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed.
Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ?
|
On June 29 2012 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:47 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2012 01:39 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:35 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2012 01:31 Kaitlin wrote:
In related news, this is very good for China and India's labor markets. In related news, Kaitlin seems unable to acknowledge the positive effects of the reform. So, according to your logic, in order to be against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, I need to emphasize that ice cream tastes good ? That has literally nothing to do with my logic, that's you using a strawman. I'm simply pointing out that you have been desperately grasping at straws in the last few pages in trying to find something negative to say about the reform, while discarding/refusing to acknowledge evidence disproving your claims. If you're against the individual mandate, that's your right, but that's unrelated to the overall impact of the law on the economy - and you've been trying hard to paint a grim picture of the said impact, which is both unfounded in reality and unrelated to your position on the validity of the individual mandate. Here's a better picture of your reasoning: "since I am against the idea of making free ice cream a right to every American, and despite the fact that the law that passed does not do that, I am now going to argue that ice cream leads to cancer and dead puppies". Nope. I'm merely pointing out some "unintended consequences". However, I can't say that I'm totally convinced they are entirely "unintended". Just that there are consequences that some seem unable to consider or care about.
You have so far been unable to find negative "unintended consequences" on the US economy.
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
My friend cannot afford health insurance, but also does not qualify for Medicaid. What does she do? She makes about 15k a year. Well, I'll tell you what happens: She has severe back problems, which eliminates her from most companies as a pre-existing condition, so even if she could afford it, she gets denied. Two years ago she went to the hospital and they did emergency surgery. She now owes the bank over 120 THOUSAND dollars. It will never be paid back, ever.
This is just one example of our broken system.
Personally, I do not make enough money to afford insurance, and I also do not fall under medicaid, but luckily for me, I'm 23 and I live at home and I'm under their plan (for now). My father pays something like 750 a month for three people to be under the plan, and yet I still managed to receive a bill for almost 2 thousand dollars because our deductible went up.
Well, how the hell am I going to afford this 2k bill now? You want to know how? I can't, not at least until I've graduated and found a decent paying job. Unfortunately for me, that 2k bill will be 4k because of interest and fees by the time I get around to it, but I pay shit back unlike most.
|
On June 29 2012 01:28 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:16 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:
[quote]
Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. "not that expensive" lol ... you can get a basic health care PLUS almost all things you could imagine for that price in germany as a young and healthy person. And by that i mean: single rooms in hospitals, chief physician treatment and fucking golden bed sheets if you want to. Uhhhh yeah those things are included lol. When I say basic health insurance, I'm taking like not higher co-pays and not including dental. Obviously it covers hospital visits. Also, your hyperbole isn't convincing. Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:16 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:
[quote]
Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The problem is that while you have the means with which to make that healthcare choice, millions of Americans had 0 choice, whether it be due to pre-existing conditions or lack of funds. In other words, you speak so highly of your personal volition. Why not champion the volition of everyone? I'm not arguing the system is perfect. It's broke as fuck and needs fixing. My issue is with the individual mandate, you're taking away my freedom to chose. If I want to be a stupid morong and risk going without insurance, I ought to be allowed to do so. If I develope a pre-existing condition, too fucking bad. And there already are systems in place for individuals who have disabilities that prevent them from working, that's exactly what Medicaid is. The problem is Medicaid is very poorly run, is defrauded by corrupt doctors and patients for literally billions of dollars a year, and doesn't always get the right help to those who need it. The story is the same with every large Federal entitlement program that's ever existed. That's partly where the Ryan budget plan comes in, which gives the money to states who can better monitor the system and can run the programs in the ways they see fit. Listen, I know I'm not going to convince any of you. Most of you are Europeans who've already got common sense systems and don't understand how fucked up the federal entitlement programs are, the other half of you are students or younger who've not actually entered the US workforce yet and don't really understand how easy it is to get basic insurance. You also don't understand how completely fucked up the US economy is due to employer's fears over Obamacare. Bottom line is, it's a bad law and needs to go. I have nothing more to say about it.
I'm an American adult who's long-term employed and has health care. I have friends and relatives who have been recipients of federal entitlement programs, and it's saved their lives and my family from bankrupcy.
Please, do explain how completely fucked up the US economy is due to employers' fears over Obamacare. Make sure you provide sources, and ensure that you thoroughly separate the causes of uncertainty fears from unrelated concerns over fluxuations in tax rates and the general state of the US economy.
If you're not going to do that, don't sit there and proselytize over how everyone who disagrees with you Just Doesn't Get It.
|
On June 29 2012 01:32 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? But when you have an extremely bad/ rare case, which doctors do you consult? I'll give you a hint, its usually not a doctor that works under socialized medicine... What has this got to do with the precedent set by upholding Obamacare? In other countries with universal coverage, you consult with whatever doctor you want to. Many of you have missed my point - America has the best doctors in the world, and they came about simply because we DONT have socialized medicine. I will admit that I think that socialized medicine will never be the answer, however, Obama is a flaming retard and if anyone is going to bring socialized medicine to the states, I sure hope its not him.
This is a stupid argument.
There is no 'metric' or study that proves America has 'the best doctors,' but I'll humor you.
If America has the best health care money can buy, it's ridiculously overpriced and unregulated. It doesn't fucking matter if you have the best doctors in the world if you can't afford it. Furthermore, you don't need to 'the best' to perform an appendectomy, or deliver a baby, do a diagnostic MRI -- all examples of common health care services that US providers charge anywhere from 40% to 80% more for than other countries.
The American health care system was completely broken. Insurers were forced to put limitations and discriminate against potential customers to manage their own financial risk, while Health care providers gouged insurers, billing different insurers different rates for the exact same services, because they had to offset the cost of providing free emergency services.
Nevermind the fact that providers could charge whatever they wanted, because they had the patients' own health as leverage.
|
On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:
[quote]
Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the derivation process for this bill. The public option was the initial plan but in an attempt (unsuccessful) to promote bipartisanship it was let go in favor of the mandate. The idea for the mandate originally came, along with numerous other provisions, from healthcare plans proposed by republicans in the past. This is the definition of compromise, even if it was not reciprocated by the polarized right.
|
On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ?
Greece is the shitter because they had a strange way of not paying the taxes they were supposed to, wierd laws made so that you could easily get out of paying taxes and still benefit from universal health care. If they had paid their taxes, they would still be good to go
|
On June 29 2012 01:47 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:34 Xivsa wrote:
However - and this is a key point - it's not yet clear what enforcement mechanism will be used to penalize those who don't pay the penalty. SSN and Medicare are written into the tax codes themselves - they're considered taxes in the eyes of the Supreme Court - so Roberts was simply putting the Affordable Care Act in the same boat. I do NOT know if this means that the IRS, basically, will become responsible for collecting all these penalties that people may choose to pay instead of buying health insurance. At a certain point, the states themselves will hopefully offer good health insurance exchanges both to get the promised federal money to help fund the increased rolls and because it's simply good policy to not have uninsured citizens raising premiums for everyone else (insert opinion on the act.. here!). So, hope this post isn't entirely hogwash once the law is digested by the White House and Congress and both branches of government take their respective next steps. Yes, the idea is for the IRS to take over collecting the penalties from individual's wages. The issue is, that would require funding. And currently the republican's control the house, where all US federal budgets have to originate. The point has been raised that the Republicans could just deny funding for the enforcement programs. It's not clear what would happen in such a case, but it's part of the reason this upcoming election is going to be so important.
How did you manage to switch up the quote boxes? Typing fast are we..
Just saying the IRS would collect it from 'paychecks' is way too simplistic. It's not clear, YET, that it would be drawn from paychecks like SSN and all the rest are. Obviously, it makes the most sense, but still. Republicans denying funding for whatever collection apparatus is set up would be a valid 'threat' or 'speedbump' if a different set-up than paycheck withdrawal was established. Otherwise, there isn't much funding to withdraw simply to add yet another garnish or whatever to people's paychecks.
The bigger issue is, how does the IRS go after the penalties of those who aren't working or are here illegally or otherwise? It can't pretend to take money out of paychecks if there are no paychecks. What enforcement mechanism is set up for those cases?
I agree that all of this isn't quite clear, mostly because neither the White House nor Congress has worked on the bill since the decision that was handed down hours ago. Once a new mechanism to encourage states to set up exchanges is put in place, and once this whole penalty of the penalty business is sorted, then we'll know how much of an actual burden it is on citizens and whether or not all these charges of government standing in the way of a person and his/her doctor is true.
If the penalty is rendered un-collectable, i.e. there is no penalty for not paying the penalty, does that really kill the bill for example? It would still force up other premiums with the whole everyone pays when the uninsured go to the ER.
|
On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ?
Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you
a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you
and
b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid
it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment.
|
On June 29 2012 01:55 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:32 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 28 2012 23:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 CaptainCrush wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? But when you have an extremely bad/ rare case, which doctors do you consult? I'll give you a hint, its usually not a doctor that works under socialized medicine... What has this got to do with the precedent set by upholding Obamacare? In other countries with universal coverage, you consult with whatever doctor you want to. Many of you have missed my point - America has the best doctors in the world, and they came about simply because we DONT have socialized medicine. I will admit that I think that socialized medicine will never be the answer, however, Obama is a flaming retard and if anyone is going to bring socialized medicine to the states, I sure hope its not him. This is a stupid argument. There is no 'metric' or study that proves America has 'the best doctors,' but I'll humor you. If America has the best health care money can buy, it's ridiculously overpriced and unregulated. It doesn't fucking matter if you have the best doctors in the world if you can't afford it. Furthermore, you don't need to 'the best' to perform an appendectomy, or deliver a baby, do a diagnostic MRI -- all examples of common health care services that US providers charge anywhere from 40% to 80% more for than other countries. The American health care system is completely broken. Insurers were forced to put limitations and discriminate against potential customers to manage their own financial risk, while Health care providers gouged insurers, billing different insurers different rates for the exact same services, because they had to offset the cost of providing free emergency services. Nevermind the fact that providers could charge whatever they wanted, because they had the patients own health as leverage.
America has historically been on the cutting edge of medical technology and practices for a long time. With that being said, I don't think the average citizen has a dramatically higher or lower chance of surviving any major illness (that they can afford to treat) here versus the UK, France, or Japan. New technologies and practices may start here, but they go everywhere, just like new technologies that start elsewhere come here.
The notion that America has the best healthcare in the world is kind of a non-argument.
|
On June 29 2012 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever. There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from.
How many of those "conservative democrats" who voted for the ACA were voted out at the first opportunity ? There is a difference between a State deciding to implement it's own healthcare and the U.S. Government doing it. Conservatives see it as up to the States to decide. In fact, the SCOTA upheld that view in their decision today. The only reason the mandate was Constitutional was because it is being considered a tax. The 'mandate' as all politicians have defined it, was not as a tax, but a requirement to engage in commerce, which the federal government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution. The Conservative idea was for a State to do it, the Democrats wanted to impose it at the Federal level, which is unconstitutional. Finally, as for the difference between "Republican" and "Libertarian", I understand there is a difference, however, come November, expect the Republican party to move even further to the Right, so Libertarians and the Tea Party will be even more influential, mainly because of this decision.
|
HAHA ok i love this post from reddit! Normally i wouldnt post anything from reddit but i feel this explains it brilliantly.
I'm going to take your post and explain it to a five year-old:
Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.
Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling you health insurance.
Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!
Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.
Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!
Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.
Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.
Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.
Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.
Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!
Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.
Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!
Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.
Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.
Obama: Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.
Mary: But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.
Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost.
Mary: thank you.
Obama: I need an aspirin.
Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.
Also added should be:
All the people: Wait, won't this just mean we all give money to the companies and they keep it all?
Obama: No, they will be required to spend 85% of what they get paid in premiums on actual healthcare.
|
On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment.
No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false
|
On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:23 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:20 JoelB wrote:On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me. 'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism' How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron. Hahahaha the Redneck strikes again. You have to learn the differences. If someone sufferes from cancer suddenly and cannot pay the bills by himself because he works and but doesnt earn enough money to do so? Even if he doesn't have a job, maybe because of bad luck? Yes, iam totally willing. There is a difference between mindlessly cede of lazy people and the rules of a social economy. You call this communism, we call it christian altruism and we are proud of it. Its a big part of the structure of our culture and economy and as far as per capita values are concerned it owns yours. Thx bye bye. Is "Christian altruism" voluntarily helping others, as a good Christian, or is it requiring that everyone else does it ? I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. Woah, you consider 400 dollars for basic health insurance 'not expensive'? I pay 107 euros monthly (which translates into ~135 dollars) for a basic+extra dental package. Is health insurance really that expensive in the US?
|
On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment.
So, I guess the term "Affordable" has taken on a bit of a "tongue-in-cheek" connotation when applied to government healthcare.
|
On June 29 2012 01:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 01:30 RCMDVA wrote:On June 29 2012 01:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 01:00 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
FYI, the CBO numbers on Obamacare are bullshit because they are structured such that revenues are front-loaded and expenditures are back-loaded during the 10-year period of CBO analysis. If you really want to see the real impact of the law, you have to look at it from like 2021 outward. Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year projection period, but certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of the broad changes in the health care and health insurance systems that will result from these laws. That impact, however, becomes more and more uncertain the farther into the future one projects. Over a longer time span, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care—that are very difficult to predict but that could have a significant effect on federal health care spending, both under current law and under the law prior to passage of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Therefore, CBO developed a rough outlook for the second decade after enactment by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories will increase over time. On the basis of its February 2011 analysis, CBO effectively projected that PPACA
and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal budget deficits by an amount in a
broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the 2022–
2031 period, assuming that all provisions of the legislation were fully implemented. That estimate has not been updated since the February analysis. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf ... and for the "Doctor fix" ? It's not part of Obamacare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-doc-fix-myth That's kind of the point. The Doc Fix isn't part of Obamacare. It should have been. That would have made it a much better bill, or much less bad bill depending on your opinion. Obamacare = deficit neutral (on paper) Obamacare + permanent Doc Fix = Kaboom! http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/216397-obama-budget-adds-35-trillion-in-deficits-cbo-finds
The truth is the president and his allies in Congress worked overtime to pull together every Medicare cut they could find — nearly $500 billion in all over ten years — and put them into the health law to pay for the massive entitlement expansion they so coveted. They could have used those cuts to pay for the “doc fix” if they had wanted to, as well as for a slightly less expansive health program. But that’s not what they did. That wasn’t their priority. They chose instead to break their agenda into multiple bills, and “pay for” the massive health entitlement (on paper) while claiming they shouldn’t have to find offsets for the “doc fix.” But it doesn’t matter to taxpayers if they enact their agenda in one, two, or ten pieces of legislation. The total cost is still the same. All of the supposed deficit reduction now claimed from the health-care law is more than wiped out by the Democrats’ insistent march to borrow and spend for Medicare physician fees.
Why don't you add the cost of the Iraq War to Obamacare too? That would REALLY blow up the budget. When you judge the amount that a law adds (or subtracts) to the deficit, you need to compare it to a baseline, i.e. 2 parallel universes, one with Obamacare, one without Obamacare. Then look at the difference in deficits between these 2 parallel universes. In both of these parallel universes the doc fix would happen, just as the Iraq War would happen, because neither are part of Obamacare. Since the doc fix would have happened even if Obamacare didn't pass, and since it's not part of the Obamacare law, it's a completely separate issue. All of this is explained in the article if you actually bothered to read it. It's deceptive Republican spin doctoring. The CBO says in black and white: Obamacare reduces the deficit. If I recall correctly, the "Doctor fix" was a problem with Medicare funding that Congress had been funding through repeated, short-term bills. As part of Obamacare, Democrats took the reduction of not paying for this "Doctor fix" as a savings to be applied as a source of revenue for Obamacare, however, Obamacare did nothing to eliminate the need for such a fix. That's why it's considered to be a distortion, if not included. The "Doctor fix" is still needed, but Obamacare "stole" the funding, to provide for it's 'deficit neutral' status. It would be very much akin to saying with Obamacare, we'll no longer need to fund the war in Afghanistan, so we can apply the costs of that war to make Obamacare appear budget-neutral, when in reality, Obamacare doesn't do shit to remove the need for funding the war.
Did you even read the article, it addressed all of this. Obamacare didn't steal the funding. Where are you getting this shit from? You've been spewing bullshit since the beginning of this post with no source to back up anything you've said.
Obamacare has been priced by the CBO irrespective and completely disconnected from the doctor fix, because the doctor fix is seperate. It did not reduce the cost of Obamacare, it did not increase the cost of Obamacare. It's just another spending that would have happened regardless of whether Obamacare was pass or not, like the Iraq War.
If Obamacare was struck down today, the doctor fix would still be happening.
|
On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false
Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so.
|
On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]My point was that I have no problems doing it.
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so.
I currently live in Greece so I should know about it right??
|
On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]My point was that I have no problems doing it.
It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so.
Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the meaningful differences between the countries.
|
On June 29 2012 01:59 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:47 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 00:52 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:48 Pros wrote:On June 29 2012 00:29 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2012 00:28 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]I voluntarily give up part of my earnings in order to facilitate a healthcare system that is accessible for all. The 'Christian' part he wrote is completely unnecessary as I, and many others in Europe are not Christians. You aren't doing it "voluntarily" when you support the extraction from people as a tax. Voluntarily supporting it, is giving additional money, in addition to taxes to whatever people need the help. When you vote and support additional taxes for this stuff, there is nothing "voluntary" about that. It's a tax and it's required. My point was that I have no problems doing it. It's a good thing you speak for every single person then. And then you get fired, get cancer and because everyone has to fend for themselves according to the "small government" people you can't get treatment because it's too expensive. I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law. And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less. The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. There was no "Conservative compromise" in the ACA. There was not one Republican vote in either House of Congress. This was entirely Democrat. This massive tax increase was entirely the brainchild of Democrats and not one compromise was made with any Republican whatsoever. There are conservative democrats who struck down the more liberal parts of the bill. I think you are also forgetting that this mandate was developed as a compromise in Massachusetts under Romney. The mandate is the conservative, republican position until the democrats put it into their bill. Then they switched around and attacked it. You're acting as if republicans are the Libertarian party, which they are far from. How many of those "conservative democrats" who voted for the ACA were voted out at the first opportunity ? There is a difference between a State deciding to implement it's own healthcare and the U.S. Government doing it. Conservatives see it as up to the States to decide. In fact, the SCOTA upheld that view in their decision today. The only reason the mandate was Constitutional was because it is being considered a tax. The 'mandate' as all politicians have defined it, was not as a tax, but a requirement to engage in commerce, which the federal government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution. The Conservative idea was for a State to do it, the Democrats wanted to impose it at the Federal level, which is unconstitutional. Finally, as for the difference between "Republican" and "Libertarian", I understand there is a difference, however, come November, expect the Republican party to move even further to the Right, so Libertarians and the Tea Party will be even more influential, mainly because of this decision.
There's a difference between state vs federal in terms of legality. Although the Supreme Court has made that point moot today.
But there is no difference in terms of whether or not it is good and effective public policy. If Romneycare is good for the healthcare of the citizens of Massachusetts, then for this very reason, Obamacare is good for the healthcare of the citizens of the US.
Likewise, if Romneycare is bad, Obamacare must also be bad for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
