[QUOTE=Lambeth;30345248]Better than what the system was before[/QUOTE]
no its not at best it doesnt help any poor people with their healthcare at worst it makes the poor poorer by paying hundreds extra a month on insurance
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30345607]no its not at best it doesnt help any poor people with their healthcare at worst it makes the poor poorer by paying hundreds extra a month on insurance[/QUOTE]
Which is a point you just can't commonly state because it'll get rejected. To make an argument you have to back it up, otherwise it sounds like general rhetoric. I'll explain your point out.
Insurance is a risk based pooling. The way the system works out is that relatively safe people pay into a pool, and when one of those people who are paying into the pool receives damage, the other people paying into the pool essentially pay for damages. Granted that few people paying into the pool are damaged, the system works out pretty well and people don't need to pay that much. Insurers ensure the system is working using risk assessment, and therefore people with high risk pay high amount to offset their risk. This works out well because it doesn't affect the prices anyone else pays. If higher risk people must be put on the plan without paying the needed amount to offset their risk and instead pay a more affordable low risk rate, then the lower risk people must pay more to offset the risk. So in order for the system to work, low risk people pay a closer amount to high risk people, which negates the whole idea of insurance working based off generally low risk.
For this reason, I don't suggest forcing health insurance companies to accept high risk people. I would support a well run welfare program, but I wouldn't at all support forcing insurance companies to accept high risk people or people who already have conditions.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30345283]A better system would not infringe upon the rights of the citizens.[/QUOTE]
the system was already infringing on a pretty crucial right
like uh, the right to be alive without going bankrupt
[QUOTE=lorden;30345532]Pretty sure that there's only very small exceptions nowadays that allow you to have a normal life without owning a vehicle that requires insurance.[/QUOTE]
Don't need insurance in wisconsin. In minnesota you can drive without insurance, but if you get pulled over you either have to buy insurance on the spot or get ticketed (hence why esurance is huge there)
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30344712]
This is very true, and I'd call what they are doing as a loop-hole. I'm sure the first amendment alone could have some weight in the opposition against it, as not purchasing insurance could be viewed as freedom of expression. But I believe that some things must be introduced into a society that lacks such, which is in-part why I support this. Also, I must say this: While weed and corn don't have rights, weed and corn shouldn't be cherish neared as much as a human life by comparison. And as such, we as a nation of individuals, should look out for each, even the weakest among us. Currently, we hardly do this. Some call it Darwinism, some call those with poor luck lazy. While there are, to a certain degree, individuals who could get themselves into a better situation but don't, there are also others who deserve more than what is offered, especially by a 1st world country with arguably the most advanced medical technology.
[B]Edit:[/B] Ok, now I'm really going to get some sleep. I'll comment on what I can in 5ish hours. My apologies.[/QUOTE]
I'm all for everyone getting health care, but quite frankly I don't like haveing my rights trampled over. As a Marine I already gave up my rights to ensure that the ones I want to enjoy stay the way they are when I get out. The fact that the whole bill can go under because of this one section is congresses fault, blame them for their extream idiocy and corruption. Id much rather have the bill get shot down and still maintain my rights than open up a can of worms on them.
In my personal opionion they couldn't have picked a worse time to try and introduce a national health care plan. Had it been done 12 yeas ago it would have worked perfectly, but the fact of the matter is we're in severe debt. Ontop of that a majority of the health care costs are generated by the medical companies themselves. They essentially have a collective monopoly on the medical market. Don't even get me started on on the corrupted political bullshit.
Plain and simple, the best idea for a free market enterprise is the worst idea for care of the people. If they wanted to get shit done right the first time they would have set up state run hospitals and clinics, but they didn't. Its not to late do do so (so long as the public option is still available) but as of now it is not the right time to do so.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30345867]Which is a point you just can't commonly state because it'll get rejected. To make an argument you have to back it up, otherwise it sounds like general rhetoric. I'll explain your point out.
Insurance is a risk based pooling. The way the system works out is that relatively safe people pay into a pool, and when one of those people who are paying into the pool receives damage, the other people paying into the pool essentially pay for damages. Granted that few people paying into the pool are damaged, the system works out pretty well and people don't need to pay that much. Insurers ensure the system is working using risk assessment, and therefore people with high risk pay high amount to offset their risk. This works out well because it doesn't affect the prices anyone else pays. If higher risk people must be put on the plan without paying the needed amount to offset their risk and instead pay a more affordable low risk rate, then the lower risk people must pay more to offset the risk. So in order for the system to work, low risk people pay a closer amount to high risk people, which negates the whole idea of insurance working based off generally low risk.
For this reason, I don't suggest forcing health insurance companies to accept high risk people. I would support a well run welfare program, but I wouldn't at all support forcing insurance companies to accept high risk people or people who already have conditions.[/QUOTE]
Insurance hasn't been primarily risk based pooling for a long ass time, they're skimming interest off the top of whatever you're paying and they use as many loopholes as they can to try and deny you coverage or minimizing the amount they pay for your medical expenses until you're forced to litigation; something they know full well most people won't go through. It's why so many of the insurance companies are making obscene profits still, just as they were before the bill. Them raising the rates becomes easier now because they have that scapegoat.
Forcing everyone to buy insurance from private, for-profit companies is absolutely asinine.
[quote]Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past, he said, where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"[/quote]Car Insurance? Last I checked you're breaking the law by driving without any. :colbert:
The healthcare law specifically states that a person cannot face legal repercussions for not getting insurance. It has a fine, but one cannot be forced to pay it, or punished for not paying it.
[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf[/url]
[quote=SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.]"(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under
subchapter B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.[/quote]
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
I'd very much like not to have to post this over and over and over again in every US healthcare thread, so kindly drop the bullshit about your grandma gonna be thrown in jail for not getting health insurance.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30345478]The question you have to ask is, "is this constitutional"? If you answer no, then that doesn't mean it has no chance of something similar getting passed, it is more just that it should be a program implemented by the states. My point here is that you can still be for this type of health care reform, but I'd argue that would should be asking for it on a state level and not on a federal level. I can provide my rational as to why state implementation would be better if needed.[/QUOTE]
If implemented on the state-level, we would find a majority of states choosing not to introduce a health care bill of any sort of fashion close to what is needed. While it would be a wonderful idea in an idealistic setting, we are far from such at the present time, or I believe the next fifty or so years.
All that said, I have asked the constitutional question many times recently, especially since I'm heading off to a very conservative college as a liberal; I'm expecting to have many fun arguments in the future. I find it is a gray area. It certainly pushes the bounds of anything we have in place right now into new areas, but that doesn't necessarily make it instantly unconstitutional.
I would like to know how you think states would agree to implement it. Thirty five of them, my own state included, are in a lawsuit against this bill, and I highly doubt they'd want to be viewed as hypocrites by agreeing to implement anything resembling a health care bill of such magnitude in their states.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;30345944]Don't need insurance in wisconsin. In minnesota you can drive without insurance, but if you get pulled over you either have to buy insurance on the spot or get ticketed (hence why esurance is huge there)
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
I'm all for everyone getting health care, but quite frankly I don't like haveing my rights trampled over. As a Marine I already gave up my rights to ensure that the ones I want to enjoy stay the way they are when I get out. The fact that the whole bill can go under because of this one section is congresses fault, blame them for their extream idiocy and corruption. Id much rather have the bill get shot down and still maintain my rights than open up a can of worms on them.
In my personal opionion they couldn't have picked a worse time to try and introduce a national health care plan. Had it been done 12 yeas ago it would have worked perfectly, but the fact of the matter is we're in severe debt. Ontop of that a majority of the health care costs are generated by the medical companies themselves. They essentially have a collective monopoly on the medical market. Don't even get me started on on the corrupted political bullshit.
Plain and simple, the best idea for a free market enterprise is the worst idea for care of the people. If they wanted to get shit done right the first time they would have set up state run hospitals and clinics, but they didn't. Its not to late do do so (so long as the public option is still available) but as of now it is not the right time to do so.[/QUOTE]
I agree the timing is not the most impeccable, but I think it is far better than a future time frame. Clinton probably could have implemented it would he not have found secretaries so appealing, but sadly that is not the case. I also wouldn't argue this is the worst idea, as it will have many beneficial outcomes no matter what happens. Its simply the long term negatives we must worry about.
I really, REALLY cannot see why americans have such a huge problem with helping their fellow man.
What is it that makes you (seems to be mostly conservatives) into complete fucking assholes?
Oh no, you have to pay a mandatory fee! THATS HOW THEY COVER THE COSTS YOU DIMWIT.
Christ, I hope people like Glaber never get in a position of power in the future, cause fuck progress with them around.
[QUOTE=Miskav;30347645]I really, REALLY cannot see why americans have such a huge problem with helping their fellow man.
What is it that makes you (seems to be mostly conservatives) into complete fucking assholes?
Oh no, you have to pay a mandatory fee! THATS HOW THEY COVER THE COSTS YOU DIMWIT.
Christ, I hope people like Glaber never get in a position of power in the future, cause fuck progress with them around.[/QUOTE]
You know there's a large Progressive faction that advocates single-payer healthcare in the Democratic Party, right? Fun fact, it's also the largest faction within the party.
[QUOTE=Lazor;30345917]the system was already infringing on a pretty crucial right
like uh, the right to be alive without going bankrupt[/QUOTE]
Really? If that were truly a right, then bankruptcy would be illegal. You want to try again?
[QUOTE=that1dude24;30346345]Insurance hasn't been primarily risk based pooling for a long ass time, they're skimming interest off the top of whatever you're paying and they use as many loopholes as they can to try and deny you coverage or minimizing the amount they pay for your medical expenses until you're forced to litigation; something they know full well most people won't go through. It's why so many of the insurance companies are making obscene profits still, just as they were before the bill. Them raising the rates becomes easier now because they have that scapegoat.
Forcing everyone to buy insurance from private, for-profit companies is absolutely asinine.[/QUOTE]
You're claiming that it isn't risk based? That incredibly weird. Most of your rhetoric is pretty weird.
[QUOTE=tinhead50;30347255]If implemented on the state-level, we would find a majority of states choosing not to introduce a health care bill of any sort of fashion close to what is needed. While it would be a wonderful idea in an idealistic setting, we are far from such at the present time, or I believe the next fifty or so years...[/QUOTE]
I don't find that to be the case. I could maybe the Red states being less likely to their own state based healthcare law, but plenty of states are likely to implement the law is there is enough public pressure and proven results. I also think you have to step away for a bit and ask yourself if anybody is going to get the system right on the first go. I think not, which is a reason why I'd much rather see state based implantation. I think the main reason why there isn't a state based focus on health care is because most people have their attention on a federal program. There are some good reasons why politicians are pushing for it at the Federal level, and it is because Federal law is so much harder to repeal than state law.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30350127]Really? If that were truly a right, then bankruptcy would be illegal. You want to try again?[/QUOTE]
If life was truly a right, then dying would be illegal! :downs:
Death is something that can't be prevented by any means. Besides, how would you even punish the dead? Necromancy?
Also, from the sounds of it, you never read the founding documents.
[quote=The Declaration of Independence] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,[B] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/B] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[/quote]
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html[/url]
[quote]Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past, he said, where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"[/quote]
Everyone has to pay for the military though, and that doesn't even help them
Glaber, doesn't Europe show that healthcare works? It's great in the UK. I've never heard anyone over here say it's "infringing on their rights".
[QUOTE=Glaber;30350995]Death is something that can't be prevented by any means. Besides, how would you even punish the dead? Necromancy?
Also, from the sounds of it, you never read the founding documents.
[/QUOTE]
I was making a dig at the way you seem to believe things are only rights if there are consequences for not having them. The point was that the law doesn't, and shouldn't, exist to stop people from going bankrupt, it exists to stop people from being [i]forced[/i] to go bankrupt.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;30345176]Thats why I wrote Fed government.[/QUOTE]
The first time you just wrote "the fed" and the "the fed government" isn't a thing, it's two terms that mean different things jammed together.
Just trying to help you bro!!!!
[QUOTE=Occlusion;30351441]Glaber, doesn't Europe show that healthcare works? It's great in the UK. I've never heard anyone over here say it's "infringing on their rights".[/QUOTE]
To the best of my limited knowledge, Europe's system is set up so that taxes fund it. It's not a hidden fact, but more of a taken for granted thing.
The way Obamacare is set up, and please stop discrediting me for using that term as it makes you look dumber than Palin, is that it's funded through penalties they can't enforce. Because of this, it can't work at all.
Plus there is the fact that Europe's system, to the best of my knowledge, allows for both private and public health insurance. Under Obamacare, as I under stand it, it's set up so that it basically eliminates any private option, making it worse than Europe.
Heck, Obama care doesn't even compensate you for your health travel and expense costs like Europe's system does.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;30343237]god forbid money is spent on something that doesn't kill innocent civilians[/QUOTE]
Social Security doesn't kill innocent civilians, yet our government dumps massive sums into it, and it's quickly becoming unsustainable. My family has personally dealt with them and had an issue similar to being forclosed on over missing documents (they just arbitrarily decided one day that my mom was able to work, despite several horribly crippling conditions). It took us months of being jerked around by the system to get out of trouble - without the extra money, combined with our insane taxes, we wouldn't have been able to afford the house.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30351924]The way Obamacare is set up, and please stop discrediting me for using that term as it makes you look dumber than Palin[/QUOTE]
Uh no it doesn't, it's a tremendously stupid term meant to appeal to people who don't understand the legislative process
I want to see Glabers birth certificate.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30350995]Death is something that can't be prevented by any means. Besides, how would you even punish the dead? Necromancy?
Also, from the sounds of it, you never read the founding documents.
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that health care can achieve life and maybe happiness depending on the prescription.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30351924]To the best of my limited knowledge, Europe's system is set up so that taxes fund it. It's not a hidden fact, but more of a taken for granted thing.
The way Obamacare is set up, and please stop discrediting me for using that term as it makes you look dumber than Palin, is that it's funded through penalties they can't enforce. Because of this, it can't work at all.
Plus there is the fact that Europe's system, to the best of my knowledge, allows for both private and public health insurance. Under Obamacare, as I under stand it, it's set up so that it basically eliminates any private option, making it worse than Europe.
Heck, Obama care doesn't even compensate you for your health travel and expense costs like Europe's system does.[/QUOTE]
calling it obamacare makes you look like a child
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30352260]calling it obamacare makes you look like a child[/QUOTE]
And trying to make it sound like a bad thing is stupid too. Obamacare sounds kind of refreshing as a name really.
[QUOTE=TH89;30351999]Uh no it doesn't, it's a tremendously stupid term meant to appeal to people who don't understand the legislative process[/QUOTE]
And how many US citizens do you think there are in the US that don't understand it?
Chances are it's a high enough amount that your side should worry about this thing getting repealed.
Need I remind you that the Term "Obamacare" came out before "PPACA" did? And need I also remind you that to the general non-facepunch visiting public, Obama Care has a negative connotation?
The Term Obamacare isn't going anywhere. No matter how badly you wish it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30352406]And how many US citizens do you think there are in the US that don't understand it?
Chances are it's a high enough amount that your side should worry about this thing getting repealed.[/QUOTE]
Hey Glaber. Couple posts up. Don't ignore nearly all the arguments.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30352406]And how many US citizens do you think there are in the US that don't understand it?
Chances are it's a high enough amount that your side should worry about this thing getting repealed.[/QUOTE]
So...you're okay with using disingenuous rhetoric to mislead the American People to get what you want?
Cool.
[QUOTE=TH89;30352445]So...you're okay with using disingenuous rhetoric to mislead the American People to get what you want?
Cool.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://gyazo.com/554e7640f711ae8a21bbea526a927e13.png[/img]
I gather that he feels it isn't disingenuous at all.
I don't think nitpicking about calling it Obamacare really makes sense to do because it is called that for convenience. Obamacare is really the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and that really doesn't roll off the tongue. PPACA isn't really a good acronym. It is called Obamacare out of convenience because it makes it obvious that it referring to the heath care act Obama pushed for.
In case you haven't noticed, most legislation like this usually tries to make an acronym out of the name to make referring to it easy. Take the Patriot act. The real piece of legislation isn't called the Patriot act, but rather "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" which makes for USA Patriot act.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
