Obamacare...why the big deal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Aris Khandr:
Sooooo...... pass a law making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against customers. Problem solved, and no questions of constitutionality.

You see this is where I think most people who say "Oh it's unconstitutional" don't have a clue what they're talking about. It's true some things are unconstitutional, like say Abe Lincoln proclaiming marshal law since only Congress can do that, but to say that the government can't do this would've been an argument back in the 50's. However in the Preamble it says that the Government will work toward the common good, and combined with the elastic clause which says to do anything necessary and proper for people, this is interpreted as part of this. This was decided a LOOOOOONG time ago and it seems to be a bit late now to start complaining about it.

Anyway, the whole idea is that if everyone pays into a health insurance plan that the cost for health insurance will go down, thus making it more affordable for everyone.

The big deal is Americans don't like being told we have to buy something like health insurance without conditions. If the mandate were "if you do x then you have to buy health insurance" but the mandate as it stands (and it very well may be declared unconstitutional in June) requires you to buy health insurance without condition. As Justice Kennedy observed, if the individual mandate is constitutional then the power of the federal government is theoretically limitless. It means that the federal government can compel you to buy anything it feels is in the best interest of the country for you to buy.

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told we have to buy something like health insurance without conditions.

While I fully agree that the constitutionality of the individual mandate is up for debate, I really hate this argument ... that Americans "don't like being told" things. Tough titty. Sometimes, Americans (and I'm one of them) need to grow the fuck up.

There are plenty of reasons that this or any law should be questioned and debated; this notion that Americans "don't like being told" certain things is not one of them.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told we have to buy something like health insurance without conditions.

While I fully agree that the constitutionality of the individual mandate is up for debate, I really hate this argument ... that Americans "don't like being told" things. Tough titty. Sometimes, Americans (and I'm one of them) need to grow the fuck up.

There are plenty of reasons that this or any law should be questioned and debated; this notion that Americans "don't like being told" certain things is not one of them.

Agreed, sometimes Americans should just suck it up - *cough*Libertarians*cough* - I don't think this is one instance where it is so. Certainly, privatized healthcare has flaws that need to be patched, I don't think requiring that people buy something is one of them. As Seekster said, if it were conditional (For instance, "If you smoke" or something) then it would be a different ballgame. But someone like myself for instance shouldn't be forced to buy into something for no other reason than "because".

Am I correct in the fact that the questions being ask relate to the Fed regulating State commerce, since insurance companies can legally only operate within individual states.

If this is the case and the bill is deemed unconstitutional could they then not open up the borders for insurance companies, allowing them to compete across the border, making the matter interstate commerce, which would in turn would make the mandate constitutional, just as states requiring people to buy car insurance is.

pyrate:

I should rephrase that into a less broad statement, targeted preventative care that is done well is cheaper.

I'm not going to lie, some preventative care is more expensive, that is fact. Some however is cheaper, that is also fact. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you want to save money then you go with the stuff that has been proven to be cheaper.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

The NEJM should be good enough for you, they establish what we all know, some is more expensive, some is cheaper. As I said, it does not take a genius to work out that if you focus preventative care on areas where it will be cheaper you lower costs.

I have a few responses in mind and I don't know where I want to drag this. I think I'll go the less obvious route.

There's an unaccounted factor in the cost analysis, and that's time. I'm sure the doctors' time is pseudo-acknowledged in the cost assessment, but not the time of the patients. Preventative care depends theoretically on hitting the full sample size of at-risk people, and that's a lot of people spending the time to drive to whatever facility, wait in the waiting room, get treated, and drive back. I get back bad responses whenever I quote xkcd, but "if you spend nine minutes to save a dollar, you are working less than minimum wage." There's an opportunity cost in the time here, and that has economic consequences. I really have to stand by the hypothesis that it is not worth encouraging preventative measures on an economic basis. But that of course does not rule out the encouragement of preventative care for standard of living reasons. The "which is cheaper" question is less important if the two care options lead to very different results.

tstorm823:

pyrate:

I should rephrase that into a less broad statement, targeted preventative care that is done well is cheaper.

I'm not going to lie, some preventative care is more expensive, that is fact. Some however is cheaper, that is also fact. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you want to save money then you go with the stuff that has been proven to be cheaper.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

The NEJM should be good enough for you, they establish what we all know, some is more expensive, some is cheaper. As I said, it does not take a genius to work out that if you focus preventative care on areas where it will be cheaper you lower costs.

I have a few responses in mind and I don't know where I want to drag this. I think I'll go the less obvious route.

There's an unaccounted factor in the cost analysis, and that's time. I'm sure the doctors' time is pseudo-acknowledged in the cost assessment, but not the time of the patients. Preventative care depends theoretically on hitting the full sample size of at-risk people, and that's a lot of people spending the time to drive to whatever facility, wait in the waiting room, get treated, and drive back. I get back bad responses whenever I quote xkcd, but "if you spend nine minutes to save a dollar, you are working less than minimum wage." There's an opportunity cost in the time here, and that has economic consequences. I really have to stand by the hypothesis that it is not worth encouraging preventative measures on an economic basis. But that of course does not rule out the encouragement of preventative care for standard of living reasons. The "which is cheaper" question is less important if the two care options lead to very different results.

Well what do you think is going to be cheaper and less time consuming, picking up birth control that is being provided to you or having a baby, treating a foot infection in a diabetic patient, or cutting the foot off (this one actually surprised me when I found out that many insurance companies refuse to pay for foot care but will pay to have it amputated).

You also severely underestimate what is analyzed. Any half decent analysis on what is cheaper and what is not will at least mention opportunity costs. As a counter, a healthy person has much higher productivity and has a longer work life overall. When you prevent illness you are not only saving money in treatment costs, that person is no longer cooped up in hospital not contributing to the economy.

You would also note that I added that it had to be done well, at least at a competent level anyway, for it to work. If you have an inefficient preventative care system then of course it is not going to do much.

The best forms of preventative care are ones that people can do themselves. Government campaigns to lower rates of smoking, encourage increased fitness etc. For example, the system could save a tonne of money if people simply gave up high cholesterol butters instead of taking pills. The US system as a whole could save a lot of money by moving people off medication they don't need. The US uses far more than its share of drugs, so either the people are really really unhealthy compared to everyone else, or they are pushed onto drugs they really do not need.

pyrate:

Well what do you think is going to be cheaper and less time consuming, picking up birth control that is being provided to you or having a baby

Those do not have even close to the same outcome, and you're treating pregnancy as an illness... it slides because you gave a second example.

, treating a foot infection in a diabetic patient, or cutting the foot off (this one actually surprised me when I found out that many insurance companies refuse to pay for foot care but will pay to have it amputated).

You would also note that I added that it had to be done well, at least at a competent level anyway, for it to work. If you have an inefficient preventative care system then of course it is not going to do much.

The best forms of preventative care are ones that people can do themselves. Government campaigns to lower rates of smoking, encourage increased fitness etc. For example, the system could save a tonne of money if people simply gave up high cholesterol butters instead of taking pills. The US system as a whole could save a lot of money by moving people off medication they don't need. The US uses far more than its share of drugs, so either the people are really really unhealthy compared to everyone else, or they are pushed onto drugs they really do not need.

And now we are well off of the preventative vs reactionary treatment debate and well into the "US health standards are garbage" agreement section. But this is something that requires us to try and change people's minds, not their insurance plans. As good an arguement as it may be, I'm sure I've never seen someone quit smoking because of the high taxes on it. Monetary incentives are useful tools, but I'm sure the PSA campaigns have done more help than high tobacco costs. I don't think everyone being insured does anything to discourage people from taking unnecesary pills or getting piss drunk twice a week for 10 years. Moreover, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to try and spread that information, as there's an insidiousness to the idea of them using my money to shape my opinions, but I think this is the responsibility of health experts and anyone with the information and oppurtunity to spread good advice.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told we have to buy something like health insurance without conditions.

While I fully agree that the constitutionality of the individual mandate is up for debate, I really hate this argument ... that Americans "don't like being told" things. Tough titty. Sometimes, Americans (and I'm one of them) need to grow the fuck up.

There are plenty of reasons that this or any law should be questioned and debated; this notion that Americans "don't like being told" certain things is not one of them.

Uh yeah it is. Power should always be in the hands of the people not in the government.

The main problem with the individual mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy a private product without conditions. If they can constitutionally do that then that would make the Federal government's authority limitless in theory anyway (always the chance the courts could overrule themselves later but until then).

Seekster:
Uh yeah it is. Power should always be in the hands of the people not in the government.

Way to miss the point, dude. The idea that we "don't like being told things" has nothing to do with power and everything to do with so many things tweaking our alleged bootstrappy sensitivities.

Seekster:
The main problem with the individual mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy a private product without conditions. If they can constitutionally do that then that would make the Federal government's authority limitless in theory anyway (always the chance the courts could overrule themselves later but until then).

No shit, theory. Again, the idea of an individual mandate should be called into question to weigh its constitutional veracity, not because it hurts Americans' fee-fees.

pyrate:
Am I correct in the fact that the questions being ask relate to the Fed regulating State commerce, since insurance companies can legally only operate within individual states.

If this is the case and the bill is deemed unconstitutional could they then not open up the borders for insurance companies, allowing them to compete across the border, making the matter interstate commerce, which would in turn would make the mandate constitutional, just as states requiring people to buy car insurance is.

I think this is the main issue. It's not the federal government that mandates car insurance, it's the states. Why? Because the feds don't have that authority under the Constitution, so SCOTUS is looking to see if this would fall under the same circumstances.

Theoretically, yes, they could make this an interstate commerce thing through what you mentioned. But right now, it's not, thus there's a case to decide Obamacare's constitutionality.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
Uh yeah it is. Power should always be in the hands of the people not in the government.

Way to miss the point, dude. The idea that we "don't like being told things" has nothing to do with power and everything to do with so many things tweaking our alleged bootstrappy sensitivities.

Seekster:
The main problem with the individual mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy a private product without conditions. If they can constitutionally do that then that would make the Federal government's authority limitless in theory anyway (always the chance the courts could overrule themselves later but until then).

No shit, theory. Again, the idea of an individual mandate should be called into question to weigh its constitutional veracity, not because it hurts Americans' fee-fees.

Fine what was your point then?

Its not about the individual mandate hurting American's feelings its about whether or not the government Constitutionally has that kind of power. If it does then there are few powers it does not have.

Seekster:

Fine what was your point then?

Go back and read it.

Seekster:
Its not about the individual mandate hurting American's feelings its about whether or not the government Constitutionally has that kind of power. If it does then there are few powers it does not have.

No shit. I just posted that. Which is why "Americans don't like to be told blah blah blah" is thoroughly irrelevant.

As far as i can see it, either you need individual mandate, make it so that ER's can turn away people with no insurance information (or loads of cash) on their person, or go full blown single payer.

Going back to what was before the ACA simply won't work and ACA without mandate will destroy the health insurance industry.

Personally i can't see why americans are so set against goverment providing the bare minimum of required healthcare to everyone, and then having insurers be capable of providing more services for those who can afford them.

Completely biased opinion: I really want to donkey punch the moderate democrats over this shitstorm. The bill is a bullshit half-measure that does more harm than good. If it's upheld, everyone will be placated and we'll be stuck with this abortion. If it's stricken down then politicians will be too scared to push through a real health reform bill. Lose-lose.

LetalisK:
Completely biased opinion: I really want to donkey punch the moderate democrats over this shitstorm. The bill is a bullshit half-measure that does more harm than good. If it's upheld, everyone will be placated and we'll be stuck with this abortion. If it's stricken down then politicians will be too scared to push through a real health reform bill. Lose-lose.

i think its not really like that. the democrats original put forward something they knew the republicans would never ever go for. they knew it would be thrashed down to a shell of what it should be but i think they recognize that a small step in the right direction is better then no step at all.

if it is stricken i actually dont think it will be long before we see another health care bill that takes care of whatever issues there were, especially if the democrats win big in the election.

from the little i have heard. being a non american its not really important to me. but is it basically you either have health insurance or pay more tax/fines?

do these extra taxes go towards helping support the public health care system?

cause thats what my understanding of it is.

and if thats correct i dont see the issue. its like here everyone except for the lowest income earners pay 1% medicare tax and if you earn like 100k or more and dont have private insurance you pay an extra 1.5%.

seems fair to me either you pay health insurance and get out of the public system or pay to support the public health system for when you need it.

renegade7:
That was actually one of the most lucid arguments I've yet to hear. Seriously, I asked my parents and they launched into something about abortion, freedom of religion, and 'crack whores trying to take our tax dollars.'

Seriously? Jesus...

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told

Well hard cheese. This is one of the reasons I wanted a public option. When people complain about it, we have a precedent to tell them to quit their crying. Specifically, that precedent is this:

You don't want to drive on public roads? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You don't send your kids to public school? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You don't like Medicare because Glenn Beck told you it was socialism? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You're a pacifist and don't condone military action? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes.

Merkavar:
do these extra taxes go towards helping support the public health care system?

Outside of Medicare and Medicaid, we don't have a public health system. Our public health system is, "Don't get sick, asshole." All health care in the US before you turn 65 is based on privately owned for-profit insurance companies.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told

Well hard cheese. This is one of the reasons I wanted a public option. When people complain about it, we have a precedent to tell them to quit their crying. Specifically, that precedent is this:

You don't want to drive on public roads? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You don't send your kids to public school? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You don't like Medicare because Glenn Beck told you it was socialism? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes. You're a pacifist and don't condone military action? Too bad, pay your fucking taxes.

I think you have the wrong idea about me. The Public Option would have been constitutional sure but Americans to this day are strongly opposed to a government run healthcare system. Now if this was not a democratic system of government that wouldnt matter but it is and so it does matter.

The government cannot force a manufacture to make certain kinds of cars nor can it force consumers to only buy kinds of cars. It can however regulate what kinds of cars can be driven on public roads. If a manufacturer wanted to make a car that was say 10 meters wide it could and you could buy it, but you could not drive it off the lot onto a public road. You would need to have it taken to your property and you could drive it on land you own but you could not drive it on the public road. As such there isnt a lot of demand for a car that is 10 meters wide and so manufactures do not make them and consumers do not buy them. That is an example of the government exercising its power and influence in a proper manner.

Also I don't watch Glenn Beck and could care less what he has to say about Medicare or any other topic.

Yes we have to pay our taxes even if we do not agree with how they are spent. If the government wanted to replace the individual mandate with higher taxes to finance the rest of the Affordable Care Act then it most certainly could do that under the Constitution...of course higher taxes tends to be something that pisses Americans off...its been that way for a very long time.

You know I was kinda behind this whole : America getting a NHS (see the UK version)..

Now it seems that all Obama managed to get was to force people to pay more for somthing they can't afford and possibly don't want. If he actually was going to provide a service that poor people could use without having to go hungry I would be supporting it, but thats not the case..

This is a pointless act, I kinda hope the SC rules it out as unconstitutional..
But I'm British so it doesn't really matter to me..

reonhato:

i think its not really like that. the democrats original put forward something they knew the republicans would never ever go for.

I despise the republicans, but I don't completely blame them for the state of the bill. Democrats didn't need a single republican vote in either house to get this passed. Republicans did wage a PR campaign against the law, but it ultimately came down to blue dog pussies refusing to vote for a stronger law for fear of their constituents' reactions.

they knew it would be thrashed down to a shell of what it should be but i think they recognize that a small step in the right direction is better then no step at all.

I might agree with this sentiment if it weren't for the individual mandate in its current form. The only group the individual mandate benefits is the health insurance companies. The idea behind the mandate is that if more people get into the pool, costs will go down for everyone. That would work, like car insurance for example, if competition wasn't currently stifled in the industry by the government and more importantly from the companies themselves. At best, prices will stay the same. At worst, the health insurance industry will use this as a an excuse, like they've already tried, to raise prices. Having an individual mandate without a subsidized government option is just throwing consumers to the wolves. I have more issues with the individual mandate, but I'll keep this short.

if it is stricken i actually dont think it will be long before we see another health care bill that takes care of whatever issues there were, especially if the democrats win big in the election.

I hope you're right. I can't see a president or congress having the balls to tackle this issue again considering the shitstorm that happened last time and is still ongoing(which I admit I contribute to).

edit: fixed the quote tags

The idea behind the mandate is that once everyone is paying in, costs will increase slower, and it has the potential to lower costs in the mid to long term. The evidence for this is that every nation out there that has some form of universal healthcare(and surprising fact, few are close to 'socialized' apart from the UK), spends at MOST 12% of its GDP on healthcare related expenses, while in the US we are nearing 18%. We also have an estimated 30% administrative cost on top of every dollar we spend on healthcare whereas others have half that or less, with Taiwan leading at about 4%. Another example is that in Michigan, which has near universal care, has healthcare costs rising at half the rate as the rest of the US.

In the short term it is hard to say how it would play out. Since everyone is supposed to become insured, insurers will have an influx of cash, and hospitals will see way fewer patients that don't pay anything towards their bills. On the other hand a lot of people are suddenly going to have paid access to medical services that they didn't have before. The point I want to make is that it will take time for the full cost reduction effect to take time, just as it has elsewhere in the world. When other nations adopted their UHC laws it took a few years on average for prices and overall costs to reduce, but look at how they're doing now.

So how is it that other nations spend less and have near 100% healthcare for all? Because healthcare is something unique: when you walk into a store or car dealership with no money, you don't get anything, when you walk into the ER, you will get help and they only ask for payment after. Can't pay? oh well, you're free to go. This is why costs rise so much, because when someone gets thousands in bills and doesn't pay, the hospital has to regain that money or else not be able to afford staying open, thus the costs get passed onto others. Other nations realized that this led to hospitals having to raise prices, and since any basic procedure is now more expensive(to cover past and potential losses on nonpaying/uninsured patients), insurance companies need to charge higher premiums in order to pay the increased costs stay afloat. This is combated by having everyone pay into the system, so that even if someone is still using the system way more than they will ever pay in, the hospital is still getting some payment for their service and thus does NOT need to pass the costs onto others, or at least not as much if the insurer only does partial coverage.

A few weeks back there was a small documentary on healthcare in America, which found that about 5% of hospital patients in the US are responsible for about half of all medical expenses. Some of these high cost patients go to the hospital hundreds of times a year, rack up hundreds of thousands(and in some casts, millions) of dollars in bills, and don't pay. Now unless we want doctors to adopt a 'if you can't pay we will let you die on our doorstep' policy, it needs to be remedied, and some form of mandate, tax, or subsidy is how almost every other major nation in the worlds has solved it, except us, and it shows. We have the highest medical costs, only a midsized part of our population regularly sees a doctor, rank 30th among nations for average life expectancy, and are 29th in infant mortality rates. However the mandate bill isn't perfect.

The problem I have with the law as is lays in that I have yet to see or hear of helping the poor pay for their insurance if they can't afford it, they just add in exemptions. For those that argue that no other nation has a free system with just a mandate, look into Switzerland and you will find many similarities: an individual mandate that all must buy insurance, a few laws stating some specifics that need to be base requirements, and subsidies for the poor who can't afford it or are out of work. They have near universal care, higher life expectancy among other health ratings, higher average visits per person, but unfortunately are among those nations who are at the high end of 12% of GDP spent on healthcare as well as among the highest administrative costs per dollar(but still not our 30%). They literally have hundreds of insurers though, with dozens of assorted medical packages to pick on top of the minimal law required ones.

In all, yeah, that is just about what the mandate is about and why it is being pushed. Fun factoid: the individual mandate was introduced in the US by the Heritage Foundation(a right wing affiliated group) back in the 90s the last time our nation tried to do some health reform, sadly despite the right pushing for it on and off up til about 4 or 5 years ago it's anathema to them now. Ironically, if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, the main recourse to then implement UHC in the US is by expanding medicare to cover all or a new program similar to it and create a tax to fund it. Out of the frying pan, into the fire much? of course, we could just be exceptional and not ensure that all our citizens have wide ranging medical access.

*edit* one point to add, I recall the bill does cover making it so insurers can't deny people coverage, but that won't be enough by itself if the mandate alone is eliminated. If insurers must take anyone that asks but people aren't required, the very sick(aka the most expensive) will hop on if able, and most those that view themselves as healthy will still choose not to, or leave as costs rise. If the mandate does live on I foresee that some insurers may adopt a limit to how much medical expenses you can have in a year total on top of 'we will cover x amount/percent of a given procedure'.

Seekster:
The Public Option would have been constitutional sure but Americans to this day are strongly opposed to a government run healthcare system.

Which really punishes people like me who have a number of "pre-existing conditions" that would jack up our premiums unfairly and probably get us denied care when we need it anyway. And beyond that, I have a moral issue with being told that if I want health insurance, I have to give my money to those thieving jackals in the insurance industry.

Again, that's why I wanted a public option. I can opt into it if I want to. If they don't want, they can fuck off and do whatever. Besides, it's stupid to say that one is opposed to "government run healthcare" when most of the people doing so are either on Medicare or counting on it when they turn 65.

Also I don't watch Glenn Beck and could care less what he has to say about Medicare or any other topic.

It was a general "you" not a specific one.

Yes we have to pay our taxes even if we do not agree with how they are spent. If the government wanted to replace the individual mandate with higher taxes to finance the rest of the Affordable Care Act then it most certainly could do that under the Constitution...of course higher taxes tends to be something that pisses Americans off...its been that way for a very long time.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. If they had any sense, they'd just tax the rich a little more, because the money they need sure as shit isn't coming from me.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
The Public Option would have been constitutional sure but Americans to this day are strongly opposed to a government run healthcare system.

Which really punishes people like me who have a number of "pre-existing conditions" that would jack up our premiums unfairly and probably get us denied care when we need it anyway. And beyond that, I have a moral issue with being told that if I want health insurance, I have to give my money to those thieving jackals in the insurance industry.

Again, that's why I wanted a public option. I can opt into it if I want to. If they don't want, they can fuck off and do whatever. Besides, it's stupid to say that one is opposed to "government run healthcare" when most of the people doing so are either on Medicare or counting on it when they turn 65.

Also I don't watch Glenn Beck and could care less what he has to say about Medicare or any other topic.

It was a general "you" not a specific one.

Yes we have to pay our taxes even if we do not agree with how they are spent. If the government wanted to replace the individual mandate with higher taxes to finance the rest of the Affordable Care Act then it most certainly could do that under the Constitution...of course higher taxes tends to be something that pisses Americans off...its been that way for a very long time.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. If they had any sense, they'd just tax the rich a little more, because the money they need sure as shit isn't coming from me.

Let me get this straight, you have a moral issue with paying for a product or service? (to say nothing of the fact/opinion that the government are a bunch of thieves themselves).

Look its not just your government and besides its really not the government's job to cater to your every need. It would have to do so with the taxpayer's money and we are already running budget deficits like nobody's business.

They can tax the rich all they like, still isnt going to be enough to pay for a government run healthcare program.

StarCecil:

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:
The big deal is Americans don't like being told we have to buy something like health insurance without conditions.

While I fully agree that the constitutionality of the individual mandate is up for debate, I really hate this argument ... that Americans "don't like being told" things. Tough titty. Sometimes, Americans (and I'm one of them) need to grow the fuck up.

There are plenty of reasons that this or any law should be questioned and debated; this notion that Americans "don't like being told" certain things is not one of them.

Agreed, sometimes Americans should just suck it up - *cough*Libertarians*cough* - I don't think this is one instance where it is so. Certainly, privatized healthcare has flaws that need to be patched, I don't think requiring that people buy something is one of them. As Seekster said, if it were conditional (For instance, "If you smoke" or something) then it would be a different ballgame. But someone like myself for instance shouldn't be forced to buy into something for no other reason than "because".

I see two issues with this:

1) Morons in government would be constantly trying to define what exactly should qualify a person for having to buy health insurance. You just know some people would try arguing for stupid stuff to be a condition. Like "If you're gay you need to buy health insurance due to increased risk of HIV/AIDS infection" and then we'd all get into a big argument about asinine bullshit like that.

2) People who fall into those categories that people have decided they need to buy health insurance? You just know some of those bastards will start doing the same bullshit whining about "you're taking away my freedom!" as is going on here. So instead of one big pointless fight, you'll end up with several smaller pointless fights.

So really, in my view, the people complaining about "it's taking away our freedom to have to buy something like this" should just shut up and deal with it. You have to buy car insurance too, don't hear anyone bitching that out as being unconstitutional, saying it's tyrannical government overreach of power and demanding a Supreme Court case about it.

Honestly I'm really close to just deciding this entire outrage isn't over the policy itself and more over which particular President happened to propose it. I mean come on, polls show that people by and large love what Obamacare does, they just take issue with the mandate. And the Republicans, the main opposition to the bill? The individual mandate was their idea in the first place! But now that President Obama proposes it? Nope, suddenly it's evil.

Really this entire issue just makes me feel embarrassed for America, it really does.

Where better to post this than in a gamer forum^^

ReservoirAngel:
snip

I see your point, and I can't say I disagree, but I do have to say it's not the same as car insurance. Technically, liability insurance. The law is pretty clear; if you have a car you have to have liability insurance. I, for instance, don't have a car so I don't have liability insurance. I don't have to pay for something that I don't want to have, see?

Now, I do have health insurance through military service, but for the sake of argument let's say I didn't. I don't like to go to the doctor so often times I don't. I don't smoke or drink and I don't drive, so I really have no practical need I can think of to have health insurance, especially since I live paycheck to paycheck. Why, then, should I be made to purchase health insurance?

Why should the government be allowed to say that I have to pay for something out of my pocket for no reason other than because they said? And, perhaps more importantly, what next? Could they mandate that I purchase only American-made products? Or only Crest toothpaste?

At some point you have to draw the line at what the government is and is not allowed to do, I think I'd rather it be over a big deal than over a small deal.

In a politically neutral way? Okay, while Obamacare's individual mandate was a good measure since America does have an appalling number of uninsured, it provided no public option and hasn't done enough to make it easier for the impoverished to get insurance. I'm fine with the mandate, but it did nothing to combat how commercially dominated our healthcare system is, a problem that's been constantly dragging down this nation's quality of care for the average schmuck.

But, now if you'll allow me to speak politically, we should just cut out insurers all together and get a single-payer system, but at the same time i know that's not going to happen in my lifetime.

LetalisK:
Completely biased opinion: I really want to donkey punch the moderate democrats over this shitstorm. The bill is a bullshit half-measure that does more harm than good. If it's upheld, everyone will be placated and we'll be stuck with this abortion. If it's stricken down then politicians will be too scared to push through a real health reform bill. Lose-lose.

Word. I'm still cheesed at those spineless gits for caving on the public option.

Seekster:
Let me get this straight, you have a moral issue with paying for a product or service? (to say nothing of the fact/opinion that the government are a bunch of thieves themselves).

In the case of a company that puts a price on human life and turns a profit by denying you the service you need, then yes I fucking do. My mother is a medical transcriptionist, and every day she has new stories about people who had to go with less effective treatments or no treatment at all because the insurance company found an excuse to deny the claim. That's sick.

I have a moral problem with paying a for-profit insurance company for my health insurance for the same reason I won't buy an engagement ring if it has a diamond that came from Africa: it's blood money.

Look its not just your government and besides its really not the government's job to cater to your every need. It would have to do so with the taxpayer's money and we are already running budget deficits like nobody's business.

Don't put up a straw man with me. I believe that health is a right that all people should enjoy, not a privilege that can be revoked in the name of profit.

Besides, it's a hollow argument because as soon as you qualify for Medicare, I know you'll take it. Republican strategist Rich Galen was on Bill Maher last night and said himself that he's on Medicare and he loves having that government-run healthcare.

They can tax the rich all they like, still isnt going to be enough to pay for a government run healthcare program.

Yeah, I hear that talking point a lot, but never any actual evidence to support it. Why not cut defense spending? Why not end the War on Drugs? Why not cut out earmarks? Why don't we ask Congress to take a pay cut? There's a lot of things we could be doing, but we don't do any of it, because any proposed budget cuts that don't involve slashing social safety nets get called "socialism."

DrVornoff:
Yeah, I hear that talking point a lot, but never any actual evidence to support it. Why not cut defense spending? Why not end the War on Drugs? Why not cut out earmarks? Why don't we ask Congress to take a pay cut?

To answer that in order: Defense spending is a function of the government written down in the constitution, and is receiveing too many cuts as it is, The Drug War is working fine and helping keep drugs off the streets, completely fine with cutting out earmarks, but no congressman is going to do that for fear of political suicide, completely fine with congress taking a pay cut, but that isnt going to get close to covering the expenses to this.

OT: Because government beurocracy ruins everything it gets its grubby little hands on and I would rather not have that happen with health care. What people really need to do is take a good hard look at insurance companies. If they do something you dont like, do get insurance from them. I get mine from a small, local company that has rarely denies claims and is pretty close to be a non-profit company. People should try and find more of those.

BOOM headshot65:

DrVornoff:
Yeah, I hear that talking point a lot, but never any actual evidence to support it. Why not cut defense spending? Why not end the War on Drugs? Why not cut out earmarks? Why don't we ask Congress to take a pay cut?

To answer that in order: Defense spending is a function of the government written down in the constitution, and is receiveing too many cuts as it is, The Drug War is working fine and helping keep drugs off the streets, completely fine with cutting out earmarks, but no congressman is going to do that for fear of political suicide, completely fine with congress taking a pay cut, but that isnt going to get close to covering the expenses to this.

OT: Because government beurocracy ruins everything it gets its grubby little hands on and I would rather not have that happen with health care. What people really need to do is take a good hard look at insurance companies. If they do something you dont like, do get insurance from them. I get mine from a small, local company that has rarely denies claims and is pretty close to be a non-profit company. People should try and find more of those.

The US spends triple any other nation in Defense, the US Navy is larger than the next 13 largest navies combined, 11 of them are US allies. The US has the number 1 and number 2 Air Force in the world, this is possible because the US Navy has more air capability then the Air Force of any other country. I am pretty sure the US can afford to tighten the strings on spending a little bit.

As for the War on Drugs, it is clearly not working and it has a massive negative impact on the economy. The US has more people in jail than any other country, they have the highest jail rate per capita in the world. A large percentage of prisoners are in for minor drug 'crimes'. These people will never work a decent job again, more than half will either continue using drugs or turn to crime. If the War on Drugs was doing anything then the usage of drugs in the US would not be higher than other countries, but it is.

BOOM headshot65:

DrVornoff:
Yeah, I hear that talking point a lot, but never any actual evidence to support it. Why not cut defense spending? Why not end the War on Drugs? Why not cut out earmarks? Why don't we ask Congress to take a pay cut?

To answer that in order: Defense spending is a function of the government written down in the constitution, and is receiveing too many cuts as it is, The Drug War is working fine and helping keep drugs off the streets, completely fine with cutting out earmarks, but no congressman is going to do that for fear of political suicide, completely fine with congress taking a pay cut, but that isnt going to get close to covering the expenses to this.

OT: Because government beurocracy ruins everything it gets its grubby little hands on and I would rather not have that happen with health care. What people really need to do is take a good hard look at insurance companies. If they do something you dont like, do get insurance from them. I get mine from a small, local company that has rarely denies claims and is pretty close to be a non-profit company. People should try and find more of those.

typical republican bubble

the drug war is not working fine, you still have drugs on the streets and it ruins the lives of an uncountable amount of people just because they like to smoke pot. the defense budget has gone UP every year under obama and it will continue to do so, the only thing obama has done is reduce the amount it has gone up every year. if it was up to the liberals defense spending would be gutted. last year america made up 43% of the entire worlds military spending. if you were to cut military spending down to the same GDP level as countries like china, france, the UK then america would save about 300 billion dollars a year.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Let me get this straight, you have a moral issue with paying for a product or service? (to say nothing of the fact/opinion that the government are a bunch of thieves themselves).

In the case of a company that puts a price on human life and turns a profit by denying you the service you need, then yes I fucking do. My mother is a medical transcriptionist, and every day she has new stories about people who had to go with less effective treatments or no treatment at all because the insurance company found an excuse to deny the claim. That's sick.

I have a moral problem with paying a for-profit insurance company for my health insurance for the same reason I won't buy an engagement ring if it has a diamond that came from Africa: it's blood money.

Look its not just your government and besides its really not the government's job to cater to your every need. It would have to do so with the taxpayer's money and we are already running budget deficits like nobody's business.

Don't put up a straw man with me. I believe that health is a right that all people should enjoy, not a privilege that can be revoked in the name of profit.

Besides, it's a hollow argument because as soon as you qualify for Medicare, I know you'll take it. Republican strategist Rich Galen was on Bill Maher last night and said himself that he's on Medicare and he loves having that government-run healthcare.

They can tax the rich all they like, still isnt going to be enough to pay for a government run healthcare program.

Yeah, I hear that talking point a lot, but never any actual evidence to support it. Why not cut defense spending? Why not end the War on Drugs? Why not cut out earmarks? Why don't we ask Congress to take a pay cut? There's a lot of things we could be doing, but we don't do any of it, because any proposed budget cuts that don't involve slashing social safety nets get called "socialism."

So consistency check, do you have a problem paying money for food?

It is impossible for the government to guarantee the health of every citizen. Now yes the government can do anything within its power and authority under the constitution to promote the general welfare but no government can proclaim good health as a right, its not really up to the government.

My job gives me health insurance so I don't know about Medicare. Its not really a subject that interests me greatly.

Why do all those things for what? So we can have another entitlement program that becomes a sacred cow in the budget. Defense is the most basic job of the federal government and was the original reason the the States agreed to submit to a central authority (because state militias on their own would not cut it). We can talk all day about whether ending the war on drugs is a good idea or not (I tend to favor the war on drugs but its not an issue I have strong views on) but I highly doubt the potential savings from that are enough to buy everyone health insurance though sure it would help. I am all for cutting out earmarks and cutting pay to Congress...trouble is Congress doesnt want to vote to lower their pay. Though to an extent there are now some rules in place limiting earmarks. You are right though, we could do a lot more to cut our spending that we are not doing. Yes I think at the end of the day we will still need to raise taxes some to balance our budget. I can tell you this though, inventing a government run healthcare system is NOT going to help us balance our budget and get our financial house in order.

pyrate:
The US spends triple any other nation in Defense, the US Navy is larger than the next 13 largest navies combined, 11 of them are US allies. The US has the number 1 and number 2 Air Force in the world, this is possible because the US Navy has more air capability then the Air Force of any other country. I am pretty sure the US can afford to tighten the strings on spending a little bit.

The rest of the world doesnt have an obligation to do good. The US is the only military that steps in when the fur starts flying to try and end the wars, and we could certainly do more to that end. If I got a tax hike so we could pay for MORE military, I would not complain. Heck, I have actually said we should try and get war bonds going again so that people like me could give all the money we wanted to the military.

As for the War on Drugs, it is clearly not working and it has a massive negative impact on the economy. The US has more people in jail than any other country, they have the highest jail rate per capita in the world. A large percentage of prisoners are in for minor drug 'crimes'. These people will never work a decent job again, more than half will either continue using drugs or turn to crime. If the War on Drugs was doing anything then the usage of drugs in the US would not be higher than other countries, but it is.

Well then, I guess we have a different definiton of "going fine". We are taking drug users and sellers off the streets. And actually, one of my teachers said that if we were to stop the drug war, it would actually have a WORSE effect on our economy because we would have to fire all those DEA agents, ATF agents (which I am thinking of being one), factories shut down because they stop making weapons, boots, etc. And he was libertarian and against the drug war....yet he realized that stopping it would be worse. Really, if people are stupid enough to break the law so they can slowly kill themselves with drugs, I wont bat an eyelash when they are arrested.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked