Obamacare...why the big deal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

BOOM headshot65:
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

Typical ignorant American...

-French troops ended the civil war in Ivory Coast for instance.
-The French spearheaded the military action to stop Khadaffi from massacring the insurgents against his regime, the UK joined in the fun not hours later and together, saved Benghazi.
-France spends $ 7,8 milliards a year and has over 100.000 uniformed troops on various peacekeeping missions around the world, mostly stability forces in African countries.
-I myself went to Afghanistan as part of a Dutch armed force that did a lot better a job than the untrained Americans grunts that got sent there. Just before I got there, a force not 100 strong, amounting in the end to about 500, aided by brave Afghan militia members defeated over 800 Taliban fighters (who also gangpressed civilians to fight for them) in the Battle for Chora. It saw days of crazy streetfighting
-Ditto for Iraq. When our mission was about to withdraw at the end of the mission, the governor of Al Muthanna province pleaded the Dutch government to extend the mission, literally citing "Otherwise I'll get Americans instead".

Comparing, what did the US do in terms of ending wars?

Uhm... I cannot really come up with any examples from the last 50 years. Wasn't there a small American intervetion in Haiti were they mopped up a few rioters for a few days? That's not a war though, so it doesn't count. Apparently the US hasn't ended any wars in the past 50 years.

That's a pretty lousy track record considering the US military spent the past half century setting the world on fire, causing the Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Iraqi Civil War, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Vietnam, the war in Korea, and those are just the major ones.

BOOM headshot65:
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.

Those were mostly rhetorical questions, I know they're not going to fucking happen. But to address defense spending, we have enough ordnance to take out the entire fucking solar system. We're buying shit we're never going to use and the defense contractors keep defrauding us because they know they can get away with it. And to address the War on Drugs, it's a multi-million dollar boondoggle that isn't actually making us any safer at all. It's actually further destabilizing Mexico and giving the cartels more power.

OT: Because government beurocracy ruins everything it gets its grubby little hands on and I would rather not have that happen with health care.

Fifty bucks says when you qualify for Medicare you will happily take that card.

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.

And if there aren't any in my region? What then? I'm shit outta luck? What if my employer doesn't work with such a company?

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

You're not... fucking... listening. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words? Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care. It's blood money.

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.

From the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can't really have any of those, especially life, if I'm dying of cancer because the insurance company denied my claim because they decided the tumor was a pre-existing condition.

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

When the day comes that you take that Medicare card, I'll be there to say, "I told you so."

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).

How does that justify the annual gross increases in military spending, buying equipment and technology that we're never going to use?

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.

So the logic there is, "It's only part of a solution and wouldn't solve the entire problem, so let's not even fucking bother." Brilliant! Let's only look for magic bullets to our problems. Can't see that going wrong.

And for fuck's sake, I said public option. Meaning you don't have to take it if you don't want it. Sheesh, why is it so many people opposed to single payer healthcare miss this simple point?

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.

I don't fucking care. All I know is that the for-profit insurance industry is a goddamn cartel. We need a public option to keep them from completely screwing us.

BOOM headshot65:
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.

So you think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going well for us?

If I got a tax hike so we could pay for MORE military, I would not complain.

What would we need more military for? It's called national defense, not the Ministry of Blowing Up Foreigners Who Look at Us Funny.

Well then, I guess we have a different definiton of "going fine". We are taking drug users and sellers off the streets.

Question: How much of a threat to society is a guy with an honest dayjob who sparks up on weekends and watches Lord of the Rings in his house?

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.

So the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms doesn't actually police alcohol, tobacco and firearms? Just pot?

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.

Because in America, we don't believe in silly things like rehabilitation, second chances, and having already paid your debt to society. We just want blood!

BOOM headshot65:

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.

I'm sure the folks trying to end the latest round of massacres in Africa will be happy to hear the US is so benevolent, seeing how we're sitting that one out.

The US Army is NOT Captain America.

BOOM headshot65:

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.

O_O

....You know, when us Filthy Libruls use phrases like "the Prison-Industrial Complex", we kind of hope anyone will understand that THIS IS A BAD THING. It's YOUR tax money going to keep stoners locked up, yaknow, and our ridiculous War On Some Drugs is one of several things that's left the USA with a larger portion of its population in prison than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.

DrVornoff:

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

You're not... fucking... listening. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words? Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care. It's blood money.

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.

From the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can't really have any of those, especially life, if I'm dying of cancer because the insurance company denied my claim because they decided the tumor was a pre-existing condition.

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

When the day comes that you take that Medicare card, I'll be there to say, "I told you so."

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).

How does that justify the annual gross increases in military spending, buying equipment and technology that we're never going to use?

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.

So the logic there is, "It's only part of a solution and wouldn't solve the entire problem, so let's not even fucking bother." Brilliant! Let's only look for magic bullets to our problems. Can't see that going wrong.

And for fuck's sake, I said public option. Meaning you don't have to take it if you don't want it. Sheesh, why is it so many people opposed to single payer healthcare miss this simple point?

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.

I don't fucking care. All I know is that the for-profit insurance industry is a goddamn cartel. We need a public option to keep them from completely screwing us.

"Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care."

Yes...and? I don't see how that is blood money. With African-diamonds yes people have a right to not be worked to death in a mine and then have the diamonds used to finance kidnapping children and making them join militias that burn down villages. With Health Insurance they arent doing anything like that. Again you do not have a right to be healthy, nobody can ever guarantee that right.

"From the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can't really have any of those, especially life, if I'm dying of cancer because the insurance company denied my claim because they decided the tumor was a pre-existing condition."

Well a tumor technically IS a pre-existing condition (ie you had it before you got insurance). The idea with health insurance is to get it before you get sick and to go without it is a risk. Also yes the Constitution says you have a right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. It doesnt say you have the right to be healthy (though its preferable to be healthy obviously) and it doesnt because there is no way the government or anyone else could guarantee that. Also even if you had health insurance there is no reason to think that is going to keep you from dying when it comes to cancer. Both my grandmothers had health insurance, both got cancer and both died from it. With one of them all radiation did was prolong her suffering.

"How does that justify the annual gross increases in military spending, buying equipment and technology that we're never going to use?"

I ask Sweden the same question about their air force. All joking aside though its preferable to not have to use a weapon but the United States actually does use our weapon systems more than most countries do. If a weapon system saves a soldier's life I think that more than justifies the cost. Not that the military couldnt do with a little fat trimming but its about to suffer a lot of pretty severe cuts over the next 10 years thanks to Obama and the idiots in Congress (from both parties).

The public option is what we can't afford and yes i would support cutting a lot of those things you said but until we get our financial house in order it doesnt make any sense to start coming up with new entitlement programs that you can't cut because if you try to one party or the other tries to demagogue you about it. Like I said, we don't need another sacred cow in the budget.

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

Seekster:

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

So I suppose it's okay if the terrorists blow up innocent people in their attacks...after all, dogs bark, businesses make profits, terrorists blow up innocent people...it's what they do.

So, no. "You can't fault someone for doing what's expected of them" is a really, and I mean really bad argument.

As I said many times before, to a private insurance company, your health isn't a concern, it's a problem. And it's a disgrace that people defend such attitudes.

I love that we live in a country where if you work hard to earn a benefit, such as health care, and your employee doesn't like you spending that benefit on things you want, such as contraceptives, tough shit, your boss gets to decide what health care you and your doctors want for you.

If you get a special tax break, but only if you are married, and heterosexually marred, and only to one person, there's no problem with government coercion into that specific lifestyle. It's allowed to make a 'individual mandate' on that lifestyle because it believes it's for the 'greater good', because that's the lifestyle churches like.

Republicans are totally cool with 'individual mandates' when it's a corporation or church telling us all what to do.

But if you get a special tax break that you can only apply if you purchase insurance, and failure to purchase insurance means you have to give that money back (what a surprise), a tax break you did jack shit to earn other than exist and make enough money, then suddenly it's "Whaa, the government is telling me how to live my life".

If states, who can't afford this shit on their own, are offered billions of dollars, as long as they don't discriminate against people, for no other reason than they need that money (it's not like the states send congress 10,000 sex slaves a week or some shit to earn it) that suddenly the federal government cutting the check is in the wrong for asking them to not discriminate with the money they sent them.

"Whaa, the government is telling me I can't discriminate against people! It's a state's rights issue to discriminate! Whaa, I want my right to discriminate!"

Eat shit, Republicans. I'm done with the lot of you.

Seekster:

"Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care."

Yes...and? I don't see how that is blood money. With African-diamonds yes people have a right to not be worked to death in a mine and then have the diamonds used to finance kidnapping children and making them join militias that burn down villages. With Health Insurance they arent doing anything like that. Again you do not have a right to be healthy, nobody can ever guarantee that right.

This rationalization needs to jog right the fuck on. "You don't have a right to... but I have a right to..." is the dumbest rationalization ever for anything, ever.

Because guess right. You don't have a right to life. You have no rights unless you, or I or the all of us together can physically safeguard them.

So fuck your right to whatever you want. A right doesn't amount to a steaming pile of dog shit, if somebody cracks your head open with a bat if we decide not to prosecute.

Republicans talk a bit game about what rights 'they' have. But they love denying anybody any rights they don't personally need.

They want us to safeguard their rights and shit, but it never goes the other way. You want us to defend your right to life? Then you defend our rights too.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

So I suppose it's okay if the terrorists blow up innocent people in their attacks...after all, dogs bark, businesses make profits, terrorists blow up innocent people...it's what they do.

So, no. "You can't fault someone for doing what's expected of them" is a really, and I mean really bad argument.

As I said many times before, to a private insurance company, your health isn't a concern, it's a problem. And it's a disgrace that people defend such attitudes.

Here's the thing that pisses me off about those sentiments. People are people. They can think about their fucking actions and how they effect one another. So they deserve full consequences when their actions harm another person.

My dog's trainable. If my dog barks enough until it wakes people up in the middle of the night, I have to fucking train it not to, or I have to give up my dog. I can't just go "Me and my dog are unthinking entities! There's no WAY to stop him barking, officer! I'm sorry, but the neighbors are just going to have to get used to having dog shit and pot holes in their yard and having my dog wake them up at the crack of dawn!"

Yeah, right.

If corporations are unthinking profit monstrosities governed not by people but by greed, if they're some sort of unthinking force of nature, you've given me absolutely all the fucking evidence I need to regulate the living fuck out of them at all hours.

Because apparently they're too fucking unthinking to do it themselves.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

So I suppose it's okay if the terrorists blow up innocent people in their attacks...after all, dogs bark, businesses make profits, terrorists blow up innocent people...it's what they do.

So, no. "You can't fault someone for doing what's expected of them" is a really, and I mean really bad argument.

As I said many times before, to a private insurance company, your health isn't a concern, it's a problem. And it's a disgrace that people defend such attitudes.

Its illegal to kill people, not to mention unethical.

Damien Granz:

This rationalization needs to jog right the fuck on. "You don't have a right to... but I have a right to..." is the dumbest rationalization ever for anything, ever.

Because guess right. You don't have a right to life. You have no rights unless you, or I or the all of us together can physically safeguard them.

So fuck your right to whatever you want. A right doesn't amount to a steaming pile of dog shit, if somebody cracks your head open with a bat if we decide not to prosecute.

Republicans talk a bit game about what rights 'they' have. But they love denying anybody any rights they don't personally need.

They want us to safeguard their rights and shit, but it never goes the other way. You want us to defend your right to life? Then you defend our rights too.

Thats cute and all but the partisan talk about parties was unnecessary (not to mention untrue but ill let that go).

You have the right to look after your own health sure but you do not have an absolute right to an product or service.

Now I think we all want to make health insurance more affordable but all this talk of you having a right to private product is absurd. You have the right to purchase it sure and I completely agree that we need to reform our healthcare system but what we can't agree on is the best way to do that.

Seekster:
"Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care."

Yes...and? I don't see how that is blood money. With African-diamonds yes people have a right to not be worked to death in a mine and then have the diamonds used to finance kidnapping children and making them join militias that burn down villages. With Health Insurance they arent doing anything like that. Again you do not have a right to be healthy, nobody can ever guarantee that right.

So you see absolutely nothing morally wrong with leaving an innocent person for dead in the name of profit?

Well a tumor technically IS a pre-existing condition (ie you had it before you got insurance). The idea with health insurance is to get it before you get sick and to go without it is a risk.

And suppose I didn't get the diagnosis until after I got my insurance and they still deny my claim. What then? Am I supposed to just hurry up and die so I'm not wasting anymore time and resources?

Also yes the Constitution says you have a right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. It doesnt say you have the right to be healthy (though its preferable to be healthy obviously) and it doesnt because there is no way the government or anyone else could guarantee that.

So if I'm dying of an illness through no fault of my own, my rights are null and void?

Also even if you had health insurance there is no reason to think that is going to keep you from dying when it comes to cancer. Both my grandmothers had health insurance, both got cancer and both died from it. With one of them all radiation did was prolong her suffering.

There's some seriously wrong when you're talking to a Slovak and he is less defeatist than you.

I ask Sweden the same question about their air force. All joking aside though its preferable to not have to use a weapon but the United States actually does use our weapon systems more than most countries do.

Probably because we spent the last 10 years picking fights. Point remains, there's not a lot of call for jet fighters and tanks anymore. Yet we're still wasting money buying more of them than we'll ever need.

If a weapon system saves a soldier's life I think that more than justifies the cost. Not that the military couldnt do with a little fat trimming but its about to suffer a lot of pretty severe cuts over the next 10 years thanks to Obama and the idiots in Congress (from both parties).

Are you kidding? Military spending is still increasing, just at a slower rate. This exactly what Eisenhower was warning us about.

Also, a weapon saving a single soldier's life is worth the cost. But a medical procedure paid for through a public health care program that saved an innocent civilian's life... wasn't worth the cost. Jesus, that is a depressing analysis.

The public option is what we can't afford and yes i would support cutting a lot of those things you said but until we get our financial house in order it doesnt make any sense to start coming up with new entitlement programs that you can't cut because if you try to one party or the other tries to demagogue you about it. Like I said, we don't need another sacred cow in the budget.

You may not think so, but just blathering on about entitlement programs does not convince me. The budget issues can be solved and we can still have universal health care. It's not an either/or deal.

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

Not everything needs to turn a profit. You go on and on about how no one can guarantee your health but that's not the issue. The issue is that I'm being denied care when I am injured or ill in the name of profit. Privately owned insurance is akin to a racketeering operation and is morally indefensible. To hand-wave it away as, "Businesses make profit, that's what they do," is to miss the point so spectacularly I have to wonder if you are deliberately misrepresenting the argument.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
"Private insurance companies turn a profit by denying you care."

Yes...and? I don't see how that is blood money. With African-diamonds yes people have a right to not be worked to death in a mine and then have the diamonds used to finance kidnapping children and making them join militias that burn down villages. With Health Insurance they arent doing anything like that. Again you do not have a right to be healthy, nobody can ever guarantee that right.

So you see absolutely nothing morally wrong with leaving an innocent person for dead in the name of profit?

Well a tumor technically IS a pre-existing condition (ie you had it before you got insurance). The idea with health insurance is to get it before you get sick and to go without it is a risk.

And suppose I didn't get the diagnosis until after I got my insurance and they still deny my claim. What then? Am I supposed to just hurry up and die so I'm not wasting anymore time and resources?

Also yes the Constitution says you have a right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. It doesnt say you have the right to be healthy (though its preferable to be healthy obviously) and it doesnt because there is no way the government or anyone else could guarantee that.

So if I'm dying of an illness through no fault of my own, my rights are null and void?

Also even if you had health insurance there is no reason to think that is going to keep you from dying when it comes to cancer. Both my grandmothers had health insurance, both got cancer and both died from it. With one of them all radiation did was prolong her suffering.

There's some seriously wrong when you're talking to a Slovak and he is less defeatist than you.

I ask Sweden the same question about their air force. All joking aside though its preferable to not have to use a weapon but the United States actually does use our weapon systems more than most countries do.

Probably because we spent the last 10 years picking fights. Point remains, there's not a lot of call for jet fighters and tanks anymore. Yet we're still wasting money buying more of them than we'll ever need.

If a weapon system saves a soldier's life I think that more than justifies the cost. Not that the military couldnt do with a little fat trimming but its about to suffer a lot of pretty severe cuts over the next 10 years thanks to Obama and the idiots in Congress (from both parties).

Are you kidding? Military spending is still increasing, just at a slower rate. This exactly what Eisenhower was warning us about.

The public option is what we can't afford and yes i would support cutting a lot of those things you said but until we get our financial house in order it doesnt make any sense to start coming up with new entitlement programs that you can't cut because if you try to one party or the other tries to demagogue you about it. Like I said, we don't need another sacred cow in the budget.

You may not think so, but just blathering on about entitlement programs does not convince me. The budget issues can be solved and we can still have universal health care. It's not an either/or deal.

The goal of a business is to make a profit. Faulting a business for making a profit (legally) is a bit like faulting a dog for barking...its what they do.

Not everything needs to turn a profit. You go on and on about how no one can guarantee your health but that's not the issue. The issue is that I'm being denied care when I am injured or ill in the name of profit. Privately owned insurance is akin to a racketeering operation and is morally indefensible. To hand-wave it away as, "Businesses make profit, that's what they do," is to miss the point so spectacularly I have to wonder if you are deliberately misrepresenting the argument.

Wrong yes it does seem wrong but so does forcing someone to cover cancer treatment that may not work anyway, meanwhile rates go up to pay for it and this means other people with less means now can't afford health insurance for other things or perhaps they have to make cuts to other things to be able to afford health insurance. This isnt an easy fix.

No no my view is if they promised to cover something they should cover it or give you your money back.

You have a right to live sure but there is no cure for cancer, if there was then yes you would have an argument that you have a right to that cure.

When the budget issue is solved and we actually have money that is our own money and not something we borrowed then we can talk about other things to spend it on that are going to require regular spending. Borrowing money is fine if its for short term things like say building some infrastructure project that eventually will pay for itself. We shouldnt be borrowing money to pay the salaries of government bureaucrats.

Seekster:
Now I think we all want to make health insurance more affordable but all this talk of you having a right to private product is absurd. You have the right to purchase it sure and I completely agree that we need to reform our healthcare system but what we can't agree on is the best way to do that.

Again, blah blah with the 'rights' you have.

"It's absurd you think you have the right to a private product.", well I think it's absurd capitalists think they have a right to the land and resources of our nation, that you think you have the right to turn a public product that nobody owns into a private product that only you own and that only you can dictate what happens to it, but you don't seem to think that way either.

It seems like the case of one side claiming something they didn't own as theirs, then claiming they had some god given right to it, and that nobody else can take it from them, then bitching if somebody else wants anything of it.

It seems like you're trying to use the concept of a right to basically rationalize anything you do as correct, and that somebody doing the same thing but not in your favor as wrong.

Here's the thing. You can only own something, including your own life, because other people let you. Because other people stood by you and defended that right against anybody else that would take it, legitimizing it.

Other people let you because it's mutually beneficial to them to do so, with the assumption that you'd do the same back. And now you're beating them on the head with something they gave you. And it's tiring and stupid.

Seekster:

That's cute and all but the partisan talk about parties was unnecessary (not to mention untrue but ill let that go).

You have the right to look after your own health sure but you do not have an absolute right to an product or service.

Thank you for your permission King Seekster. I'm glad that some people have the absolute right to claim shit that we all own and build wealth off of it, but that same right isn't transferred to nobody else. Without a hint of irony.

If it seems like you're making shit up to get your way, that's exactly what you're doing.

Damien Granz:

Seekster:
Now I think we all want to make health insurance more affordable but all this talk of you having a right to private product is absurd. You have the right to purchase it sure and I completely agree that we need to reform our healthcare system but what we can't agree on is the best way to do that.

Again, blah blah with the 'rights' you have.

"It's absurd you think you have the right to a private product.", well I think it's absurd capitalists think they have a right to the land and resources of our nation, that you think you have the right to turn a public product that nobody owns into a private product that only you own and that only you can dictate what happens to it, but you don't seem to think that way either.

It seems like the case of one side claiming something they didn't own as theirs, then claiming they had some god given right to it, and that nobody else can take it from them, then bitching if somebody else wants anything of it.

It seems like you're trying to use the concept of a right to basically rationalize anything you do as correct, and that somebody doing the same thing but not in your favor as wrong.

Here's the thing. You can only own something, including your own life, because other people let you. Because other people stood by you and defended that right against anybody else that would take it, legitimizing it.

Other people let you because it's mutually beneficial to them to do so, with the assumption that you'd do the same back. And now you're beating them on the head with something they gave you. And it's tiring and stupid.

Seekster:

That's cute and all but the partisan talk about parties was unnecessary (not to mention untrue but ill let that go).

You have the right to look after your own health sure but you do not have an absolute right to an product or service.

Thank you for your permission King Seekster. I'm glad that some people have the absolute right to claim shit that we all own and build wealth off of it, but that same right isn't transferred to nobody else. Without a hint of irony.

If it seems like you're making shit up to get your way, that's exactly what you're doing.

You are talking philosophy then, I am talking about the law and by extension the Constitution.

Also I would appreciate if you didn't try to judge me as you are so off its insulting.

I am looking at the Constitution and there is nothing in there about people having a legal right to health insurance. Thats not to say that they cannot at some point in the future be extended that right but at present if you want health insurance you have to buy it just like everyone else does.

Seekster:

You are talking philosophy then, I am talking about the law and by extension the Constitution.

Also I would appreciate if you didn't try to judge me as you are so off its insulting.

I am looking at the Constitution and there is nothing in there about people having a legal right to health insurance. That's not to say that they cannot at some point in the future be extended that right but at present if you want health insurance you have to buy it just like everyone else does.

Congress has the right to charge you taxes, and has the right the right to charge you extra taxes (or fail to give you a 'break', which are logically the SAME THING) if you fail to meet certain criteria.

Want proof? You pay extra taxes if you are single. You would be calling that an individual mandate that people get married, if it was health care.

But I don't see anybody taking the idea that there's an individual mandate for marriage to the SCOTUS.

I don't see anybody taking the fact that if you get your money in stocks rather than cut as a paycheck you pay half as much taxes on it (and only pay those taxes at ALL if you get payed out in cash rather than in more stocks or generic goods such as 'benefits'), as an 'individual mandate' you must own stocks.

But it's the. Same. Goddamn. Thing.

So if I owe extra money at the end of the year (or fail to catch as many breaks, if you want to see it that way, which is a matter of semantics) for being unmarried due to legally being unable to marry, and if I owe extra money at the end of the year for being too poor to invest all my money in stocks and live off that fat of that, that's not an individual mandate to change my lifestyle.

But if I fail to catch an extra break at the end of the year, or if I owe extra money at the end of the year (again, which are the same thing, so take your pick), because I didn't buy insurance, then suddenly that is?

Bull. Shit.

Here's the implication, if Congress loses this battle. It no longer has the ability to spend money on anything, ever again.

If it cuts you a check for being in the military, that's an individual mandate suggesting you work for the military!

Shit, that's a 20,000 dollar a year in losses if I fail to meet that mandate, which has to speak louder than a mandate of 95 dollar a year in losses!

Congress can also no longer tariff or tax goods that come overseas either. After all, if I lose 95 dollars a year in taxes on foreign oil as opposed to domestic, that's JUST AS STRONG an individual mandate I buy American gas!

If Congress tries to build a tank, that's a 15,000 dollar a year individual mandate that I work in a factory building tanks, and that's just me as a line worker! Think of the billion dollar a year individual mandate to corporations to be in the business of making tanks!

Seekster:
Wrong yes it does seem wrong but so does forcing someone to cover cancer treatment that may not work anyway, meanwhile rates go up to pay for it and this means other people with less means now can't afford health insurance for other things or perhaps they have to make cuts to other things to be able to afford health insurance. This isnt an easy fix.

First of all, boo fucking hoo. I place more value on human life than some dickhead CEO's Christmas bonus.

As for costs of healthcare, pointing to rising costs is a bit moot since they're going up anyway. We already spend more on health care per capita than every country except Cuba. Ever stop to think why that is? Here's a big chunk of the problem: there's more money in treating symptoms than causes. Making health care a for-profit industry was one of the worst ideas this country ever had.

What you seem to be forgetting is that no one is entitled to a profit in this country. You only have the right to attempt to make one. If you can't, too bad. For all your complaints about government entitlement programs, why aren't you more against corporate entitlement?

No no my view is if they promised to cover something they should cover it or give you your money back.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They are not legally obligated to do that.

You have a right to live sure but there is no cure for cancer, if there was then yes you would have an argument that you have a right to that cure.

There is treatment for it though. I have a right to that treatment.

We shouldnt be borrowing money to pay the salaries of government bureaucrats.

As opposed to paying out of your own pocket now to pay the salaries of privately employed bureaucrats?

Damien Granz:

Here's the implication, if Congress loses this battle. It no longer has the ability to spend money on anything, ever again.

Now you are just being silly.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Wrong yes it does seem wrong but so does forcing someone to cover cancer treatment that may not work anyway, meanwhile rates go up to pay for it and this means other people with less means now can't afford health insurance for other things or perhaps they have to make cuts to other things to be able to afford health insurance. This isnt an easy fix.

First of all, boo fucking hoo. I place more value on human life than some dickhead CEO's Christmas bonus.

As for costs of healthcare, pointing to rising costs is a bit moot since they're going up anyway. We already spend more on health care per capita than every country except Cuba. Ever stop to think why that is? Here's a big chunk of the problem: there's more money in treating symptoms than causes. Making health care a for-profit industry was one of the worst ideas this country ever had.

What you seem to be forgetting is that no one is entitled to a profit in this country. You only have the right to attempt to make one. If you can't, too bad. For all your complaints about government entitlement programs, why aren't you more against corporate entitlement?

No no my view is if they promised to cover something they should cover it or give you your money back.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. They are not legally obligated to do that.

You have a right to live sure but there is no cure for cancer, if there was then yes you would have an argument that you have a right to that cure.

There is treatment for it though. I have a right to that treatment.

We shouldnt be borrowing money to pay the salaries of government bureaucrats.

As opposed to paying out of your own pocket now to pay the salaries of privately employed bureaucrats?

Nobody is entitled to good health either but people are entitled to do what they see as necessary to ensure their good health (within the law of course).

Also please stop with the "oh boohoo" bit. Its immature and not helping your case any.

Well ok then we can agree that if an insurance company says they will cover something then thats is a breach of contract if they dont cover it.

You have a right to pursue that treatment, you do not have an absolute right to the treatment itself.

I don't see how the last sentence has anything to do with what I said.

Damien Granz:

Congress has the right to charge you taxes, and has the right the right to charge you extra taxes (or fail to give you a 'break', which are logically the SAME THING) if you fail to meet certain criteria.

Want proof? You pay extra taxes if you are single. You would be calling that an individual mandate that people get married, if it was health care.

But I don't see anybody taking the idea that there's an individual mandate for marriage to the SCOTUS.

This is an interesting observation. It appears then, that the only reason people are up in arms about the HC bill is that the incentives are framed as punitive fines instead of beneficial tax-deductions. Given that the effective difference between the two (that I can think of at the moment) is nonexistent, I am currently hard pressed to think of a way to reject the bill without rejecting most, if not all, tax deductions.

But then I'm sure someone in capitol hill has thought of this already, so there must be a reason why they chose to try to implement this policy in this particular way.

I actually just had a long conversation with a friend about healthcare, and we both think that it would be a better idea to drop the traditional insurance framework for a more HMO structured system. That way we would still get the benefits of people pooling luck and resources to make sure that everyone can get decent coverage... but there is still some sense of accountability so people have a better understanding of the costs of the procedures and medicines they want.

Seekster:
Nobody is entitled to good health either but people are entitled to do what they see as necessary to ensure their good health (within the law of course).

I'm not buying it. I judge the morality of a society based on how it treats its least fortunate. And right now, the US is seriously lagging.

And stop me feeding me that line of bullshit that no one is entitled to health care. The doctors are not the ones who turn people away. The doctors help whoever asks for it. It's the people who leave the clinic with no treatment when they learn that they can't afford medicine.

Also please stop with the "oh boohoo" bit. Its immature and not helping your case any.

Stop trying to convince me to show any sympathy for a bunch of heartless vampires.

Well ok then we can agree that if an insurance company says they will cover something then thats is a breach of contract if they dont cover it.

Unfortunately, the law currently says that it isn't. The insurance companies have a labyrinthine bureaucracy full of exceptions, loopholes and whatnot that allow them to constantly weasel out of having to pay claims based on the flimsiest of excuses. Combine that with the ridiculous money and influence held by the industry's lobby and we see the law actually favoring them over the people.

You have a right to pursue that treatment, you do not have an absolute right to the treatment itself.

"But so what if he dies? If he's going to do it he'd better do it quick and decrease the surplus population."

I don't see how the last sentence has anything to do with what I said.

You said "pay the salaries of government bureaucrats." The only difference between that and the current system is who employs the bureaucrats.

Really though I should have point out that we do have government bureaucrats running health care. It's called Medicare, and it's pretty damn popular. Even people who hate the government take Medicare when they qualify for it.

Or if your argument is not so much "government can't do anything right" demagoguery and is rather a purely pragmatic economic one, it still falls apart. Over 50% of all bankruptcies in the US occur because people can't afford their medical expenses. And the majority of those people do have health insurance. I'm not an economist, but I'd be inclined to think that finding a way to reduce the number of bankruptcies in the country would be pretty damn good for the economy.

DrVornoff:
Fifty bucks says when you qualify for Medicare you will happily take that card.

Nope, I am going to find out what investments my grandpa and Economics teacher made. They are both eligable for medicare, but dont have it because they have made money off of good investment...the military pensions probly help too. (Grandpa was Navy and Econ teacher was Army)

And if there aren't any in my region? What then? I'm shit outta luck? What if my employer doesn't work with such a company?

You could always start your own. Go to the bank and get a small business loan. Tell people you wont deny them coverage. Get the word out that your not like the other companies. File as a non-for-profit organization. Problem solved.

Plus, I dont get health insurance from my employer, so I dont see what the big deal is. Dont like that? Find another job. No job fits what you want? Create your own. Thats the beauty of a capitalist society.

So you think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going well for us?

Yes, they were, but I am starting to lose faith in Afghanistan. My only regret is that we cant evacutate the women, children, and thier families and let the warlords tear themselves to shreads. Maybe now we can turn our sites a little westward and ask Assad if he REALLY wants to keep killing his own people to keep power.

What would we need more military for? It's called national defense, not the Ministry of Blowing Up Foreigners Who Look at Us Funny.

Its called "Global Interventionism."

So the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms doesn't actually police alcohol, tobacco and firearms? Just pot?

No, but alot of the cops I have talked to say the ATF is taking over the smaller time roles that the DEA had, while the DEA moves on to bigger operations closer to the US-Mexico border.

Because in America, we don't believe in silly things like rehabilitation, second chances, and having already paid your debt to society. We just want blood!

No, I want users on rehab...it should just be part of thier prison sentence. (From what I have seen, the low security prisons they are sent to are actually pretty good, and they can move freely around). The sellers get long term sentences in high security prisons (hope they enjoy barred windows), and the kingpins in mexico...I know of afew things that we could do to them:

Take your pick.

arbane:

I'm sure the folks trying to end the latest round of massacres in Africa will be happy to hear the US is so benevolent, seeing how we're sitting that one out.

Oh no. I want us to step in to those too. When I say we should have a zero tolerance for genocide, I mean we should have a FRICKING ZERO TOLERANCE FOR GENOCIDE!

The US Army is NOT Captain America.

And that, quite frankly, makes me sad.

O_O

....You know, when us Filthy Libruls use phrases like "the Prison-Industrial Complex", we kind of hope anyone will understand that THIS IS A BAD THING. It's YOUR tax money going to keep stoners locked up, yaknow, and our ridiculous War On Some Drugs is one of several things that's left the USA with a larger portion of its population in prison than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH.

And if I can, when I am out of college, It wont just be my money, it will be my own bare hands. I would gladly join the local sheriff department or the ATF (some police buddies said the ATF hires more than the DEA). From what I have seen, most people arrested for possesion are sent to low-security prisons. These have no barred windows, no razer-wire fences, and much more openness for people to move around freely (unlike in high-security where you are in a cell 24/7)

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

You're rich/middle class, white and suburban aren't you? Live inside a city and you'll find that most people in a big city don't own cars. I didn't own a car for nearly a decade.

OT- If you are poor in the US you can qualify in a lot of cases for Medicare. It is a pain in the ass to get and really cuts back on your options. Unfortunately, it is really stringent on how to get it, and keep it.

I find it interesting that in this country, the more money you have the cheaper things are. Have a really good job, cheaper insurance. Good credit, lower monthly payments on cars and houses. I was told when I bought a car recently that my payments would be $275. If I had good credit or more money, it would have been $150.

DrVornoff:
-snip-

*sighs* You are set in your ways and I get that but please dont act all indignant about this, it really makes it hard to look at what you have to say as anything other than an emotional response, then again maybe it is an emotional response.

Thomas Guy:

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

You're rich/middle class, white and suburban aren't you? Live inside a city and you'll find that most people in a big city don't own cars. I didn't own a car for nearly a decade.

OT- If you are poor in the US you can qualify in a lot of cases for Medicare. It is a pain in the ass to get and really cuts back on your options. Unfortunately, it is really stringent on how to get it, and keep it.

I find it interesting that in this country, the more money you have the cheaper things are. Have a really good job, cheaper insurance. Good credit, lower monthly payments on cars and houses. I was told when I bought a car recently that my payments would be $275. If I had good credit or more money, it would have been $150.

The problem is that there's little actual regulation on the prices, for a service that in most of the country you absolutely need to get a job. Especially as the most common jobs are now entry level 'at will' employment where they expect you to have no life outside the job and to come in at a shift at all hours of the day, where you might not have time to deal with mass transit even if it exists, which it doesn't universally.

Work in a rural area, or even in a poor suburban area (there are plenty of places that 'used' to be nice and suburban but can't keep up maintenance and have turned to trashy areas. Not all urban decay happens in a city), and you likely don't have a mass transit system worth mentioning.

And you absolutely need a car (or a very reliable friend) to get anywhere, unless you happen to find a job next door.

Insurance payments can easily hit over 300 dollars a month. One of the 'credit' checks they do is 'has this person previously had insurance'. Not 'did he miss or fail his payments' just 'has he ever canceled his insurance'.

Spent a few years without a car due to tight budget? Even if you payed all your dues up to where you left off? Your premium's gone up almost as much as if you drove your car into a bus full of children drunk.

Try affording that, rent, water, sewage, gas, gas for the car, electricity, car payments, and all the mundane repairs and shit you have to do to any of that, in an entry level position or being underemployed because nobody's hiring for anything else.

You might be able to do it single while twiddling your thumbs between work shift to work shift. Good luck starting a life in that situation.

Seekster:

Damien Granz:

Here's the implication, if Congress loses this battle. It no longer has the ability to spend money on anything, ever again.

Now you are just being silly.

I'm not. If they pay a wage, they're encouraging people to drop what they're doing and take that job. It's a mandate. Sure you can 'choose' not to, but then you're out 12,000 dollars a year.

The government isn't forcing you to buy insurance. They're forcing you to have a smaller deductible in taxes if you don't. You can choose to not buy insurance, but then you get less of a break in taxes.

If getting less of a break in taxes = paying more money = a mandate, then realistically and mathematically any time you lose money (or fail to get money) from the government, it's a mandate.

If you earning potentially $95 dollars less a year (in tax breaks) = a mandate, then SURELY you earning a minimal of $12,000 dollars less a year is one too.

What's that? You can live without the 12,000 dollars extra being a government employed janitor would bring in? You have freedom to do something else? Wow, cool.

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like, that if I went into a restaurant, sat down, ordered my food, ate it, then saw on the bill, that if I washed my own dishes, I'd get half price off the meal I already ate, and then bitched that it was taking my freedom away to not have to wash dishes.

You can choose to walk out and pay the normal fare for dinner like everybody else.

BOOM headshot65:

Because in America, we don't believe in silly things like rehabilitation, second chances, and having already paid your debt to society. We just want blood!

No, I want users on rehab...it should just be part of their prison sentence. (From what I have seen, the low security prisons they are sent to are actually pretty good, and they can move freely around). The sellers get long term sentences in high security prisons (hope they enjoy barred windows), and the kingpins in mexico...I know of afew things that we could do to them:

Hah, no they don't. They just go to jail, where they're a drug seller or user, while in jail. We have too many private prisons in this country who don't get payed by the rehabilitated prisoner, they get payed by the number of asses in cots and the amount of labor they can provide.

They don't go no fucking where.

You end their ability to make a legal living, and place them in a place where they can learn all sorts of new criminal trades.

So they leave the legal workforce because they smoked pot, waste taxpayer money for 8-10 years, and leave that to enter an illegal workforce doing crime. Probably still on the same drugs the whole fucking time.

Prison doesn't rehabilitate drug users, it makes career criminals out of them.

BOOM headshot65:
Nope, I am going to find out what investments my grandpa and Economics teacher made. They are both eligable for medicare, but dont have it because they have made money off of good investment...the military pensions probly help too. (Grandpa was Navy and Econ teacher was Army)

Gold star for you. Where does that leave everybody else?

You could always start your own. Go to the bank and get a small business loan. Tell people you wont deny them coverage. Get the word out that your not like the other companies. File as a non-for-profit organization. Problem solved.

What a load of horseshit. Bub, I can't get a loan at all. I'm in my 20's, a struggling artist, and still paying off my goddamn student loans.

So what's your solution now?

Plus, I dont get health insurance from my employer, so I dont see what the big deal is. Dont like that? Find another job. No job fits what you want? Create your own. Thats the beauty of a capitalist society.

An overly simplistic talking point. I've been trying since 2007 to get a business off the ground. But I can't get any capital because the work-a-day world does not value my skill set. Plus, we're in a recession right now. I haven't given up, but the fact remains that I'm in a position where I have to take shit jobs, usually with no benefits, only to be fired months later for petty office politics or because they decided they can either get a high school kid to do my job for cheaper or, the classic US management mantra, any job that can be done by two people can be done by one for half the cost.

In the case of my previous employer, it was all of the above. In the last 4 months I worked there, they doubled my workload, but didn't increase my pay by even a penny. They fired me over a new rule that they didn't bother to tell me about and invented a loophole to guarantee that they could label me a thief, making it impossible for the union to get me my job back. And nowhere else is hiring right now, so I'm waiting for the weather to break so I can go busking again.

Do you think I want to be in this position?

Yes, they were, but I am starting to lose faith in Afghanistan. My only regret is that we cant evacutate the women, children, and thier families and let the warlords tear themselves to shreads. Maybe now we can turn our sites a little westward and ask Assad if he REALLY wants to keep killing his own people to keep power.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how any of that was anything other than a colossal waste of life, time and resources.

Its called "Global Interventionism."

Against who? Lex Luthor? We're outspending every nation in the world combined. Nobody needs that much ordnance.

No, but alot of the cops I have talked to say the ATF is taking over the smaller time roles that the DEA had, while the DEA moves on to bigger operations closer to the US-Mexico border.

And this means what to me?

No, I want users on rehab...it should just be part of thier prison sentence.

You do realize there is no such thing as pot addiction, right? Heroin, yes. Marijuana, no.

(From what I have seen, the low security prisons they are sent to are actually pretty good, and they can move freely around). The sellers get long term sentences in high security prisons (hope they enjoy barred windows),

Have you heard about the state of the private prisons a lot of these guys are being sent to? And if you haven't, were you aware just how difficult it is to get a job if you've been convicted for possession alone?

The prison system in America is a mess. We don't focus on rehabilitation, just convict labor. One of my favorite singers, Peter Steele, was sent to prison a few years back for getting drunk and beating up the guy his girlfriend was cheating on him with. When he got out of prison, he said that all it did was give him time to lift more weights and talk to other inmates who taught him how to steal cars. That's pretty much the entire prison experience in the US: it teaches you to be a better criminal. Especially since it's so much harder to get a job once you have a conviction on your record, it pretty much guarantees you'll turn to either social safety nets or criminal activities in order to make ends meet. And don't even get me started on how much of a fuck-up the private prison industry has been.

and the kingpins in mexico...I know of afew things that we could do to them:

Take your pick.

Yeah. That'll happen.

Seekster:
*sighs* You are set in your ways and I get that but please dont act all indignant about this, it really makes it hard to look at what you have to say as anything other than an emotional response, then again maybe it is an emotional response.

There is an emotional element to this because I find it outrageous that I am being told that my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only applies until someone can make a profit off of it. I believe that access to affordable health care is a right, not a privelege and no private corporation should be allowed to take that away from me.

Thomas Guy:

Stagnant:
*sigh* And both of you miss my point. Not everyone has car insurance, but everyone who owns a car has it. A car is, in most parts of the country, absolutely necessary, to the degree where living without one is nearly impossible.

You're rich/middle class, white and suburban aren't you? Live inside a city and you'll find that most people in a big city don't own cars. I didn't own a car for nearly a decade.

I'm upper lower class and rural, and you'll find that the vast majority of Americans don't live in cities.

The gist of the Obamacare clusterfuck is this: we're a first world nation spending more than twice as much as any other country (by percentage of GDP) on healthcare, and yet fully one in seven Americans is (or was) completely uninsured. We can't switch over to a universal healthcare model because we're clearly beholden to corporate interests in these sectors. We needed a compromise that worked on several fronts within the existing system to expand coverage and lower costs.

Apparently it was a four step process.

1) You make it illegal to deny coverage. This allows everyone to get insurance. Of course this really hurts the bottomline for those insurance companies, which leads us to

2) You make it mandatory for all citizens. This equates to roughly 50 million new customers for the privatized (and happy) insurance industry. Of course you have to

3) Subsidize the cost for anyone who can't afford the shit. This means vouchers and exceptions paid for by our taxes, which doesn't help our deficit much unless we

4) Foster competition between the insurance companies. The last bit, which hasn't gone into effect yet, is the creation of insurance exchanges in each state that will function as open markets to (theoretically) generate competition and lower prices.

You could tell it was sound, intelligent reform because everyone hated it.

The insurance companies hated it because they were suddenly being forced to pick up all these "risky" assets (aka insure people who might actually fucking need healthcare). Big business was also fairly disinterested in the notion of legitimate open market insurance exchanges. They'd rather fuck us collectively than compete amongst themselves for our benefit.

Right wing citizens hated it because they were being forced to purchase product from a privately owned and operated industry, which probably violates our constitutional rights. The subsidies for lower income folks would also further inflate the deficit. Left wing citizens hated it because there was still no public option. We were still lining the pockets of the corporations just to obtain what most first world countries consider a basic human right.

The end result is a piece of extremely unpopular legislation, but everyone seems to hate it for different (and idealogically incompatible) reasons. I'm sure it'll be completely torn down, piece by piece, over the next several years, and then we'll try something else. We may even, at some point, come to terms with the real problem here: for-profit healthcare is simply immoral. People here talk big game about death panels and long waits in other countries, but we're the ones with committees and boards composed of businessmen and women denying coverage to apparently expendable people in the name of the almighty dollar. It's inhumane on its face, and no amount of debate really changes that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked