Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kato View Post
    I'm moderately sure the Perry Expedition counts as such.
    Touche', I meant American citizens.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
      z,



      nor do we now-- there's a fine for not having insurance, not "death".
      Its not a fine, its a tax and all government power including taxation extends from the point of a gun.

      in any case, what i'm getting at is that it's not NEW for governments, including the US, to "mandate" commerce. in fact, mandating that hospitals treat all ER patients regardless of ability to pay is an extension of this-- just not as obvious. similarly, restricting goods in wartime and nationalizing industries is another. in peacetime, Social Security is similar to this, as well. and of course there's the Militia Act of 1792 as a very early example, although as with the wartime examples given, is admittedly weaker as a comparison to a peacetime domestic policy.
      None of those examples are even close... Really, comparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse... The rest of your examples are just as absurd.

      Comment


      • z,

        Its not a fine, its a tax and all government power including taxation extends from the point of a gun.
        that's sort of like stating that the punishment for littering is "death". yeah, no kidding the state has a monopoly on violence, but that doesn't mean it'll be -used-. especially given that the law specifically states "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."

        None of those examples are even close... Really, comparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse... The rest of your examples are just as absurd.
        "neener neener that makes no sense" isn't an argument.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          JAD,



          as i said, the ACA is a very awkward kludge.

          in any case, my original statement, i think, still holds: when you state "Many of them value freedom above everything else and subscribe to the idea of individual responsibility. They do not want a government that forces them to buy anything, no matter how good it is", really, in this case "freedom" here is "freedom to free ride/take advantage of others". in this case, hospitals and ultimately, insured people.

          that's certainly not subscribing to the idea of individual responsibility.

          that the supreme court ruled the way it did also tells me that they do not put a particularly heavy weight on this type of "freedom". to me, more dismaying is how the -conservatives- are making this type of argument, turning an issue of individual responsibility/paying for services used into a Manichean argument of freedom and tyranny.

          frankly, the easy liberal way would have been to just subsidize the poor/require insurance companies to never drop coverage without such an individual mandate; something that would indeed be financially ruinous. encouraging these type of tendencies is not exactly a victory for the conservative cause, i'd say.

          Out of all the fuss ought to come some consensus on how to give the poor access to healthcare without denying the rest of us a choice. Is it necessary for the government to create a system that not only places the burden on those who can pay, but also forces them to access their healthcare on the government's terms? I would prefer to be taxed to equalize people's access to healthcare than to be forced to purchase an insurance policy drafted by government bureaucrats. I realize the enormous cost of making healthcare accessible to the poor makes it tempting to bring everyone into a single system. I acknowledge that the ACA will eventually function more or less as designed...if it survives.

          But we are begging the question. The real question is, at what cost to our individual freedom... You downplay that side of the issue, citing examples of other government demands on people. As I pointed out those demands were done within the framework of the Constitution. You don't see how Federal government nibbling away at your freedom to choose reduces your freedom. You remind me of my liberal friend who values her freedom of speech, yet supports solutions to social problems that could ultimately undermine her freedom.

          It is the incremental increases in Federal power that is the issue here. Where will it lead us? Putting fresh paint over rotting wood is not a solution. Entitlements are the rot. They burden the state with conniving free-riders not only in the ERs, but everywhere, from food stamps to SS disability. Is it wise to let this continue simply because some people in real need are being helped? Or, can we help people in the American family who truly need help and do it without constricting our freedom? I think so. We have to stop taking the easy way out. Anyway, these are fundamental questions we should be thinking about.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            z,



            that's sort of like stating that the punishment for littering is "death". yeah, no kidding the state has a monopoly on violence, but that doesn't mean it'll be -used-. especially given that the law specifically states "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."
            If you believe that no prosecutions will follow I've got a bridge and a working healthcare website to sell you...

            "neener neener that makes no sense" isn't an argument.
            Then why use it? I said, "omparing Kaiser Permamente's mandate to treat all in need as a requirement to get tax dollars with the new requirement that John Doe preserve Kaiser's profitability at his own expanse." Which is considerably more detailed and specific than neener neener...

            Comment


            • From the point of a gun? Most likely not. Having your tax return evaporate, seeing your bank accounts seized and watching helplessly as your credit rating nosedive are the tools most likely used against you.
              Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                From the point of a gun? Most likely not. Having your tax return evaporate, seeing your bank accounts seized and watching helplessly as your credit rating nosedive are the tools most likely used against you.
                Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.

                Comment


                • JAD,

                  I would prefer to be taxed to equalize people's access to healthcare than to be forced to purchase an insurance policy drafted by government bureaucrats. I realize the enormous cost of making healthcare accessible to the poor makes it tempting to bring everyone into a single system. I acknowledge that the ACA will eventually function more or less as designed...if it survives.

                  But we are begging the question. The real question is, at what cost to our individual freedom... You downplay that side of the issue, citing examples of other government demands on people. As I pointed out those demands were done within the framework of the Constitution. You don't see how Federal government nibbling away at your freedom to choose reduces your freedom. You remind me of my liberal friend who values her freedom of speech, yet supports solutions to social problems that could ultimately undermine her freedom.

                  It is the incremental increases in Federal power that is the issue here. Where will it lead us? Putting fresh paint over rotting wood is not a solution. Entitlements are the rot. They burden the state with conniving free-riders not only in the ERs, but everywhere, from food stamps to SS disability. Is it wise to let this continue simply because some people in real need are being helped? Or, can we help people in the American family who truly need help and do it without constricting our freedom? I think so. We have to stop taking the easy way out. Anyway, these are fundamental questions we should be thinking about.
                  both you and i know that there are two ultimate problems with entitlements in general: a pure numbers problem, and the ideological problem.

                  the two are inter-related but not the same. one of the reasons why i'm for healthcare reform is not so much out of a woolly-headed liberal belief that "healthcare is a right", but because i view reform as a practical solution that will reduce spending, both government and personal, on healthcare. i used the example of canada as a comparison, but of course there are other international examples out there.

                  to this extent i'm interested in solutions that fall within the bounds of the Constitution, unlike your liberal friend; and the ACA has been ruled as such.

                  finally, on the ideological point. following welfare reform in the 90s, the shrinking of the national security state following the cold war, and the overall reduction in the size of government, i-- as well as most people-- are comfortable with the overall framework of the state. there's certainly areas where it can be reformed, but given a hard look at the numbers, it does not require a root-and-branch overhaul.

                  note this is a practical evaluation, not an ideological one. looking at examples abroad, i have my doubts that we're on the path towards some totalitarian dictatorship or communism, with a numbed and welfare-dependent populace. we have multiple examples of states with considerably higher tax loads, considerably higher state spending, and more comprehensive welfare programs-- in fact, pretty much the rest of the developed world. scandinavia, for instance, does not seem like a hellhole filled with freeriders wholly dependent on state largess; neither does germany nor japan. for that matter, we had all of the above 25 years ago, yet no one in their right mind would state that we were on the road to doom.

                  i'm -not- saying that those states are an ideal. each country has its own traditions and culture, and the US is, both for good and for ill, a highly individualistic culture with a tradition of relatively decentralized power. however, it is some indication, i think, that it's possible to look at these problems less through an ideological lens but through a much more practical lens.

                  and i think in this case it's very important to use the practical lens. the ideological questions overwhelm the practical one, because it is so very easy to state: "it doesn't matter if it's good for the people/good for the treasury; it's a stepping stone on the way to tyranny, so it must be avoided at all costs."
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    Which one is it now?

                    Hospitals pay for free riders or taxes pay for them? I was under impression from previous posts taxpayers did it in the past. So, what changed?
                    The government has dipped into the money flow to 1: help itself to some of it and 2: dictate who pays and who receives. Socialism American style.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      The government has dipped into the money flow to 1: help itself to some of it and 2: dictate who pays and who receives. Socialism American style.
                      Hey it's them Republicans who wont allow more borrowings and wanted savings. The Gov just had to.
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.
                        Still not a point of a gun. This was all voted in and can be voted out by a major shift in congress demographics. Secondly those "healthy" young -uns are the most risk takers with their health. Just because their past has not caught up with them yet is no excuse. Lastly the idea of subsidies are not new or unique to Obamacare. If you have insurance you have been subsidizing those that don't have insurance. You can live the healthiest lifestyle there is and you are still subsidizing smokers, the lazy, drug addicts, Those that shove unhealthy food in their pie holes, etc. There is no point whining about it now as you have already been subsidizing all these people for decades, and mostly for corporate profits.

                        There are a myriad of ways to drive down healthcare costs. Instead of focusing on Obamacare it is time to really push to drive down those costs. The pharmaceutical industry needs an enema. Frivolous lawsuits need to be reigned in. Our food industry needs an overhaul, Incompetent healthcare providers need to be fired. Insurance carriers need more competition, etc. Those are issues where you are going to get more bang for your buck but these issues are being ignored for the big dick swinging contest that is the ACA.
                        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                          Still not a point of a gun.
                          Every act of government proceeds from the point of a gun.

                          This was all voted in and can be voted out by a major shift in congress demographics.
                          As is hopefully happening now.

                          Secondly those "healthy" young -uns are the most risk takers with their health.
                          The biggest health care cost are the elderly within 2 years of their deaths... We know what those end of life treatments are and they are not worth it, not on the public dime. Why should my 30 years of smoking (now 4 months without lightning up) gain me 2 million in public funds for cancer treatments? That would be theft plain and simple.

                          Just because their past has not caught up with them yet is no excuse.
                          Wow, you've bought the idea of nanny state hook line and sinker...

                          Lastly the idea of subsidies are not new or unique to Obamacare. If you have insurance you have been subsidizing those that don't have insurance. You can live the healthiest lifestyle there is and you are still subsidizing smokers, the lazy, drug addicts, Those that shove unhealthy food in their pie holes, etc. There is no point whining about it now as you have already been subsidizing all these people for decades, and mostly for corporate profits.
                          I disagree, but even presuming your premise is correct. Why make things even more expensive and crush the wealth building capability of the young child rearing members we need to carry the system a few decades down the road to pay for never earned benefits today?

                          There are a myriad of ways to drive down healthcare costs. Instead of focusing on Obamacare it is time to really push to drive down those costs. The pharmaceutical industry needs an enema. Frivolous lawsuits need to be reigned in. Our food industry needs an overhaul, Incompetent healthcare providers need to be fired. Insurance carriers need more competition, etc. Those are issues where you are going to get more bang for your buck but these issues are being ignored for the big dick swinging contest that is the ACA.
                          You sir, are bought and paid for... You want to drive down cost- stop coddling people who committed health suicide. Insurance profits are modest to say the least. Generally drug therapy is cheaper than a doctor going hands on, and medical malpractice reform is a red herring.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Every act of government proceeds from the point of a gun.
                            Sure as the power of the vote means nothing. When did we lose our republic/democracy? You may consider yourself a slave but I am still a free man.



                            As is hopefully happening now.
                            We will see in 2014 and 2016

                            The biggest health care cost are the elderly within 2 years of their deaths... We know what those end of life treatments are and they are not worth it, not on the public dime. Why should my 30 years of smoking (now 4 months without lightning up) gain me 2 million in public funds for cancer treatments? That would be theft plain and simple.
                            That theft as it were has been going on since the beginning. You still can't walk away from the fact that YOU chose to smoke when you were younger. There is a price to be paid for that even if you stick your head in the ground and ignore that glaring fact. Furthermore those end of life treatments may not be worth it to you but you can not make that decision for others.

                            Wow, you've bought the idea of nanny state hook line and sinker...
                            There is nothing nanny about paying your own way.

                            I disagree, but even presuming your premise is correct. Why make things even more expensive and crush the wealth building capability of the young child rearing members we need to carry the system a few decades down the road to pay for never earned benefits today?
                            The kids can be covered until they are 25. That is their safety net not a anchor. Secondly even the young get sick and injured. They are getting those benefits every day. If they were smart they would be in for regular checkups and wellness so their liability down the road would be less. Insurance at that age means the difference between being able to have adequate healthcare to alleviate the problems or kicking them down the road in old age. Even a modest injury could bankrupt a young person and a bad credit rating can ruin earnings potential for a good chunk of a person's life.


                            You sir, are bought and paid for... You want to drive down cost- stop coddling people who committed health suicide. Insurance profits are modest to say the least. Generally drug therapy is cheaper than a doctor going hands on, and medical malpractice reform is a red herring.

                            Drugs are not cheap. If you think so YOU are the one bought and paid for. BTW while you are ignorantly ranting and protecting the big players in the healthcare industry you have not noticed that healthcare has gone from curing to managing diseases....all for those modest profits you have lied about.
                            Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                            Comment


                            • There is nothing nanny about paying your own way.
                              I agree, but Obamacare is not in anyway shape or form paying your own way. Obamacare is the already old and already sick demanding the young and healthy give up their future.

                              Comment


                              • And then there is the elderly:

                                United Health drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans: WSJ
                                Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:00pm EST

                                (Reuters) - United Health Group (UNH.N) dropped thousands of doctors from its networks in recent weeks, leaving many elderly patients unsure whether they need to switch plans to continue seeing their doctors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

                                The insurer said in October that under funding of Medicare Advantage plans for the elderly could not be fully offset by the company's other healthcare business. The company also reported spending more healthcare premiums on medical claims in the third quarter, due mainly to government cuts to payments for Medicare Advantage services.

                                The Journal report said that doctors in at least 10 states were notified of being laid off the plans, some citing "significant changes and pressures in the healthcare environment." According to the notices, the terminations can be appealed within 30 days.

                                Tyler Mason, a UnitedHealth spokesperson, was not immediately available for comment when reached by Reuters.

                                The insurer told the WSJ that its provider networks were always changing and that it expected its Medicare Advantage network to be 85 percent to 90 percent of its current size by the end of 2014.

                                UnitedHealth is participating in about a dozen new state insurance markets that launched on October 1 to offer subsidized health coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

                                The insurer said previously it planned to withdraw from some markets in 2014 because of the government funding cuts.

                                Another top health insurer, Aetna Inc (AET.N), also warned in October that it expected slowing growth in 2014 in its Medicare Advantage plans.

                                UnitedHealth drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans: WSJ | Reuters

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X