ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Symmetry]

I'm just waiting for a response from the person I was talking to. We have 3 branches to cover, and are just touching up on finished the first one.

Meh, you're just waiting for an excuse to spam the thread with image files. Again.

[Timminz]

Wait a second.


Are you advocating tax increases, or am I missing some intended irony, or what?

[Phatscotty]

Wait a second.


Are you advocating tax increases, or am I missing some intended irony, or what?

I think the picture points out the irony of claiming to cut spending, while the debt continues to grow...

[WILLIAMS5232]

The whole bit about the government in this conversation has come up because of Phatscotty's ludicrous "definition" about what a right is. THAT is the only reason I was pointing out that the government absolutely can take away any right, if they choose...thus, by his definition, there is no such thing as a natural human right.

ok, i thought you were implying that we are graciously afforded rights because the govt allows us to have them.
when it was my opinion that we built this govt to protect our rights, but yes, the police can come in and take our rights.. lawfully, or in some cases unlawfully. but that's the purpose of our justice system, to decide which is which. of course it's not flawless either. we are supposed to still have some basic rights even under arrest. but that is sometimes abused too, by gung ho cops who think they're badasses because they are protected by the law, and usually get off the hook because they are cops.

He was put in prison under conditions that would be considered torture, to include sleep deprivation.

well, i'm sure he finally got to go to bed, or he's taking a dirt nap. i don't agree with this, and dont' think it's a right the govt has. but yes, it happens. i think it's way worse in china and egypt though. their govt i think allows them rights on a case by case basis. not so much protects them there.

I am absolutely not of the opinion that the government is all-wonderful (in fact, I tend to the opposite view). I do, however, recognize that there are instances in which government intervention is necessary to correct a social ill. I am not a fan of ObamaCare, because I consider it to be a crippled program hacked together to try to appease the Republicans in Congress. I think that if a REAL social healthcare program were put into place, it could be highly effective and also cost-effective. Unfortunately, our politicians don't have the will to do so, and our populace is too willing to fall in line against anything that certain politicians can cry "SOCIALISM!" about.

I think it's arguable whether everyone has an opportunity to receive health care or not. However, putting that aside for the moment, our current system of doing so is exceptionally ineffective and highly costly. It can and should be fixed.

i just wish there wasn't so much waste in our govt. there are so many good things that could be afforded if our govt was not riddled with corruption and waste. i find it hard to believe that so many grown men and women, supposedly educated, can create such a financial disaster.

That is your opinion, of course...just as the opposite is mine. I believe that it does indeed fall under the general welfare clause, but I do recognize that it is not specifically outlined (note that it does not have to be, per the Constitution).

the constitution is a supposed living document, but i personally dont think the fathers would have been in support of many entitlement programs. unless there is a surplus of funds. i think they would be ashamed to see our debt right now. they'd probably start another american revolution.

The product is "health care", as that is what hospitals do. So I will give you a specific product such as automobiles. Just as health care providers must provide contraceptives, automobile manufacturers must provide seatbelts.

bedrails on hopital beds are to hospitals
as seat belts are to automobiles

contraceptives are to hospitals
as power windows are to automaobiles

i really don't see how contraceptives can be considered a health issue. i'm not a woman, and i'm sure there are some sort of health benefits that may come with it, but i don't see how it could be a required form of healthcare.

[Phatscotty]

Rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken away

[notyou2]

Rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken away

Are you living under a rock?

You government tramples on your rights everyday, and is constantly invading your privacy. They are watching you Scotty.

[john9blue]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

if some dude comes up and kills me for no reason, he hasn't "taken my right to life", he's merely violated my right to life. i still had the right to life when he killed me.

similarly, someone who steals from you doesn't "take away your right to own property", otherwise you would have no legitimate reason to want your stuff back (because someone like woodruff would claim that you no longer have a right to your property because "your right was taken from you").

[Phatscotty]

perhaps the reason that our liberties continue to whither is because of the poor state of the attitude towards liberties and rights and freedom by a certain amount of people, and of course mis/disinformation about the very freedoms and liberties they seek to knowingly or unknowingly destroy, and a stroke for greed of more entitlement and privileges.

[Night Strike]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Why does nothing fit that definition? Rights are things that others have to do nothing for you to have.

Becuase no one is an island. By your definition, you have no right to eat, no right to sleep, no right to live.. at all. NOTHING is obtained by solely you.

But, hey, you have just given us a brilliant insight into why you so deeply misunderstand how the world works.

Who has to provide you with food or sleep or your own life? No one. And those rights are protected by the 9th amendment, which includes things like the government can't tell you what food you're allowed to eat because it's not a power specifically granted to them in the Constitution.

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching). And your rights aren't being infringed upon simply because a company doesn't sell a particular product, especially when that product itself isn't even a right to have.

GREAT.. so you now support the Church of Christian Scientists right to forbid ANYONE from getting healthcare! That means ALL hospitals are illegal because they violate the Church of Christian Science, a number of Pentacostalists..and a few others, as well.

And no, I am not exaggerating. Many wars have been fought because simply allowing people to be Protestant.. or Jewish.. or Muslim .. or Atheist were seen as offending God. Excpet, see, in the US.. everyone has the right to their own religion, whether the Roman Catholic Church agrees or not.

Player, you always exaggerate. Of course every person has a right to observe their own religions and doctrines in this country. However, that right does not allow the individual to force a religious organization to provide something that the organization feels goes against their beliefs. You as an individual have no right to force another individual to provide you with anything; nor do you have the right to demand that a religious organization provide you with something that goes against their teachings. It's amazing the amount of hubris you have in thinking that YOU have the power to dictate the beliefs and doctrines of someone else's religion.

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

We should be paying for the services rendered at the time of rendering. Otherwise, we have not participated in that marketplace and therefore cannot be regulated on the assumption that we will eventually participate. Using your logic, we must all go buy guaranteed term life insurance if we have debt and pre-fund funeral expenses because we will all die someday. That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.

[patches70]

That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.

The government has that power now, apparently!

[WILLIAMS5232]

That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.

The government has that power now, apparently!

that's the thing, they're not telling you to buy it, they're asking nicely to.

but then they'll kick you in the shin if you don't and tax you for it anyway.

it's basically a loophole, kind of like pulling funds from a state that doesn't comply with what the federal govt wants them to do. i think it's the same as criminal action, but that's just me.

[Phatscotty]

[jj3044]

Took a while to catch up... man this thread moves fast and furious!

there is no part of me that feels that taking something from someone else because of how much I need it is part of treating people the way I would want to be treated.

But, are you against unemployment benefits? Putting the percentage of freeloaders aside, what would have happened to the millions of people who were laid off in the recession if there wasn't an unemployment benefit? A lot more people would have lost their houses, and I bet many of them would have had to shake a can on the side of the road or starve to death...

So, if you were to lose your job, would you refuse unemployment?

and another thing, there are a few provisions in Obamacare that are popular, had bi-partisan support, and even common sense (as I notice you are bombarding me with them) I don't think you hit me with the 26 year old still on mommies insurance plan (which just makes mom pay more) but I bet it was the next thing you'd bring up. My point here is these things could and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, preferably one that did not require the Supreme Court to weigh in.....

Overall, it has nothing to do with how I feel or don't feel about someone who cannot afford insurance, and EVERYTHING with how I DO feel about states and federal governments which, in exactly the same way, cannot afford our current medicaid obligations, and have to borrow just to meet them.

Bankrupting us all and enslaving us all to debt in order to protect the least fortunate amongst us from going bankrupt is not the answer.

and if I happened to fall on hard times, then.....I fell on hard times. I would not expect to inflict my hard times onto someone else. And I really do not grant that "this program", in it's entirety, would fix any of my problems, but I do hold it creates more problems for others.

My apologies for bombarding you with those provisions, but again in my opinion, there have already been benefits of the law and I think these are overlooked. I think we will have to agree to disagree at the moment, and re-hash this conversation in 2018 or so, once all of the provisions have been in place for a few years to see what the outcomes have been.

[jj3044]

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

We should be paying for the services rendered at the time of rendering. Otherwise, we have not participated in that marketplace and therefore cannot be regulated on the assumption that we will eventually participate. Using your logic, we must all go buy guaranteed term life insurance if we have debt and pre-fund funeral expenses because we will all die someday. That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.

Here is the problem with this logic... how many people have $250,000 or more hanging around in a rainy day fund in case you get cancer, or how many pregnant women have $30,000 hanging around to give birth (although that would probably fix the overpopulation problem )? Especially with the prevalence of chronic conditions today! Without incentive to access the system (which is what this law does provide), most people wouldn't pay for their preventive screenings. Our system would completely turn into JUST taking care of the chronically ill. Life expectancy and quality of life would decrease substantially.

Before someone mentions that this generation of newborns is already anticipated to have a SHORTER life expectancy than their parents, that is precisely why incenting to access the system early is so important, to catch those "silent" diseases before they do real damage to the body.

As for the life insurance analogy, kudos, I actually thought it was a really good counter-argument. But, people not buying life insurance isn't bankrupting this country, healthcare IS, which is why we need to fix it.

[Phatscotty]

Took a while to catch up... man this thread moves fast and furious!

there is no part of me that feels that taking something from someone else because of how much I need it is part of treating people the way I would want to be treated.

But, are you against unemployment benefits? Putting the percentage of freeloaders aside, what would have happened to the millions of people who were laid off in the recession if there wasn't an unemployment benefit? A lot more people would have lost their houses, and I bet many of them would have had to shake a can on the side of the road or starve to death...

So, if you were to lose your job, would you refuse unemployment?

and another thing, there are a few provisions in Obamacare that are popular, had bi-partisan support, and even common sense (as I notice you are bombarding me with them) I don't think you hit me with the 26 year old still on mommies insurance plan (which just makes mom pay more) but I bet it was the next thing you'd bring up. My point here is these things could and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, preferably one that did not require the Supreme Court to weigh in.....

Overall, it has nothing to do with how I feel or don't feel about someone who cannot afford insurance, and EVERYTHING with how I DO feel about states and federal governments which, in exactly the same way, cannot afford our current medicaid obligations, and have to borrow just to meet them.

Bankrupting us all and enslaving us all to debt in order to protect the least fortunate amongst us from going bankrupt is not the answer.

and if I happened to fall on hard times, then.....I fell on hard times. I would not expect to inflict my hard times onto someone else. And I really do not grant that "this program", in it's entirety, would fix any of my problems, but I do hold it creates more problems for others.

My apologies for bombarding you with those provisions, but again in my opinion, there have already been benefits of the law and I think these are overlooked. I think we will have to agree to disagree at the moment, and re-hash this conversation in 2018 or so, once all of the provisions have been in place for a few years to see what the outcomes have been.

No I'm not against unemployment benefits.

! question though. Do you really trust the government on this one?

[jj3044]

No I'm not against unemployment benefits.

! question though. Do you really trust the government on this one?

But unemployment benefits would mean you were taking something from someone else because you need it, correct?

Trust the government... no actually, not really. Until they impose term limits in congress, all of the senators and representatives (both sides) will continue to look after their own asses, and not the people they are supposed to be representing.

BUT that is why I am at least happy that the law is not a true socialized healthcare system. The healthcare system is still being run (for the most part) by private industry. Health insurers, hospitals, providers... none are run by the government. Of course Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, but they still use private insurers to process the claim, and private providers to provide the service.

What I do hope is that now that the law looks like it won't be repealed, both sides can come together to make it better. Tie up the lose ends that were not addressed in the law. See, I know this law isn't perfect, but I see it as a solid starting point that if improved upon, can become something pretty good.

[Phatscotty]

No I'm not against unemployment benefits.

! question though. Do you really trust the government on this one?

But unemployment benefits would mean you were taking something from someone else because you need it, correct?

Trust the government... no actually, not really. Until they impose term limits in congress, all of the senators and representatives (both sides) will continue to look after their own asses, and not the people they are supposed to be representing.

BUT that is why I am at least happy that the law is not a true socialized healthcare system. The healthcare system is still being run (for the most part) by private industry. Health insurers, hospitals, providers... none are run by the government. Of course Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, but they still use private insurers to process the claim, and private providers to provide the service.

What I do hope is that now that the law looks like it won't be repealed, both sides can come together to make it better. Tie up the lose ends that were not addressed in the law. See, I know this law isn't perfect, but I see it as a solid starting point that if improved upon, can become something pretty good.

Well, don't my taxes that I have been paying every single week for the last 16 years (with the exception of 3 weeks being unemployed) go to cover that unemployment? Have I not paid in? I grant up front it's not like social security, but there is a legitimate claim by the taxpayer.

Term limits = 100%

[Woodruff]

I think it's arguable whether everyone has an opportunity to receive health care or not. However, putting that aside for the moment, our current system of doing so is exceptionally ineffective and highly costly. It can and should be fixed.

i just wish there wasn't so much waste in our govt. there are so many good things that could be afforded if our govt was not riddled with corruption and waste.

Certainly true.

i find it hard to believe that so many grown men and women, supposedly educated, can create such a financial disaster.

Unfortunately, it's just plain old greed, rather than incompetence.

That is your opinion, of course...just as the opposite is mine. I believe that it does indeed fall under the general welfare clause, but I do recognize that it is not specifically outlined (note that it does not have to be, per the Constitution).

the constitution is a supposed living document, but i personally dont think the fathers would have been in support of many entitlement programs. unless there is a surplus of funds. i think they would be ashamed to see our debt right now. they'd probably start another american revolution.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

[Woodruff]

there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.

What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?

similarly, someone who steals from you doesn't "take away your right to own property", otherwise you would have no legitimate reason to want your stuff back (because someone like woodruff would claim that you no longer have a right to your property because "your right was taken from you").

You really need to learn basic reading comprehension. Perhaps you can squeeze that in sometime in between your various Phatscotty defenses, Mr. Moderate.

[Woodruff]

GREAT.. so you now support the Church of Christian Scientists right to forbid ANYONE from getting healthcare! That means ALL hospitals are illegal because they violate the Church of Christian Science, a number of Pentacostalists..and a few others, as well.
And no, I am not exaggerating. Many wars have been fought because simply allowing people to be Protestant.. or Jewish.. or Muslim .. or Atheist were seen as offending God. Excpet, see, in the US.. everyone has the right to their own religion, whether the Roman Catholic Church agrees or not.

Player, you always exaggerate. Of course every person has a right to observe their own religions and doctrines in this country. However, that right does not allow the individual to force a religious organization to provide something that the organization feels goes against their beliefs.

No religious organization is being forced to provide anything against their religious beliefs, Night Strike. It's not happening, no matter how often you try to claim that it is.

[Woodruff]

No I'm not against unemployment benefits.

! question though. Do you really trust the government on this one?

But unemployment benefits would mean you were taking something from someone else because you need it, correct?

Trust the government... no actually, not really. Until they impose term limits in congress, all of the senators and representatives (both sides) will continue to look after their own asses, and not the people they are supposed to be representing.

BUT that is why I am at least happy that the law is not a true socialized healthcare system. The healthcare system is still being run (for the most part) by private industry. Health insurers, hospitals, providers... none are run by the government. Of course Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, but they still use private insurers to process the claim, and private providers to provide the service.

What I do hope is that now that the law looks like it won't be repealed, both sides can come together to make it better. Tie up the lose ends that were not addressed in the law. See, I know this law isn't perfect, but I see it as a solid starting point that if improved upon, can become something pretty good.

Well, don't my taxes that I have been paying every single week for the last 16 years (with the exception of 3 weeks being unemployed) go to cover that unemployment? Have I not paid in? I grant up front it's not like social security, but there is a legitimate claim by the taxpayer.

That doesn't logically follow. The idea that your unemployment benefits should have any bearing on whether or what taxes you've paid over your life would mean a lack of recognition of your then having been getting all of those other benefits (roads, etc...) without having paid taxes for them, which would once again put you in the category of taking from someone else in order to benefit yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Why does nothing fit that definition? Rights are things that others have to do nothing for you to have.

Becuase no one is an island. By your definition, you have no right to eat, no right to sleep, no right to live.. at all. NOTHING is obtained by solely you.

But, hey, you have just given us a brilliant insight into why you so deeply misunderstand how the world works.

Who has to provide you with food or sleep or your own life? No one.

Except, you are most definitely not a self-sustaining subsistance farmer. Nor are most people. So, you very much do depend upon other people. AND, you depend upon other people to ensure that that system functions.

And those rights are protected by the 9th amendment,

"Rights are protected by the government" ... see, the government IS important to ensure we have rights. That is the point.

which includes things like the government can't tell you what food you're allowed to eat because it's not a power specifically granted to them in the Constitution.

I see, so you are starting a new Supreme Court challenge on that issue? Because, like those other issues you wish to say are unconstitutional, it has already been decided... and modified.. and decided again, and again.

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching). And your rights aren't being infringed upon simply because a company doesn't sell a particular product, especially when that product itself isn't even a right to have.

GREAT.. so you now support the Church of Christian Scientists right to forbid ANYONE from getting healthcare! That means ALL hospitals are illegal because they violate the Church of Christian Science, a number of Pentacostalists..and a few others, as well.

And no, I am not exaggerating. Many wars have been fought because simply allowing people to be Protestant.. or Jewish.. or Muslim .. or Atheist were seen as offending God. Excpet, see, in the US.. everyone has the right to their own religion, whether the Roman Catholic Church agrees or not.

Player, you always exaggerate.

Classic Nightstrike.. and I am betting you don't even see the problem with thatstatement.

Of course every person has a right to observe their own religions and doctrines in this country. However, that right does not allow the individual to force a religious organization to provide something that the organization feels goes against their beliefs.

No exaggeration. If the Roman Catholic hospital is the only local hospital -- a TRUE situation in many communities, then "adhering to their religion" endangers women who need these procedures. We have already seen a nun who was excommunicated because she participated in a procedure to save a woman's life. You are denying reality and attempting to claim that only the nice neat esoteric situations exist.

And the example I provided is EXACTLY the point. If the Roman Catholic Church can claim that simply having payment for these procedures in their healthcare is a violation, then they certainly can (and have) claim that providing the procedures themselves are violations.

AND.. if the Roman Catholic Church can do that, then why not those other religions as well?

[Timminz]

That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.

The government has that power now, apparently!

They've had, and used, that power ever since the first years of being a country. I posted a link a few pages back, that was completely ignored. I'm not surprised though; it does poke a big fat hole in this argument.

Has anyone mentioned yet that George Washington, himself, mandated certain purchases? Kind of gives an interesting twist to parts of this monstrously-complex discussion, doesn't it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... -mandates/

Edited to re-post the link. Feel free to continue ignoring it though.

[Night Strike]

My apologies for bombarding you with those provisions, but again in my opinion, there have already been benefits of the law and I think these are overlooked. I think we will have to agree to disagree at the moment, and re-hash this conversation in 2018 or so, once all of the provisions have been in place for a few years to see what the outcomes have been.

That's exactly what the Obama administration wants to happen because once a massive program become instilled, it's virtually impossible to even tweak it, muchless repeal it. Just look at the massive uproar anytime someone wants to modify Social Security or Medicare. Obamacare will become the exact same thing if it's allowed to become fully implemented, which is exactly what they want.

Except, you are most definitely not a self-sustaining subsistance farmer. Nor are most people. So, you very much do depend upon other people. AND, you depend upon other people to ensure that that system functions.

So that means the government has the power to control my life because I'm not 100% separated from everybody else? If I'm dependent on others to provide food and other things, I still get to pick who I buy my food from. That means that I AM still free to make my own choices and live my life the way I want to live it. I get to choose where to spend my money; the government doesn't have the authority to tell me what to buy.

"Rights are protected by the government" ... see, the government IS important to ensure we have rights. That is the point.

Exactly, they're protected by the government, not granted from the government. If the government grants something, they can just as easily take it away. That's why we fought for our independence: the British government was infringing on our natural, God-given rights.

No exaggeration. If the Roman Catholic hospital is the only local hospital -- a TRUE situation in many communities, then "adhering to their religion" endangers women who need these procedures. We have already seen a nun who was excommunicated because she participated in a procedure to save a woman's life. You are denying reality and attempting to claim that only the nice neat esoteric situations exist.

And the example I provided is EXACTLY the point. If the Roman Catholic Church can claim that simply having payment for these procedures in their healthcare is a violation, then they certainly can (and have) claim that providing the procedures themselves are violations.

AND.. if the Roman Catholic Church can do that, then why not those other religions as well?

So you'd rather have that ONE hospital close their doors and provide NO health care to anyone in the area? Because that's what you might be getting if many Catholic organizations carry through on their threat to close hospitals if the government forces them to provide treatments that go against their beliefs. Aren't provisions for providing most health care needs better than having no health care treatments available? Or will you just have the government come in and block them from closing too? There are already areas that don't provide every single health care treatment available (not every hospital is a Tier 1 center), yet you don't cry over that. Why do you demand that the hospital provide something against their beliefs?

[patches70]

They've had, and used, that power ever since the first years of being a country. I posted a link a few pages back, that was completely ignored. I'm not surprised though; it does poke a big fat hole in this argument.

There is a reason it was ignored, it doesn't apply. The administrations own lawyers didn't even bother to argue along those lines because they'd have been laughed out of the court.

For Washington's part, Obamacare might apply if everyone required to buy insurance was first conscripted!.

Christ on a stick, can't even you see that? People earlier brought up Bradley Manning. If one is conscripted, or joins military service on their own, the government then owns that individual and can do just about anything they want. G.I. means "Government Issued", that's what you are, government issue. Since there is no provision in Obamacare of conscription into the Armed Services, it doesn't apply.

The maritime law also cited in your link, was exercised under the "Commerce Clause", which again, doesn't apply. The SCOTUS ruling, if you read it, rejected that Congress had the power to make people buy insurance under the Commerce Clause. Congress has the power to regulate commerce but does not have the power to force individuals to participate in commerce, which is what the government would be doing by forcing you to buy insurance. You see, the seamen were voluntarily participating in their trade which can be regulated by Congress. If the seamen didn't want to be forced to buy insurance then they just have to find another job.
There are certain jobs, industries today which under regulation from Congress, one is required to have insurance.

The only possible way that the Obamacare individual mandate could have been ruled constitutional was if it was a tax. Your link has not a thing to do with taxes, does it?

Ezra Klein is a sycophantic Obamaphile. Consider the source and see the obfuscation instead of just parroting it.