It's not your requirement to defend your position Tgo, remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Printable View
It's not your requirement to defend your position Tgo, remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Darn right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Just kind of curious, what point are you trying to make with the above chart?
He saw it on MSNBC and thought it was important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Facts show that the US spends more on health care per person with less than optimal longevity compared to other countries who spend thousands less per person with longer longevity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I thought the chart was fairly self explanatory.
Until you realize that Americans don't live as long because they choose to live unhealthy life styles and that those same unhealthy life styles increase spending on health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So you blame Americans living unhealthy lifestyles for our health care costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Not all of it, but it is definitely one of the problems. Hospitals being inefficient is another reason, and of course, overpricing. You seem to think your chart proves something though, when it doesn't prove anything other then we spend more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Riiiight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
So what do you get out of that chart? No matter how much money we spend Americans are doomed to less longevity? Even though we spend more on healthcare for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I get out of that chart that we pay stupid high prices for medical services because there is no competition in the healthcare industry. Singapore is a good comparison for us, as they have a very similar healthcare system...except that hospitals compete with each other. Surgeries that cost 20 grand over here cost 5 over there, and the technology/longevity/infant mortality/etc etc etc is all about the same.
You mean letting the insurance companies determine where we spend our money is a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Do I understand you guys? You look at that chart and think to yourself "well, everyone else is dumber than us!"?
I highly doubt we are the first people to look at that chart and think those same things. I am sure a large number of people who have looked at it wonder about the whys behind those numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So, basically, when you are presented with facts, you prefer to believe in fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Which parts are fiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is it really that difficult to answer a simple question? You could say all of it, or parts of it, or none of it. I am pretty sure that much of the English language isn't beyond you.
No, I get out of it that due to our wealth we spend more money on unhealthy luxury items that do not match with life longevity. We later spend tons of money on paying for the resulting consequences, such as diabetes, heart disease, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Does your amazing chart also show how many medical technologies and pharmaceuticals are invented by all those other countries as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Let's let you in on a scary concept. Further competition doesn't necessarily lead to reduced cost. In addition, it is the very actors of the medical industry themselves who have driven costs up to seek profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande
Do you think we have less competition in the healthcare industry than, for instance, France and the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Do you have an objective, mathematical way of describing the unhealthiness of a life style? I think this would be an important first step before comparing such between populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Actually, I do think we have less, in a weird way. But more importantly, they have semi-socialized medicine. The Government dictates what something costs. Just look at the rates in France..Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Generalist consultation 23 € 70% 6,60 €
Specialist consultation 25 € 70% 7,50 €
Root canal 93,99 € 70% 28,20 €
I don't know about you, but I don't think there WOULD be any dentists in the US if they could only get 128 bucks for a root canal. Or 31 bucks for an office visit. Hell, I think Obamacare co-pays are almost that much.
As for an objective mathematical way, I am sure someone can and will come up with it. But hell, everyone in the world knows we are the most unhealthy people on the planet.
Every time someone ties healthcare spending with life expectancy baby Jesus cries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Basically what Gelston said, there is all the excessive eating, drinking, smoking, and drugs. Not to mention we probably have more people who engage in recreational sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So, the chart above is due to the people who make poor life choices? Our healthcare costs are due to people who get sick, or injured?
If you think so do you believe we should ban smoking, drinking, 400oz. Big Gulps, etc? Or does it just not bother you that we spend far and away every country in the world to pay for mediocre life expectancy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Stop making him cry!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I don't thing we should ban any of that. I think we make our bed and we have to lie in it. Another issue, however, is the chargemaster, which inflated health costs.
Well, we can certainly put numbers on drinking and smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Smoking in France, 2010: 30%.
Smoking in the United States, 2011: 19%.
Possible sources of error:
The France figures are 18-75, the US 18+. There are about 18.6m Americans older than 75, so if none of them smoke the 19% would be 19% * 293 / (293 - 18.6) = 20.3%. Not a big problem, especially since there probably are people who smoke and are older than 75.
The definition of "smoker" might be different, and the United States report is the only one to define it. But still, 30% to 20% is a huge gap to even make us even, let alone make us worse.
Drinking in France, 2010: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per day. 17% are daily drinkers.
Drinking in United States, 2005: 1 glass of wine (or equivalent) per adult per 12 days. 4% are daily drinkers in 2006.
One possible interpretation is that the Americans who drink drink, while the Frenchman surrenders after a single glass but is back for more the next day. Regardless, the average American drinks less overall and less frequently.
Obviously, statistics on illegal drug use are hard to come by with any certainty. "Excessive" eating is also a tricky one. The marathoner who consumes 3000 Calories of a well-balanced, nutritive diet (kale, tofu, whatever) is doing better by his body than the office worker who consumes 2000 Calories of Big Macs. As you and I have discussed before, it's also not always clear what constitutes a healthy diet. Partially hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners... there's a lot of stuff out there we're just now learning about as far as the long term effects.
I'm not sure where you're going with the recreational sports angle. American football carries a unique risk of brain trauma, but very few Americans play enough of it to make that trauma lifespan-significant. Blowing out a knee is unpleasant, but again I'm not sure how it would be lifespan-significant.
Skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, rolling blading, water skiiing, jet skies, ect, all those extra fun things a lot of people like to do. They add to health care costs and when something bad happens from some of these things and a kid dies young, how many people need to live past the average ages to make up for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What about murder rates? Pollution? I hear the US produces the second most pollution in the world by quite a margin compared to the third most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Car accidents? Accidents in general? Obesity? Diabetes due to poor nutrition?
What about record keeping? Maybe France just sucks at keeping proper track of how old their citizens die at and the US is (as usual) perfect at it? Maybe countries like Japan don't count still born births as a life/death and that skews their numbers? Maybe the US does keep track of those and that skews their numbers in the other direction?
Maybe there are far too many variables to possibly tie life expectancy and healthcare spending together and try to compare different countries based on this?
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/onli...nation-method/Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/...icingstudy.pdf
http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=791
Read, learn, try to understand Back.
And that's just ONE aspect of healthcare. It applies to almost all things though.
Then there is this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage
We make about 50% on average more then France. Granted, our healthcare costs are double what France's is, then again, France is a socialist country, we are not.
If America had the same type of system as France, and put strict price control on drugs for example, we would see VASTLY reduced innovations in new drugs. Now.. in some ways this could be a good thing. I am getting tired of seeing commercials where taking a shot clears up skin flaking, but could give you 5 different things that could kill you. Yeah.. dandruff on the face.. or die. Choices choices.
So the argument here is that more uninsured people is good for the rest of us who pay for their poor life choices. Got it.
No one has said this. The big bone is that Obamacare isn't the way to do it. And as someone already pointed out, that 630+mil that has been spent on their nightmare of a computer system could have been better spent else where. You are also seem to be forgetting that those uninsured people only account for 2% of healthcare costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Lets look at this in context though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
France population 65.7 million @ 30% = 19.71 million smokers.
America population = 308 million @ 19% = 58.52 million smokers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ion_per_capita
Looking at %'s we are far better.. looking at cigarettes per capita tho.. we are about 25% WORSE then France.
US 1028 per
France 854 per
Less % wise of our people smoke, but they are smoking significantly more cigarettes.
As for excessive eating.. France Obesity rate.. 10%, US 30%. Pretty cut and dry there... but once again, you need to LOOK at the population difference.
France 6.57 million fatties..
America 92.4 million fatties...
Direct comparison of % doesn't apply to healthcare costs, since it is the SHEER number of people that impact it.
So what's your theory? That by the magic of tort reform companies will spontaneously cover these people? I'm also somewhat confused how these 16% cause 2% of all healthcare costs only. Are you claiming that these people are the healthiest in the whole world, or at least America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I am saying there is a better way to do it. What that is is probably better left up to the 'experts', maybe. The way I see some of this is that the huge chunk of money that was spent on the computer system could have easily been used to pay every ones premiums and the deductibles of all the people who couldn't afford it. You take that a step further and if the government is paying for all that why do we need the insurance companies? But then you run into two problems, what to do with all the people who work in the health insurance industry and government inefficiency. The answer to the first is likely to make them government employees filling similar roles. The second would be a harder one to solve because we the people by and large expect and accept that our government is that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Oh, I get you now, I was looking at the wrong half of the equation. It's an interesting point, but I think it's too densely packed to compute, and if we can't compute something I as always recommend drawing no conclusion. Here's what I mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
-America is rich, therefore we have MRIs, arthroscopic surgery, ligament transplants etc. available for sports injuries, therefore we make use of them. These all cost money but do not impact lifespan. Nation X isn't as rich as us, so they don't have these treatments as available or use them as much, so they spend less but live just as long.
-But... everyone plays. Even cavemen had significant leisure time. And while speed/motorization is a big risk factor for injury, one of the biggest risk factors is lousy equipment/field. I played rec league softball on an artificial turf field that surely cost thousands of dollars; I am reasonably sure that these are not common in Nation X. Surely we agree that poorer people are more likely to find employment as physical labor, and while a torn ACL makes it annoying to sit at a desk, it makes it prohibitively difficult to lift pallets. Unemployment follows, destitution follows, snowball effect.
I'm not even sure how we could design an experiment to evaluate these costs, but if you have suggestions I am all eyes.Like with guns, accidental deaths due to sporting are very rare - surprisingly so, really, especially since (in each case) a lack of coordination and fine motor control seems like it would be catastrophic. If 1 kid out of a million dies 50 years young, you only need the rest of the million to live an extra 26 minutes to balance it out. (Note that they don't have to all live 26 minutes past the average age, but only 26 minutes past what they would have anyway.) Looking at it the other way, 1 kid out of a million dying 50 years young only decreases that million's average lifespan by about half an hour.Quote:
and when something bad happens from some of these things and a kid dies young, how many people need to live past the average ages to make up for it?
These are all good questions, but before I dig into them I have one question for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
How many variables would it take where it turned out the US was actually at less risk before you agreed that it was? I feel pretty confident I have demonstrated 2. What's your number?
24 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This would be a great point except the graph explicitly states "healthcare costs per capita".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
854 cigarettes per French adult / .3 French smokers per French adult = 2847 cigarettes per French smokerQuote:
Less % wise of our people smoke, but they are smoking significantly more cigarettes.
While you are correct that the American figure is higher (5411), smoking 8 cigarettes a day is very clearly a major health risk. 30% of the population or 20% of the population with lung cancer, which is more expensive per capita?Somehow I doubt that your premium was $2 for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I accept this challenge. Please cite the 23 billion 999 million 999 thousand 999 cases that led you to believe in the first place that the US was more at risk, that my response may be Taylor Swift made to your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You want me to refute my own point? That's your job buddy. Once I say something it is fact until someone proves otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Certainly not but as was pointed out, that money could have been used to pay the premiums with ease this year and any extra could be put to making more money as it is just sitting there not being used. And how do you get 2$? Or just a random number?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
No, I merely want you to elaborate upon your own point. Why has no one ever asked me to do that???Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Oh... right.$600m by 300m people = $2 per person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I win. Guess what you just advocated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
No idea why but I needed to see that for some things to make sense. Maybe too long mentally staring at the same numbers without a new perspective. So, we as a country spend somewhere north of 5 trillion dollars a year on health care. There are obviously several things we could do to reduce that, but at the moment our government doesn't seem interested in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Hey, when you give me a horribly designed computer system and I say, "No, that is bad, it needs to be better", doesn't mean I think the idea is bad. Government healthcare does have the potential to save us money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.
And I'd say that is what I was advocating, Obamacare isn't this. And who knows how much over hauling it would take to become such a system. You might be able to claim that it is the aim of Obamacare to become that, but would it really be so hard for our government to get something right the first time instead of spending countless hours and dollars fixing something screwed up that they created?
I think most Democrats would rather have had that. Obama went with what to me, still, is a Republican concept, because, truth is, one half of Congress doesn't actually want to do anything for citizens to the point that a Republican plan is now considered "Radical Socialism!" He naively thought they'd work with him. They didn't so he worked with insurance industry until they liked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
I like how you just throw something out with absolutely nothing offered to back it up, and then change the subject. Although I do agree that doctors and hospitals across the nation are charging for unneeded services, and that does indeed contribute to our high cost of healthcare...a doctor ordering a surgery that costs 20 grand over here and 5 grand somewhere else has absolutely nothing to do with that. One issue is the cost of the services, the other issue is the over-use of them. I only touched on the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Back to your unfounded initial statement though...tell me one scenario, ever, where competition has resulted in a more expensive and inferior final product. Just one.
Charging for unneeded services? That's horrible!! That's like making a 61 year old woman pay for insurance that covers prenatal care... oh wait. Obamacare does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
On a side, note.. it's like making people that live in Nevada, pay for Mississippi flood insurance.
Ever used a telephone in America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
In addition, markets with poor information in highly technical areas often don't experience reduced costs due to competition at all. We have one of the most famous conservative economic thinkers in the country suggesting that the VA is superior to private industry at providing healthcare and costs much less.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...es-posner.html
And we have his RAND citation for you.
http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/soc...om-the-va.html
Because the consumer is always wrong in your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Remember when Obama had a super majority and could have passed anything he wanted to at the time Obamacare was passed regardless of what any republicans had to say about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Me too.
Whose fault was that? Oh yeah, the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
It didn't last very long because they ran an idiot. Remember when Republicans could pass anything they wanted about illegal immigrants and national id cards and never did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Do you remember the last time you posted anything relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Neither do I . . .
Last gasp at trying to save midterms for a party in deep deep trouble after opening Pandora's box or smart move to confuse the sheeple? You decide: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...lections-.html
If you're looking for a conservative circle jerk there's always Red State.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Remember when the topic in this thread was about Obamacare and you responded with a weak deflection that had nothing to do with Obamacare, instead of responding to the actual point I was making?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The American people voted for Obama and all those senators. Blame the voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
As long as it's not your hero's fault right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
or
So you're saying blame is squarely on the shoulders of the democrats then?
You could also argue that the people voted for all those congressmen to do away with Obamacare, and the Dems are obstructing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Blame the Voters.
Sometimes you just have to accept the way things work here.
Not accepting such bullshit is how this country was founded, of course on the flip side, accepting it is how we've ended up at our current state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
"Sometimes"? Let me guess, we have to "just accept it" when it's a Democrat in office, am I right?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What bullshit? Majority rules. Thats how our country was founded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Now if Obama declared himself King and started taxing everyone 90%, yeah, then I would expect all out rebellion. But the ACA is such a good law for our country. Its hardly anything to freak out about.
Our country was not founded on "majority rules." We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Learn your American history gosh dang you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Majority is a major factor, but there were a lot of safeguards put in place to try and prevent the majority from stomping all over the minority.
By bullshit I mean idiots in charge who could care less about the people and we just accept it that our government is horribly managed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I think it's fair to say the Founders intended for minority rule with very little regard for the majority; hence the Electoral College (remember that it wasn't until 1816 that a majority of states chose electors by popular vote), hence Senators being elected by legislatures rather than popular vote, hence Supreme Court justices being appointed by the President with some regard for Congress but no regard for the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Whether they were right or wrong to functionally disenfranchise the electorate on the federal level is another question, but in any event that time has long since passed. Trying to shoehorn their thoughts on majorities into today's environment makes no sense.
Without repeating any MSM bullshit talking points, can you even explain to anyone why this is such a good law in your eyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So far almost everyone is paying more money for less coverage, higher deductibles, and coverage they'll never need, like maternity care for men, etc.
You'll probably come back with something completely random and unrelated that you believe to be clever and witty, but there's always a little hope I suppose.
Back never has a valid answer.
His DNC master's told him it is good, so that's what he thinks.
The point was that this magical period that people cite A. didn't last long and B. wasn't the socialist Armageddon you and the mouth breathers like to herp and derp about. The crazy thing? It might've worked but Obama was actually, idiotically, a centrist and sought compromise. He thought Republicans would actually work with him to help America. Hilarious stuff, right? They wouldn't even on legislation he stole from Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
So you approve of oppressing minorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Given your love for "state's rights" don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
All the time. What does this have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Er...this link is comparing costs in the US to other countries, but it mistakenly refers to US healthcare as a free-market. That is most certainly not the case.Quote:
In addition, markets with poor information in highly technical areas often don't experience reduced costs due to competition at all. We have one of the most famous conservative economic thinkers in the country suggesting that the VA is superior to private industry at providing healthcare and costs much less.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...es-posner.html
This link just compares numbers, but doesn't give an explanation or even a hypothesis as to why they're different.Quote:
What? There is no right or wrong. There just is.Quote:
Because the consumer is always wrong in your mind.
I'm proud of the PC. Totally go debate that with Richard Posner now, Thondalar. I bet your academic skills wow him.
I like how you're ignoring the fact that the ACA is one of the most poorly written, unnecessarily complicated pieces of garbage that Congress has ever spit forth. If it was as simple as you say, and was in fact just legislation stolen from Republicans, it would have passed with flying colors. Nobody is opposing it because it's being put forth by Obama, they're opposing it because it's almost a thousand pages of idiotic regulations and red tape. They're opposing it because it's terribly executed and is falling flat on it's face, as expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I approve of not giving a gosh darn about what some honkies from 250 years ago thought, especially when it comes to oppressing minorities, which they collectively delighted in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I also approve of coherent thought, which does not allow for both Founder-worship and hand-wringing over elitism, as the Founders were big, big, big-time on elitism.
Finally, I approve of enfranchising the electorate on the federal level. In the post-war era, minorities have seen great success in appealing to common decency. The Civil Rights Act did not require a majority black caucus, or filibusters by said caucus until such an act was passed. The repeal of DOMA did not require a gay President, or whining obstructionism until such repeal was enacted. We're talking about peoples who were quite literally lynched and murdered. Doesn't it make you feel a little embarrassed that your cause celebre is subjected to pittances, yet you have absolutely no qualms about conflating yourself with minorities?
Or oh wait, sometimes gun owners are subjected to two thousands of dollars in fines. Swing looooow, sweet chaaaariot...I laughed.Quote:
Nobody is opposing it because it's being put forth by Obama
I have a bridge to sell you. In both Alaska and Florida. It could have been one page and been opposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
This is simply not true. Slavery was the norm back then, and you'll find that most Founders were against it, but it's just how things were done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Also not true.Quote:
I also approve of coherent thought, which does not allow for both Founder-worship and hand-wringing over elitism, as the Founders were big, big, big-time on elitism.
Usually I just stop responding to you when you get to this stage of the discussion, but I felt the first two parts needed refutation.Quote:
Finally, I approve of enfranchising the electorate on the federal level. In the post-war era, minorities have seen great success in appealing to common decency. The Civil Rights Act did not require a majority black caucus, or filibusters by said caucus until such an act was passed. The repeal of DOMA did not require a gay President, or whining obstructionism until such repeal was enacted. We're talking about peoples who were quite literally lynched and murdered. Doesn't it make you feel a little embarrassed that your cause celebre is subjected to pittances, yet you have absolutely no qualms about conflating yourself with minorities?
Or oh wait, sometimes gun owners are subjected to two thousands of dollars in fines. Swing looooow, sweet chaaaariot...
Because it's funny how right it was, right?Quote:
I laughed.
It could have been, but it wasn't. If all it was was an individual mandate on catastrophic coverage it would have passed with probably 0 nays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Given as the Republican Party made their course of action "Make Obama a one term President!" before his term even started and was rooting for him to fail that'd be a mighty hard sell. Just watching the Lucy and Charlie Brown act that happened where Obama would give a concession and then Republicans (Particularly Olympia Snowe) would say no was kind of pathetic. He really believed in the same bullshit you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
So he believed that both parties are made up of lying scumbags that only care about pleasing the special interests that get them elected and could give a flying fuck about what's actually best for the country? Operating strictly on party lines is no better when you're for something than when you're against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So who said this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Wouldn't that suggest you don't want them to give a damn about anybody but themselves?Quote:
Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society."
This I have found.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
This is not what I have found.Quote:
and you'll find that most Founders were against it,
This, once again, I have found.Quote:
but it's just how things were done.
Alright, let's hear you offer an explanation for the many parts of our federal government that were intended to ignore the popular vote.Quote:
Also not true.
That is not at all why!!!Quote:
Because it's funny how right it was, right?
Hey, WB, what's that on your chin? Yeah, right there, on your chin plain as day. Oh yeah, it's Obama's balls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm sure there's plenty of Larry Craigs there for you if you want gay people with similar opinions. Personally I actually am okay with a world that involves people with different opinions than me. I don't feel obligated to hate them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
http://www.redstate.com/
lolwut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
And I am SURE that Dems were all "Lets hope Bush gets a second term" when his started. You do realize that the other party ALWAYS hopes to make it a one term, right? Does any party do anything the other party wants that will make them look good? I doubt you would admit that a Repub had a good idea, but if they did, do you really think Dems would fall all over themselves to pass it? Hell no, they would do what they normally do, allow 1 or 2 Senators from red states to vote yes to hopefully get re-elected, and the rest would vote no, knowing that they are secure in their hyper-partisan election bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Remember the Patriot Act? And Iraq? And Homeland Security? Of course you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Remember all those happened after some fucking assholes decided to fly planes into buildings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Do you think that if some assholes decided to detonate a WMD on American soil in a terrorist act, Repubs wouldn't support Obama in seeking justice?
Of course you don't.
Also, are you admitting those three things were good ideas by the Republicans then?
It's really the RNC's own fault. If they hadn't sucked so bad they would not have lost so bad. So now they have sucked themselves into a minority and can't do shit. No one takes them seriously anymore anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Back: Thinking he speaks for everyone since January, 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's really a well thought out plan. It benefits everyone. It helps the lower income population. It promotes a healthier nation over all. We all already pay for healthcare in one form or another. The ACA equalizes it. If you don't want in your fine is deducted from the taxes you already pay. If you can't pay the fine you will not go to jail over it. It will bring down healthcare costs for everyone. If you want to pay more for better healthcare you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Wait, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
One might assume that the worst downturn since the Depression might mean that there wasn't petty political bullshit. But that'd be wrong! Obama and Thondalar level wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Let's all take a minute to digest this. Take your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Of course the Dems loved the Patriot Act, it stomps a mud hole in the Constitution and walks it dry...Homeland Security being a by-product of that, they're all for it...Iraq, well, hell...apparently even the anti-war party likes war sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Fascinating how you can even blame stuff they didn't draft on the Democrats. With that said, might not some Republicans have liked Republican drafted ideas? I mean, might not at the least Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich like it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
But nope. Anything Obama proposed is immediately the greatest Socialist evil evar.
What? I've said from the day it passed that the Patriot Act was the beginning of the end. It's absolutely terrible. All I said was I can see a lot of Dems agreeing with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
As to your Romney and Gingrich references, I can only assume you're meaning ACA, which as I've said before...if it was simply that, it would have easily passed....what passed is not at all simply that, it's WAY more complicated, unnecessarily so, to the point that even the people who wrote it don't know what the fuck it says, and it's outcome is shady at best...it can't even get off the ground it's so terrible, and if it survives to full fruition...I don't even believe in God, but it might make me pray.
You're still a naive idiot if you really believe that. The sad bit is Obama once thought the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Which part.. this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yeah, I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
It's definitely something when people don't understand the legislative branch.
Obama once thought it was a terribly written piece of legislation that was doomed to failure? What changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Reading comprehension is a thing. Obama once thought that miraculously the Republican Party would work with him. Your mythical theories that if the bill was just one way the Republicans would vote for it. It's likely one of the biggest downfalls of his Presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
If there is one thing most intelligent people can agree upon, is that the ACA is an abysmal piece of legislation that has very little chance to actually produce the effects it supposedly sought out to do... lower healthcare costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Yay, finished my open enrollment, higher cost, way less coverage, way to go NotACA!
But I am covered if somehow my 44 yr old white male self manages to get pregnant.
I just keep my Hope for some Change at the end of the month.
What a pile of shit, I am 100% sure we could cover the involuntarially covered with less cost, better coverage and not having to trash my or other people's coverage in the process.
Thats odd. I got a better plan for less than I was paying. Around $40 less a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Is your state one of those who are trying to combat the ACA?
What does his state supposedly trying to combat the ACA have anything at all to do with his healthcare plan? For the love of everything holy in this world, Back, stop getting your news from left wing radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Your prior plan must had some really shit coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I saw a meme that made me chuckle:
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...43966682_n.jpg
I'm quite sure that had Romney won, democrats would have done everything they could to work with him and get him a second term in 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Oh wait, remember last year before the election when Harry Reid said that he will refuse to work with Romney every step of the way if he won?
It benefits everyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
How does it benefit the people who have had their current plans cancelled (after Obama told everyone they could keep their plan, of course), only to have their "new and improved" plans have a higher deductible, coverage forced on them that they don't want or need, like in case some guy gets pregnant, and a premium so high that now they can't afford insurance at all anymore?
What's your deductible like compared to your old plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What's the coverage like compared to your old plan?
What's the co-pay like compared to your old plan?
I don't know why I'm asking this, because if Backlash says he's paying less, then obviously it must be true and also applies to everyone else in the country and we just haven't realized that Obamacare is a success and we've all been saved from ourselves.
I have not heard of anything in your rambling run-on sentence happening widespread. If your conspiracy were true even the NYT would have the headline "Obama Lies".Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You are claiming the Affordable Care Act is exactly the opposite of what it really is. Have you looked into it? Do you have healthcare?
If you'd bother reading, which you don't, you'd note this was in response to the magic realism theory that the Republicans would've somehow ever worked with Obama. This is also you using an argument you used to make fun of again. Kind of funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The states that fought hardest against the exchanges naturally had some of the worse markets, though, to their credit, it's often due to a local love for Big Gulps (or hot dogs). It's also like literally all of the Republican efforts right now are designed to make the system work worse. You're raising costs right now yourself. I'm sure Methais is too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What "conspiracy" are you referring to? That fuckloads of people are having their insurance cancelled? That people are being charged significantly higher premiums with Obamacare to the point where most can't afford insurance anymore? That deductibles are going through the roof? That people have to have coverage they couldn't ever possibly need, like maternity coverage for men? Or that Obama told people they could keep their old plans if they liked them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Or is this just another typical deflection post where you avoid answering anything?
http://www.netmeister.org/blog/image...d-facepalm.jpgQuote:
If your conspiracy were true even the NYT would have the headline "Obama Lies".
I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that you try to make it seem like one party trying to stonewall the other party is some new and unheard of thing in politics that has never happened before January 20, 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's cool. I'm sure you can take it up with invisible WB. Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Care to point me in the direction of where I can read about "fuckloads" of people are having their plans cancelled by Obama? Can you show me where people are being charged significantly higher to the point they can't pay? I'm not seeing premiums going up. I'm seeing a reduction in my cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The ACA makes a lot of basic preventative healthcare essentially free for everyone. Yes, prenatal maternity visits are covered, and men do not need it, but women do. Just like women don't need prostate exams, which are covered, but men do. Basic child care immunizations are not needed by all adults and are covered.
In terms of young adults, up to age 26 they can be on their parents plans, which depending on income, could be subsidized. After that they have the option of the lowest priced plans which are 60%/40% and more for catastrophic situations but they would still benefit from all the free preventative care.
Do you have healthcare?
I assume by this "invisible WB" line you've been using lately that you're implying that people are stuffing words in your mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's probably the most ironic thing ever posted on the internet.
http://mycancellation.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I'm sure everything on there was typed up in Notepad by some guy in his underwear that secretly works for Fox News.
I used this link because it also has lots of pictures of actual cancellation letters, most with accompanying comparisons to their old plans, etc.
And also because I remembered Tgo conveniently posted it in another thread and I don't feel like googling.
If you can sell me on why women need prostate coverage and men need maternity coverage, then I'll agree with everything you post forever from now on.
Children use their parents' coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Women can have male children (likely to have prostates), and men can have female children (likely to get pregnant in OBAMA'S SHARIAH LAW AMERICA).
Women and men are not super good at knowing when they will conceive children, therefore they should have the insurance even if they honestly believe they won't have kids.
:)
60 year old women are having all kinds of kids yo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Wow. Is that the third "But but you too!" argument in a row from you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You were debating a point that didn't exist. This is entirely different from your obtusely believing that only things directly stated are implied. I don't expect you're capable of seeing the difference, but that's standard.
You're still hating on Obamacare because you don't want to pay money for taking advantage of society for your healthcare, which in your definition makes you a Democrat, I'd suppose.
How is paying more than I already am a good thing? From 487 to 1011 a month. Oh, use CoveredCA but uh, you won't be able to use it for the Doctors you have. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
"Society" has never once paid for any of my medical care and I still hate Obamacare. Where is your God now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
He's still trying to log in to healthcare.govQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
We've all been there, right? One thing leads to another, and then you've adopted a kid. But what about their health insurance? Rest assured, our dear leader has ensured it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So after all that you link a site with 479 cancellation notices. Cancellation notices did go out on a decision made by health insurance companies. Some are allowing people to renew, some aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Part of the ACA is to make basic healthcare available to everyone. Everyone is going to need healthcare at some point in their lifetime. That is a given. There may be some incredibly lucky superhumas who won't but they will be far and away the extreme example. With this system everyone is paying in so that everyone can have access to basic healthcare. You may not need maternity care but you will need a prostate exam. Women won't need a prostate exam but they will need a pap smear. Checkups, physicals, these are things everyone should have.
Currently if an uninsured person gets sick or in an accident they will get treated anyway and those costs are already passed on the rest of us. With the ACA that will be reduced tremendously. Ironically I'm surprised that some people on this board aren't cheering for that one single aspect. There will be no uninsured people "milking" the system. Like any sane person would deliberately go out and get injured just to lay in a hospital bed.
So basically this is all about making sure those poor hospitals and insurance companies make even more money? Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I also love this Democratic talking point that automatically assumes every single person who has no health insurance and needs medical care won't pay their bill and that everyone with health insurance will pay their bill.
What a joke.
You're not Methais. But since you've a conservative and hate other people you should be happy that more freeloaders are paying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Didn't the insurance companies write the bill in the first damn place? Of course they would write in a way to make more money. Duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Absolutely. Prior to the ACA. Insurance companies based their costs however they wanted. They could sell junk plans of $50 a month with a $10,000 deductible. Their pricing includes factoring costs of paying for the uninsured. What the ACA does is equalizes the costs. Everyone needs to see a doctor. Everyone needs immunization shots. Everyone needs screenings. With everyone paying it lowers the costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Flood the market with buyers and the costs come down. Also with everyone buying in no one is taking advantage of those who do. Those who don't, won't, or can't still pay a fine cheaper than the cost of a plan. But people less than 4 times the poverty level, at around $11,000.00 a year (x4=$44,000 a year), will get tax breaks to make up for their healthcare costs.
My opinion on the problems with the ACA are these:
Not enough education on how it works disseminated to the public. Now, the public has responsibility here as well, but I think our government was too engaged in passing and effecting this law to lay out to the public what it actually does.
Poor implementation for the healthcar.gov website. Obviously. In some ways having so many people trying to access it speaks of it's success. But as a tech savvy country we could have done a better job with it.
Political games have hurt the whole situation. Universal healthcare is not something dreamed up by Obama to take people's freedoms away. Repulicans have thrown out the same idea most notably Romney in Massachusetts. And he is the guy the put up against Obama to say it would not work? Refusal to cooperate does hurt those who are trying to get everyone to cooperate. But what is the end result? Stagnation. I fully believe that strong opposition to the ACA has undermined it.
"Flood the market with buyers"? Only around 15% of Americans are uninsured, how do you "flood the market" when 85% of the people are already purchasing goods from said market?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What about those who have insurance but still don't pay their copays and deductibles? Because more people who have insurance file for bankruptcy than those who do not have insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I've been ignoring your posts for a month or two now because you never have anything constructive to say. You are the spoiler. The buzzkill. The negative. You criticize and offer nothing to improve. Nothing you say is interesting to me because I do not think in terms of never, can not, or can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You comment on just about every post I make. I hope you get satisfaction from that for yourself. I have not read your posts for a while.
The Heritage Foundation, a largely republican group, tried to push all of this on us in the 1990's. My opposition to it has no basis in right or left. I don't like having something I liked and could afford replaced by something I don't like and can't afford and then being fined for not liking it or being able to afford it. The real fun starts when the employer plans just start getting dropped because they don't meet the profit-based definition of a good healthcare plan via ACA, which was written by the Insurance Companies JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY. It wasn't a lack of definition by Politicians that made me oppose it. I'd love to pay less, get better coverage, and keep the medical professionals I have come to trust with my health, unfortunately, we were lied to hand over fist to pass legislation so "we would find out what was in it." Imagine if your me for a second and you pay 126 bucks a month on your USAA Auto Insurance Plan, this provides full coverage for both your vehicles and even your desert toys with a $500 deductible. Now imagine if someone told you that you have to take this new plan because they said so that requires me to pay 500 a month, won't cover my desert toys, and the deductible is now $1000. And I have to do this because there are people out there who can't afford their own insurance so I have to help them pay for it. It's not like I am going to get a raise tomorrow and I have made things work very well thus far with a single income family that barely makes over 50% Area Median Income and now I have to factor a bunch of extra money into my monthly expenditures and I can't even insure my desert toys now. Not everyone has Auto insurance now, hell, not everyone even drives. But not everyone has healthcare now, hell, some people don't want it. I think in a very misguided effort to promote "fairness" they've made things very unfair. The people that work have to pay for those that don't. I don't want to subsidize someone else's insurance and they certainly shouldn't have to subsidize mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
And as for the silly website that everyone is complaining about: Maybe they shouldn't have opted to outsource the jobs, contracts, and money to another country. Or to a company where a bunch of the ACA's supporters friends work.
Right or Left, Everyone is crooked. Attachment 5918
I think this is wishful thinking at best, man. Now it's mandatory coverage or fines. The insurance companies can still charge whatever the fuck they want for whatever plan they offer, the difference now is that I no longer have the choice to ignore that without paying a fine. The ACA equalizes the costs alright, its equalizes the costs by putting the burden on everyone that has an income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Despite the WOT and run on sentences, I get what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Times are tight. Money is tight. We all feel that.
But we do pay taxes to our own government rather than a foreign power which is the basis of our country.
When you speak about "everyone is crooked" I take that as no faith in either party! If that is the case what is the solution? What can be more fair than American politics?
Exactly. The ACA puts the burden on EVERYONE. It helps those who do not meet the poverty level, and America actually has a poverty level believe it or not, so no one can take advantage of the healthcare system.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Look into it. The law is actually pretty solid.
No one can take advantage of the system because the cost of the policies and the lack of coverage by them succeeds in making the cost of health care even more unaffordable. If you think no one can game the system, you are beyond stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Oh, and adding a bunch of consumers to a system that is already over worked and tight on supply does not drive down costs.
I have no faith in either party. One the one hand, I don't care for the Republicans hardline stance on social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, neither of which are anyone's fucking business but the people involved. But on the other hand, I don't care for the Democrats going on a spending spree after harping on Bush and all the money He blew going to war and then starting little wars themselves. I didn't care for the Patriot Act but now we've got the NSA and the Drone Wars. I'd like to see our border secured, not because I think illegals are going to steal jobs, but because the Drug Cartels have been largely ignored by the current administration and more people have died in more horrible ways than Iraq and Afghanistan combined in just the last couple years. If we're going to go to war, why not help out Mexico? You know? Our immediate neighbors...Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I think LESS GOVERNMENT would be a lot better. It's cheaper and we have enough incompetent and petty people living off the taxpayer's dime as it is.
Basically, I am tired of all of it.
It must suck for you folks that the ACA effects. Glad mine is free.
It must be tough being unable to defend your own arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
The only issue I find with this statement is that you are forgetting the MILLIONS of people who are here illegally who already are taking advantage of the healthcare system. People who don't pay taxes and send a lot of the money they do make outside of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I don't know why you bother arguing with Back.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
MSNBC could report tomorrow that HHS has decided that anyone over 70 with a chronic disease was going to be put down to save money, and Back would be like, "Look, ACA is working on reducing medical costs! I told you Obama would fix everything"!
He is just a troll. I can't honestly think of a single person other then him that doesn't know that Millions of people's plans have been cancelled due to ACA. Nor that most people are seeing a price increase. ~HE~ isn't so it must not be tho.
As far as illegals, we need to make up our mind. Do we want them or not?
It's not actually that we want them or not.. it's what are we going to do with them. The right thing to do would be to kick them all out and have them apply to enter the country legally.. to follow our rules and laws. Logistically though, that will never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/wp-conten...06/clown13.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
See, that is something I'm not sure on. They do things that our fine young Americans refuse to do for the price. While you and I put our life on the line for a measly 400grand (And more, honestly, but that is what we were worth as far as payments to our loved ones.) these guys are hard workers for far less than minimum wage. They don't ask for workman's comp or any if that. We wouldn't have any illegals if we stopped hiring them, but we do. We give them jobs. This is something that goes across party lines, because both parties are guilty of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They are automatically entitled to worker's compensation regardless of status. And if they die, their families are entitled to the statutory death benefits even if the family resides in another country. And if the family can't be located, then the death benefit is paid into the state-run uninsured workers fund.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I've never served and have never put my life on the line like you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And I'm not talking about what they do after they get here.. I'm talking about them essentially cutting the line and taking an illegal approach to getting into this country verses following our laws to gain citizenship.
You and I both know that many of the illegal aliens do not get this type of treatment. They are paid below minimum wages and if they are hurt, they are sent packing for fear of getting exposed as an illegal alien.Quote:
Originally Posted by msconstrew
They are treated like farm animals.. easily disposable.
I agree with you 100%, and I think it is sad and unfortunate. I'm just correcting Gelston's statement about WC. We've paid quite a lot of undocumented workers over the years and continue to do so. One thing I will say is that they are much less likely to malinger than citizens and are usually eager to get back to their dangerous, usually-crappy jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It really isn't correcting my statement if you agree with him. Yes, they can refuse to acknowledge those workers as being their workers and brush it under the carpet. That is what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by msconstrew
What you said was that they don't ask for it. They might not, but they are entitled to it. And at least here they are not reported as illegal because the state cares more about them getting compensated than their legality. Plenty of them DO get compensation, especially if they work on farms (here obviously, I'm not commenting on other states where I don't practice).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And I agree with you, too, because they do do jobs that Americans don't want to do and are poorly-compensated for that work, which is often dangerous.
How many know they are entitled though? How many people know that they can refuse police searches of their vehicles? I'm just saying, most illegals will be more afraid to ask for it then a legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by msconstrew
I can't comment on what they do or don't know. I do know that there are posters all around larger employers' break areas in both English and Spanish informing them that they are entitled to WC regardless of citizenship because we mandate that they inform the workers. I'm assuming it's a statutory requirement since insurers usually don't like paying money if they don't have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I've never seen them in Texas or Louisiana. Perhaps they say citizenship, but not legality of being in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by msconstrew
We're so progressive here! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Damn Yankees.Quote:
Originally Posted by msconstrew
Pretty sure I mentioned the uninsured being a factor in insurance pricing multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Immigration reform is next. Believe it or not most illegals do pay taxes. They may use fake SS numbers and claim 5 dependents but they still pay federal, state, SS, and medicaid taxes if they get a paycheck and never file for a tax return. Thats a whole lot of revenue for the government. Sure some are paied under the table, not just illegals actually, but I'd wager most are on the books.
The only reason I can see NOT to make them all legit is then they will all file tax returns and we won't have tax revenue surplus.
So you're thinking that the buyers are the supply and the policies are the demand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
This is untrue. Any business that hires anyone still has to follow the labor laws of this country which means paying at least minimum wage. Sure, some places may pay cash under the table to avoid having to pay them minimum wage, but I bet those companies are very few and far between.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It seems to me that if every last person with a living wage has to buy insurance that competition for their money will increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
Or they'll know it is required and collude to set an industry wide price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
But capitalism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It is Capitalism when you have a choice to NOT buy a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is being ignored here, correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
LOL at you bringing up a living wage now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Since you want a living wage so bad, I am sure you pay all your employees at LEAST 15$ an hour to work at your hotdog stand, right?
I still can't believe you think that if minimum wage is say 15 an hour, that prices won't go up for every single thing we buy. Yes, including insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
How many car insurance companies are there?Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
And owning a car is what sort of requirement? You can choose to not have a car. You can ride a bus. You can walk. You can ride a bike. The ACA is a requirement no matter what you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Your blind allegiance to corporate sponsored propaganda is perplexing because I give most people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them actually having a brain that produces original thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
How many people are required to own a car?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Fuck you Gelston, right in your mouth hole.
If you want to drive you have to have car insurance. But that was not the argument. The argument was if 250 million people are going to pay for healthcare the insurance market will be more competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
As for the ACA requirement that everyone has to have heath insurance... think of it this way. Everyone will need to see a doctor at some point in their lives.
Not for all the dollars on Earth buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
You aren't required to drive, however if you are alive and living in the US, you are required to buy a product. Get the difference? It won't be more competitive. The Insurance companies will collude and keep prices at a certain price... Just like cable, just like car insurance (it could be a LOT cheaper), just like any other item for sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
These companies exist to make as much money as possible, and they will.
There is a N word that exists for people like you, and no, I don't mean the racist one.
You're mixing up the arguments. But thats beyond my control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yes, the companies will make money, just like any product. But just like any product there will be competition. Just like flatscreen tvs. Or anything really.
No, I'm not mixing up anything at all. You don't think the health insurance companies won't collude and set a minimum price? Look at the history of everything, it happens. Look at gas prices. You don't think Gas Company A couldn't sell for a lot less? They could. They don't want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Business is business. Money is money. It doesn't matter what industry.
Sure, there will be an industry wide price standard, but just like with anything, it will be based on the cost of producing the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And you are REQUIRED to buy this product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You are going to buy it at some point in your lifetime. Unlike a TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Do you know what the term capitalism is? Do you know what freedom is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I don't appreciate your line of questioning. I think you are getting a little over emotional about our conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I don't appreciate you telling me that you think it is right that the Government is FORCING me to buy a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I would argue that nature is forcing you to buy healthcare, not the government. Your teeth are forcing you to see a dentist. Your hair forces you to go to the barber. Your toenails force you to buy a toenail clipper. Well, maybe not those last two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No, none of that is. If I want to be a slob, I should have that right. The Government isn't my mother telling me to go see a dentist, cut my hair, or trim my toenails. That is stuff *I* decide to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You have the right to be miserable but I bet if you broke a bone you wouldn't refuse to go to the hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The government isn't making everyone buy pet rocks. The government is equalizing the costs of an essential service for all Americans.
You don't know me buddy. I've refused to go to medical for a lot of things even when it was free to get taken care of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I like how you keep arguing about how it is right for the government to force citizens to purchase something.
I've broken several and not gone to the hospital....fingers and toes heal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You're still not understanding supply and demand and you're trying to relate a requirement to a choice (health insurance v choosing to drive a car and following those requirements). Now if you said we should make everyone buy car insurance even if they don't have a car or plan to drive then sure you could, more easily, lump them together as comparable.
I think most people are like that. My argument about the broken bone was a poor one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
What I am arguing is that everyone will need to see a doctor at some point. Except for some super human exceptionally lucky people all of us at some point will visit a hospital. Healthcare is not a frivolous thing. It's not a luxury. You are born in a hospital. And there is a good reason for that.
Then why should I be required by the Government of these United States to buy a product? If I need to go to a doctor, I'll pay when I go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So give people the CHOICE to get healthcare. I'm all for healthcare being available for everyone but as a choice not a fucking requirement. Or are you not pro-choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
The "you were born in a hospital" portion of your post is pretty poor and tacked on. We got along just fine being born outside of hospitals didn't we? Or did we die out as a species and we're v2.3.6? What about all of those births that don't happen in a hospital today are they excluded from the healthcare purchase requirement?
Healthcare should be free but someone has to pay for it. Again I would argue that it is not the government making you buy a stuffed bear. Nature will land you in the hospital at some point in your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yeah, lets take a huge step backwards. That will be great for our infant mortality rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
So you're not pro-choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
If someone has to pay for it then it's not free. Since you feel strongly that healthcare should be free go to medical school and then open a care clinic. Charge nothing, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I wonder if the amish have to buy in to the ACA...
But he can't. You need a license to act as a doctor.... Oh, sorry, that isn't free.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling
C'mon, man. Please don't turn into another guy on these boards who leaps to illogical conclusions based on backward ass assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnticorRifling