ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

<dons safari hat, crouches in the brush, faces the camera>

Unable to provide an actual quote for his now apparent straw man argument, Symmetry digs in his heels.

Notice the completely irrelevant comment he last made. Judging from his past behavior, it is clear that a rational argument can no longer take place.

Symmetry is looking forward to a prolonged hissy-fit. Perhaps, it's a coping mechanism after realizing the faults in his previous argument.

[natty dread]

BBS, what happened to you? You seem to be increasingly acting with a sort of wanton hostility, like you don't really care anymore about the views of other people or reaching common ground, like you once used to. These days, you're more and more starting to resemble PhatStrike on their debating tactics, where you just repeat your point of view and twist everything to support your stance - that's not the cool-headed, rational BBS we're all used to.

Are you stressed? Having RL problems? I don't mean to pry, but it seems you could use a bit of taking some time to reflect, freshening your mind and looking at things from a new perspective...

Have you considered starting a hobby? I recommend badminton.

[BigBallinStalin]

<glances to the west, at 10 o'clock>

Crickey! It appears that another one has joined the fray!

After seeing his mate construct a weak position and falter to the ground, it appears that this Finnish creature has moved in... yes, he's standing protectively over the Symmetry.

He looks a bit rowdy! He's making all these weird "meh" "Meh" noises...

I'll keep you viewers at home posted.

[Night Strike]

Haha, but he is talking to PLAYER after all. Not "those who oppose your argument that government is always bad..."

Code: Select all

"You're assuming that those who oppose your argument that government is always bad, or as you put it "Everywhere I look, I see the government making things worse the more they get involved" are arguing that government is always good."

So he criticizes opponents for saying "government always does good", gets called out on it, and your argument is that it's ok if he only argued it to Player?

Okay...

This:

Perhaps YOU should take of the government-is-always-good blinders.

doesn't equal

this: " he criticizes opponents for saying "government always does good"

_______________________________________________________


If I have not missed his post where he explicitly stated what you claim he stated, then it seems that you're just making shit up.

If you look at player's posts, she is always clamoring for more government "solutions" and control, no matter what issue is being debated. Her choice is government instead of free market. Although there are many people who fight for more government instead of free market solutions and probably feel that the government does good (and that the free market is evil), my statement was specifically directed to player.

[Juan_Bottom]

I like Natty and Sym.

Don't get why some don't.

Spit.

[natty dread]

Awwwwwwwwwwww,

I like you too Juan.

Wanna be BFF:s?

[Symmetry]

Haha, but he is talking to PLAYER after all. Not "those who oppose your argument that government is always bad..."

Code: Select all

"You're assuming that those who oppose your argument that government is always bad, or as you put it "Everywhere I look, I see the government making things worse the more they get involved" are arguing that government is always good."

So he criticizes opponents for saying "government always does good", gets called out on it, and your argument is that it's ok if he only argued it to Player?

Okay...

This:

Perhaps YOU should take of the government-is-always-good blinders.

doesn't equal

this: " he criticizes opponents for saying "government always does good"

_______________________________________________________


If I have not missed his post where he explicitly stated what you claim he stated, then it seems that you're just making shit up.

If you look at player's posts, she is always clamoring for more government "solutions" and control, no matter what issue is being debated. Her choice is government instead of free market. Although there are many people who fight for more government instead of free market solutions and probably feel that the government does good (and that the free market is evil), my statement was specifically directed to player.

Nah, you're seeing what you want to see and drawing a conclusion which, if I'm being generous is hyperbole, and if I'm not, is actively dishonest.

I know for a fact that Player doesn't argue what you say she argues for in all her posts. But I'll give you a link, and perhaps you can check to see if you're being ridiculous or not:

Player's posts

[Night Strike]

Catholic Universities are starting to drop the policies they provide to students because of the explosion in premium prices and the contraceptive mandate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... -obamacare

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... -coverage/

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, maybe heathen universities will see higher attendance.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Hm, maybe heathen universities will see higher attendance.


--Andy

Great. A higher number of people getting ever crappier education yet a more encouraged senses of entitlement.

Just what society needs

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, maybe heathen universities will see higher attendance.


--Andy

Great. A higher number of people getting ever crappier education yet a more encouraged senses of entitlement.

Just what society needs

--Andy

[General Brock II]

you know what else, ive been watching these townhall explosions, and the media CNN namely is editing the crap out of them and distorting the whole thing. I had my "1984" moment and sat and watched in disbelief.

you know what else else? I think a good amount of people who are from countries with socialized/nationalized/gov't run healthcare, when asked how their system is there, even if it did suck, would not admit it, on camera. Not to mention you have to weigh the biased of how their feeling about America effect the answers to that question when comparing to americas system.

Definitely, Phatscotty. International sentiment by people who simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the essence of Obamacare believe it's a great thing. "Oh, it's splendid that the US finally has a universal healthcare system." They then naively believe that it'll run smoothly and efficiently like their own system. They don't realize that it's a 1,000 plus page document that's eentirely vague and beuraucratic, flawed and leaving extrardinary power with the government and certain pharmaceutical and other bureaucratic groups (not to mention vastly expensive).

Now, having been in the States, I'm familiar Canada's two-tiered system, the US' former system and I've read a bit of the Obamacare document.

And I'll be the first to admit that Canada's system is flawed to the core. It sounds quite good on paper, and everybody can herald the universal coverage of Canadians all they want, but that certainly doesn't mean that if I cut my fingers off, I won't be waiting around in the Emergency Room for five flipping hours! Recently, my Aunt was in an auto accident and her vertebra was crushed. Less than a week later, and barely walking, they sent her home! What the? They didn't promise her assistance or even equip her with a wheelchair, cane or walker.

Additionally, each hospital in a government run/sponsored system has a CEO who earns upward of $100 million annually. Why in blazes does each hospital need a CEO? Why aren't they grouped together under one CEO who makes one paycheque. The excess money can thus be dispersed where it's really needed (equipment, wards, beds etc.).

And what does Canada's health plan really cover? Not all that much.

[GreecePwns]

Again, Canada and the UK are the worst of the worst; stop cherrypicking data to fit your guys' premise. The model to look at is France.

[Night Strike]

Again, Canada and the UK are the worst of the worst; stop cherrypicking data to fit your guys' premise. The model to look at is France.

The one where the rich will soon be paying 75% in income taxes?

[thegreekdog]

you know what else, ive been watching these townhall explosions, and the media CNN namely is editing the crap out of them and distorting the whole thing. I had my "1984" moment and sat and watched in disbelief.

you know what else else? I think a good amount of people who are from countries with socialized/nationalized/gov't run healthcare, when asked how their system is there, even if it did suck, would not admit it, on camera. Not to mention you have to weigh the biased of how their feeling about America effect the answers to that question when comparing to americas system.

Definitely, Phatscotty. International sentiment by people who simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the essence of Obamacare believe it's a great thing. "Oh, it's splendid that the US finally has a universal healthcare system." They then naively believe that it'll run smoothly and efficiently like their own system. They don't realize that it's a 1,000 plus page document that's eentirely vague and beuraucratic, flawed and leaving extrardinary power with the government and certain pharmaceutical and other bureaucratic groups (not to mention vastly expensive).

Now, having been in the States, I'm familiar Canada's two-tiered system, the US' former system and I've read a bit of the Obamacare document.

And I'll be the first to admit that Canada's system is flawed to the core. It sounds quite good on paper, and everybody can herald the universal coverage of Canadians all they want, but that certainly doesn't mean that if I cut my fingers off, I won't be waiting around in the Emergency Room for five flipping hours! Recently, my Aunt was in an auto accident and her vertebra was crushed. Less than a week later, and barely walking, they sent her home! What the? They didn't promise her assistance or even equip her with a wheelchair, cane or walker.

Additionally, each hospital in a government run/sponsored system has a CEO who earns upward of $100 million annually. Why in blazes does each hospital need a CEO? Why aren't they grouped together under one CEO who makes one paycheque. The excess money can thus be dispersed where it's really needed (equipment, wards, beds etc.).

And what does Canada's health plan really cover? Not all that much.

The Affordable Care Act is not socialized health care. It's not even socialized health insurance. It's a system whereby the federal government requires people to purchase health insurance from private companies and requires the health insurance companies to provide a certain standard for the insured. As far as I can tell, there are no price restrictions on health insurance and there is no provision for the federal government to provide dollars for health insurance to any more people that it did before the Affordable Care Act. Thus, it is not socialized health insurance or care. Think of it more as incentivizing the purchase of health insurance from a private company. A similar comparison would be if the federal government mandated that everyone purchase food from supermarkets and mandated that the supermarkets sell certain types of food.

It does increase the federal bureaucracy and I'm still not convinced it's going to decrease costs for healthcare. As I've indicated in this thread (or elsewhere) it appears that a major cost associated with healthcare in the U.S. is the overuse of procedures and tests. The Affordable Care Act does not appear to fix that problem.

Looking at it through this lens, I make two conclusions related to politics: (1) The Democrats, including the president, can say to their constituents that they've "solved" the healthcare problem (or at least taken steps to do so); (2) The Republicans can say that the Affordable Care Act is socialized health care even though it clearly is not. In fact, I believe the Affordable Care Act is rather similar to plans put forward by Republicans in the past. Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing (again). Oh, and it raises taxes obnoxiously.

[Neoteny]

100 million dollars a year? I didn't realize that Canadian dollars had devalued so much.

Also, it makes me so happy to see the "1000 PAGES" argument again.

[vodean]

100 million dollars a year? I didn't realize that Canadian dollars had devalued so much.

Also, it makes me so happy to see the "1000 PAGES" argument again.

it hasnt devalued, and its still a good argument... being very long and vague will mean that there will be a lack of consistency, and basically just more costs and government control.

[PLAYER57832]

Nightstrike, why do you keep ignoring the fact that we do not have individual choice in our system, today?

Why do you claim that these other systems (France's in particular) lack that choice? Seems really you should learn about the systems you criticize before making those pronouncements or at least be honest in your assessment of ours.

[Night Strike]

Nightstrike, why do you keep ignoring the fact that we do not have individual choice in our system, today?

Currently, you get to choose which business you work for, so you do have a roll in picking what insurance you have. However, it's also why I support an individual system instead of an employer system.

Why do you claim that these other systems (France's in particular) lack that choice? Seems really you should learn about the systems you criticize before making those pronouncements or at least be honest in your assessment of ours.

Because there are no other options when the government runs things. And they don't pay for the sometimes expensive treatments that are needed.

[PLAYER57832]

Nightstrike, why do you keep ignoring the fact that we do not have individual choice in our system, today?

Currently, you get to choose which business you work for, so you do have a roll in picking what insurance you have.

When there are several hundred applicants for most jobs... and the alternative is not having any insurance at all... and likely not a house, etc, either, , is that really a choice? Not really.

However, it's also why I support an individual system instead of an employer system.

Except nothing you have put forward really represents that. You just assume that if its not controlled by big business, it means no individual choice. In fact, most other countries like government supported or controlled systems precisely because there is more individual choice when there is a real chioce.

However, the other issue is that science /medicine often dictate direction in medicine. So, even if there is the illusion of choice, there often is just none.

Why do you claim that these other systems (France's in particular) lack that choice? Seems really you should learn about the systems you criticize before making those pronouncements or at least be honest in your assessment of ours.

Because there are no other options when the government runs things.[/quote]
Again, you ASSUME. You don't know... and refuse to even consider. That is not intelligence, it is stubborn ignorance.

And they don't pay for the sometimes expensive treatments that are needed.

You think Blue Cross does? Try actually reading your insurance policy! Up until the healthcare reform act, once you hit that lifetime limit, you got NO coverage at all. A million or even two might seem like a lot of money when you are healthy, but it gets eaten up pretty quickly if you actually get sick.

Oh, and you could forget getting any treatment at all for what they deem "pre-existing conditions".... a definition that 20 years ago, meant things appearing within the past 6 months. Now, basically if you saw a doctor for a hangnail and then wind up having an infected toe 10 years later, they can claim it was a pre-existing condition!



Oh, and this is the other part of why your idea that the employee can choose is fundamentally wrong. If you are laid off for even a short time, just enough to let your insurance lapse for a day, then the no insurance company would be required to hire you. So, in fact, even if you had a job, the employer had control over whether you were covered or not.

[Night Strike]

I don't have Blue Cross, so why would I read about their insurance policies? As far as I can tell, my health insurance does not have any lifetime limits, so your answer is moot. If people don't like lifetime limits, then they should find another provider. However, the governmental system is the epitome of lifetime limitations. Once you reach a certain age, they will just stop providing because you are too expensive to keep in the system.

Player, why do you support government control over health care? Why can't individuals choose which care they want or which insurance they want? Why do you want us all to be in a government system instead of working to change the system so that all individuals can choose their own coverage? Individuals can choose their own home, car, life, flood, and other insurance coverages, so why do our health insurance options have to be limited? Let's find a system that improves personal choices and options instead of mandating what people get or forcing them into a governmental program.

[Neoteny]

100 million dollars a year? I didn't realize that Canadian dollars had devalued so much.

Also, it makes me so happy to see the "1000 PAGES" argument again.

it hasnt devalued, and its still a good argument... being very long and vague will mean that there will be a lack of consistency, and basically just more costs and government control.

Seriously? $100 million?

Also, it was 1000 pages, bulleted, triple spaced, two and a half inch margins... I know none of you fuckers looked at it because it's more like Running Man than The Stand. Hell, I even read the latter in a few days. So let's not play this game.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't have Blue Cross, so why would I read about their insurance policies? As far as I can tell, my health insurance does not have any lifetime limits, so your answer is moot.

The reason your current insurance policy does not have a lifetime limit is that they have been prohibited since the healthcare reform act was passed.

If people don't like lifetime limits, then they should find another provider. However, the governmental system is the epitome of lifetime limitations. Once you reach a certain age, they will just stop providing because you are too expensive to keep in the system.

Nope, you have it exactly backwards.

ALL insurance policies used to have lifetime limits. Whether you were aware of them or not, they existed. I don't know when they started. That is, the earliest policies might not have had such limits, but they were among the first cost-cutting measures universally imposed. By about 20 years ago, I can gaurantee essentially all policies had such limits.

To contrast, we have the Medicare system. This system was established very specifically because private insurers were not willing to cover older people.

See, its not as you pretend. The truth is that insurance companies cut. They have to, they are about profits. Government policies, to contrast, provide. They do apply limits, but only when there is no other chioce. Insurance companies simply choose to do so to give more profit to shareholders.

Player, why do you support government control over health care? Why can't individuals choose which care they want or which insurance they want?

YOu are not paying attention to what I am writing, again. Having the government involved adds more freedom of choice, not less.

Why do you want us all to be in a government system instead of working to change the system so that all individuals can choose their own coverage? Individuals can choose their own home, car, life, flood, and other insurance coverages, so why do our health insurance options have to be limited?

Let's find a system that improves personal choices and options instead of mandating what people get or forcing them into a governmental program.

I am not in favor of mandating people buy private insurance. I am not in favor of forcing people to buy products designed to give other people a profit. That should be choice

BUT, when it comes to health care, the idea of that chioce is illusion. It is illusion on several fronts. First, you don't really "choose" your healthcare. In the case of car or house insurance, the choices are pretty simple. You build a new house/restore your old one or you don't. You get enough insurance to replace it or just a certain amount to get you ahead or cover your mortage or whatever, you have a high deductable or small one. But, if your house is destroyed its basically just buy a new one or do not. How it is built, most of that is, ironically enough, decided by the government already. The government already has decided what you need to have a safe house, so all you decide are the minor "surface" issues.

In healthcare, its far, far more complicated. Even doctors who spend years in medical school still need to get outside help to make decisions on their care, their families care. One person can specialize in a certain aspect. No human can be a true full medical expert. And note, I am talking about highly trained doctors there.

For the average person, it comes down to listening to those experts. Some people have the illusion that the internet provides them better knowledge. In a very few, very specific cases individuals now can investigate and find out things that their family doctors, even researchers might not have found already. However, being able to spend a year investigating the specific symptoms my son might have and then finding out something groundbreaking does not mean I am now an expert in the field of medicine, not really. It means that given enough time and dedication, a few individuals can do wonders.

Now, to get back to the insurance companies, more and more many insurance companies are writing contracts with doctors that actually proscribe what they can and cannot say. Even if they are not outright forbidden from discussing new treatments or uncovered treatments, doctors know that the fact the treatment is uncovered means it is out of range and therefore many doctors just won't mention such options to most people. Again, the role of the insurer is not to protect people or really to give better health care, it is to make stockholders money.

I realize you worship profit, but profit wreaks havoc with research. A lot of very effective and beneficial research takes a lot of time and yields little in the short term. Often, it takes years of pure investigative research to even really understand a problem, never mind find a solution. Business has little time for this. Tehy want solutions and solutions NOW! When something is "on the horizon".. close to being developed, that push can result in success. But, many times, some of the things that wind up being the most beneficial in the long term are not that marketable initially. Teh idea that research is good only when it generates something that will create and immediately marketable product is part of what is killing our US innovation spirit. Thankfully, some of the largest companies are beginning to embrace that, do invest in "pure" research a bit, but I digress...

Anyway, in medicine, it is worse than that. Its not just that the system ensures we get more money put to cures for baldness than most women's health concerns, its that often the best profit is from actually denying care. You want to claim that people can just make this chioce, but the truth is that the insurance companies know far more about all this and us than we do. You have claimed that they have impetus to provide good coverage so people will buy their policies. However, the real truth is that they can often gain as much by simply denying claims. The ability of people to even know what is happening is being more and more tightly controlled. The ability of people to sue is getting limited.

The government, to contrast, is run by US. We elect its members.. every citizen does, not just a handful of people who get checks. Sometimes people make stupid decisions, sometimes good ones, but it is all of us, not just 10, 15,even 50 people. WE are the "stockholders" in our government. We are the ones who will either benefit or not.

[Symmetry]

Player, why do you support government control over health care?

Perhaps she's noted that it works everywhere else. And the one industrialised nation that doesn't do it does a crappy job. Realism, hey. The more interesting question is why you oppose government involvement in healthcare in spite of you knowing that it's more effective and cheaper than the US system at present.

If you're bothered that it doesn't work, I can show you numerous examples of how it does work.

If you're concerned that it's too expensive, I can give you the examples of why it's cheaper.

If you're worried that you'll be less free, somehow, perhaps I can direct you toward any of the many posters who will correct you, having experienced a good medical system that isn't wildly expensive.

Nobody can correct you though, because what you're bothered by is the idea, and you'll ignore evidence that you're wrong. Indeed, likely you'll find it offensive.

But the issue is that you've bought into an idea, and chosen a political side. Less government expense and better healthcare would be good if you were conservative. You're not, you're Republican. You've bought into a party line.

[GreecePwns]

Again, Canada and the UK are the worst of the worst; stop cherrypicking data to fit your guys' premise. The model to look at is France.

The one where the rich will soon be paying 75% in income taxes?

1. Define 'the rich' and '75% in income taxes.' Will a millionaire be paying 750,000 Euros in taxes? Is this even in place? Do you understand the difficulty in passing this? Do you know who said this? What he was doing when he said it? In short, are you aware that Hollande could have just said it to win an election?
2. You only need to go as far back as Nixon and Reagan's first term to find comparable top tax bracket rates in America.
3. The French healthcare system has been in place far longer than Hollande's presidency, and is consistently rated tops in the world.