Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

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

  • if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

    individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...
    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
      if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

      individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...
      It is so like..."whose your daddy now?"

      Liberalism is pure poison.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

        individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...
        Sure Asty,

        Individual responsibility, defined in precise and universal parameters for you by the government, subsidized by your fellow citizens, penalized by a tax fine, foisted on every person in the country, run through enormous, complex and cumbersome bureaucracies, including services you will likely never need or want, spending money that we do not have, based on balance sheets that exist only in the imagination, all to turn free-riding into subsidized riding.

        Absolutely conservative. As freedom loving and American as apple pie. :)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.

          individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...
          making people engage in commerce at the point of a gun is not in any way shape or form- liberty or personal responsibility, its extortion.
          Last edited by zraver; 16 Nov 13,, 02:24.

          Comment


          • making people engage in commerce at the point of a gun is not in any way shape or form- liberty or personal responsibility, its extortion.
            spare me. we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

            for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

            we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

            let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

            conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

            "we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.
            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


            • This is what I want to know. When are the "free-riders" going to be penalized for anything? I mean really. They get food stamps, Section 8 housing, medicaid and welfare. NOW we have to pay for their insurance coverage cuz Obama wants it off their books. I am furious about paying for maternity coverage for these free-riders to have more babies that we have to take care of their entire life. My child bearing days are over, I shouldn't have to pay for that coverage in my policy. What the hell happened to individuals being responsible for their own decisions and consequences? This isn't a 3rd world country. Jobs are out there, you just got to get off your free-riding ass and go get one.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                spare me. we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

                for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

                we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

                let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

                conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

                "we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.
                We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death... The power of government as you point out with your statement about selective service includes the power of life and death. That power has now been harnessed to provide profits to private corporations and individuals.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  if being "affordable" was the only tenet of the ACA, then why not just a subsidy for the low-income folks? the whole point of a mandate, one of the tiers of the ACA, is to eliminate free-riding.


                  individual responsibility. a conservative notion, or so i was led to believe...
                  asty

                  The proponents of universal mandates are willing to scrap 'individual responsibility', once thought to be protected by the Constitution. The end, in their view, justifies the means. Not long ago, I asked a vehement supporter of the ACA if she favored violating the Constitution to solve social problems. "You bet I do," she said. Ironically, she's a frequent demonstrator and fiercely protective of her right of free speech. We don't have to take issue with the Constitution to solve social problems; we can craft smarter legislation, and, if need be, amend the Constitution.

                  From the ivory tower of intellectual musing, the idea of a universal mandate for healthcare coverage makes perfect sense. Require all those mortals below to buy insurance that covers every illness. Then all of them will be able to get healthcare whenever they need it. Problem solved. Or, so it seems. In reality, those mortals are not automatons. 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. It seems that, over time, the Federal government, under the power of a progressive-leaning Congress, developed a new principle: If it's good for people, require them to do it.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    ... we forced people to join the military, fight, kill, and die at a point of a gun, too. we still keep that structure within the Selective Service System.

                    for that matter we force people to pay money for services they will never use, either. it's called taxes.

                    we force people to save a certain amount of money for retirement through a roundabout way; it's called Social Security.

                    let's put it another way. the ACA is a clumsy mechanism to approximate universal healthcare through quasi-private means.

                    conservatives lambast single-payer/public option healthcare as a communist conspiracy, with the ACA as one short step from that. yet they're not willing to deny poor people use of the ER, or other publicly-subsidized healthcare. one wonders what conservatives are for.

                    "we're for the most-expensive form of subsidized healthcare because free-riding is an individual right!" this is precisely what is being argued here.

                    Asty:

                    The ACA mandated that all Americans must buy healthcare insurance and that failure to do so will result in a fine. The mandate was challenged by states that maintained it violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court skirted the issue by ruling that the fine was really a tax and that, since the Federal government can levy taxes, it could 'tax' people who do not carry health insurance. In essence, the tax is an incentive to force people to buy insurance, although people are free to not buy insurance as long as they pay the 'tax'.

                    As far as 'forcing' people into military service, see the list of Federal powers below.

                    As for Social Security, there is no requirement that a person has to work and therefore pay FICA taxes.

                    Single payer healthcare may be called 'communist' by some. However, it is not a mandate, but a social program supported by tax revenues. No one has to buy anything or being 'fined' for not buying it.



                    Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:

                    (1) Exclusive powers

                    (1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

                    (2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

                    (3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

                    (4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

                    (5) To regulate immigration.[7]

                    (6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

                    (7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

                    (8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

                    (9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

                    (10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

                    (11) To provide and regulate postal services.

                    (12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

                    (13) To constitute lower national courts.

                    (14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

                    (15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

                    (16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

                    (17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

                    (18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

                    (19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

                    (20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

                    (21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

                    (22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

                    (23) To admit new states into the Union.

                    (24) To dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

                    (25) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

                    (2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

                    (1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

                    (2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

                    (3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

                    (4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

                    (5) To conduct a census every ten years.

                    (3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

                    (1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

                    (2) To borrow money.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • z,

                      We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death...
                      nor do we now-- there's a fine for not having insurance, not "death".

                      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.
                      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


                      • 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?
                        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 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?
                          Both. Both the hospitals and the insurance companies are now double dipping. Being foreigners allow us to see through the bullshit.

                          Comment


                          • JAD,

                            Single payer healthcare may be called 'communist' by some. However, it is not a mandate, but a social program supported by tax revenues. No one has to buy anything or being 'fined' for not buying it.
                            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.
                            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


                            • Democrats Defect on Health Rules
                              Nov. 15, 2013

                              More than three dozen House Democrats rebuffed a White House veto threat and backed a Republican plan to change the health-care law, underscoring the tensions among members of President Barack Obama's party a day after he proposed his own fix to tamp down complaints. The Republican plan, a response to unease among millions of Americans who face cancellation of health-insurance policies that don't meet the new law's standards, would give insurers one more year to offer policies that were set to end. The 39 Democrats who backed the plan set a high-water mark in Republicans' efforts to win support from across the aisle to amend or delay portions of the law. Mr. Obama also faces skepticism among insurers about changes to the Affordable Care Act just a month and a half before it fully takes effect.

                              The health-insurance industry's top trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, has warned that the president's proposal to extend canceled policies could lead to higher prices, a suggestion that the White House disputes. If insurers go along with Mr. Obama's policy shift, as many as several million healthy people may stick with their current plans next year rather than buy coverage on new insurance exchanges set up under the health law. Many consumers upset about the policy cancellations say they enjoyed preferential pricing because of their good health.

                              Exacerbating the cancellation situation: Many people are having trouble buying coverage that complies with the health law because of problems with the federal HealthCare.gov website, which serves consumers in 36 states, and some state-run websites. Across the country, both insurers and state officials voiced a range of concerns about the president's policy shift. If the exchange plans lose customers with lower-than-average medical costs, that would cut into the profits of insurers, because 2014 premiums were set on the assumption that owners of the canceled policies would move onto the exchanges. That could force premiums higher in 2015. "We've now taken a riskier situation and thrown gasoline onto it," said Allan Einboden, chief executive of Scott & White Health Plan, a nonprofit insurer based in Temple, Texas. "If your premium has to be so high, it's not affordable to anyone."
                              Source

                              Oy Vey. What a mess.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                We have never forced people to engage in commerce under threat of death...
                                I'm moderately sure the Perry Expedition counts as such.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X