O'Romney care upheld. Now wait for Beyond to chime in.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
O'Romney care upheld. Now wait for Beyond to chime in.

Now to be honest, I am not too sure about this decision it seems to be split so not so sure how this will play out.

But our government is not solely "of the rich for the rich and by the rich and only for the rich". Now Beyond, you really cant bitch because this WAS a split decision sided by THE CHIEF AND REPUBLICAN JUDGE.

The price you pay for living in a voting democratic society is that YOU DON'T ALWAYS get what you want.

I personally think all this shit could have been avoided in the first place if there wasn't such a huge gap between the top and bottom and less people would need the government to stick up for them if the top did more on their own.

I might be with Beyond in that maybe neither of us saw this coming. I was sure this would go down. But it does give me a glimmer of hope that you can fight big money and you can fight monopolies of power.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm unsurprised, and just as

I'm unsurprised, and just as happy I'm not American. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm

Vastet wrote:
I'm unsurprised, and just as happy I'm not American. :P

Curious as to why. If this works I might just be able to get my wisdom teeth finally pulled.

 

Health care should be solely  between the doctor and patient and cost should never be an issue. The government has to step in because big business are the ones creating the boated costs and forcing people into the emergency rooms which no body wants.

 

But I am also aware that this could also be smoke and mirrors. I hope not. I don't think it would be wise for democrats to do this and then have it turn out badly. I think their is a real effort here.

 

If it works the way they say it should, it will create more competition and lower costs and it will take economic stress of off the middle class and poor. Lower costs means more money in the pockets of more people, less dependency on government more stability.

That is the theory anyway.

Didn't you say you were from Canada? Can't remember. But how is your system set up? I am sure it is better than ours, but damn man, we do have to try something and get away from the poverty the current shit is creating and growing.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Why? Because it's still

Why? Because it's still nothing like the awesome that we've got. I don't give $ to any insurance companies, and never will. Biggest scam since religion.

Though I'm happy you're making progress. This is certainly a step up.

Healthcare here is almost exclusively based on tax income.

Edit:
The problem I have with your new system is the assumption that insurance companies will lower their fees just because they have more customers. But their costs will also rise, and as insurance companies are purely profit motivated, I don't see a significantly better system arising from this change.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Why? Because

Vastet wrote:
Why? Because it's still nothing like the awesome that we've got. I don't give $ to any insurance companies, and never will. Biggest scam since religion. Though I'm happy you're making progress. This is certainly a step up. Healthcare here is almost exclusively based on tax income. Edit: The problem I have with your new system is the assumption that insurance companies will lower their fees just because they have more customers. But their costs will also rise, and as insurance companies are purely profit motivated, I don't see a significantly better system arising from this change.

I don't know. The problem is that there is no such thing as a utopia, and at least in this country, right now, outside of making all health care public, is to force them to compete if that is what they claim works. But they are not going to bully the rest of us.

On the other hand the other side of this issue is that Cuba has public health care, but politically I am sure you can find plenty of people who would gladly sacrifice health care for political freedom.

 

AND to be fair, Beyond might claim, yea, your system looks good now, but how sustainable is it long term.

 

Beyond's problem is the same as any other human about any issue. The forget that what may work at one time, may not be good during another period. AND they don't take range of complexity of a society into account.

 

You get into one word solutions in a pluralistic society you set that society up for division.

 

He doesn't want a nanny state, and falsely believes that I am fooling myself agreeing that NEITHER DO I.

 

So if one is going to jack off about how great the private sector is, and it DOES have some great elements I wouldn't want to change, as the private health care stands now AT THIS MOMENT in time sucks and all I see less government doing RIGHT NOW at this point, if done like that, considering the current climate of the top, cannot work because the people are not introspective enough. Less government right now depends on those in the private sector doing the right thing, RIGHT NOW less government would simply throw gas on the fire and create Chinese sweat shops.

 

It is a lie that social engineering doesn't happen or should not happen ever. That is what all laws do, they set the tone of our collective civility and behavior, EITHER WAY.

Our military is a social system. Our police and fire are a social system, our social security is a social system. I personally wouldn't mind all public health care, but our current fearmongering nuts on the right won't let that happen, so maybe MAYBE, we can at least create a climate where those who don't have the money to buy politicians cant be bullied or left to die because some idiot in a cubical was told to save money for the company.

 

I think with a climate of better pay for all classes, tax breaks for businesses who give better pay and health care and more full time work, and more direct giving, higher taxes for the uber rich, will EVENTUALLY create a climate for less need for government.

But you do make me envious.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now to be

Brian37 wrote:

Now to be honest, I am not too sure about this decision it seems to be split so not so sure how this will play out.

But our government is not solely "of the rich for the rich and by the rich and only for the rich". Now Beyond, you really cant bitch because this WAS a split decision sided by THE CHIEF AND REPUBLICAN JUDGE.

Unlike you I don't make my political opinions based on which side other people are on. This is an absolutely scary decision in that now the government can tax you for not purchasing a product they determined is good for you. No doubt many of the super rich corporations are drooling at the opportunity to force 311 million people to purchase their products. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I might be with Beyond in that maybe neither of us saw this coming. I was sure this would go down. But it does give me a glimmer of hope that you can fight big money and you can fight monopolies of power.

Your ignorance is amazing, this was a huge win for big money- as long as it is big enough to buy senators. You are fucked. You think you are getting "free" health care. You are not, you are going to be forced to purchase insurance with your own money. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Health care should be solely  between the doctor and patient and cost should never be an issue. The government has to step in because big business are the ones creating the boated costs and forcing people into the emergency rooms which no body wants.

By forcing you to become a customer of that big business even if you don't want to? Are you reading what you write?

 

Brian37 wrote:

If it works the way they say it should, it will create more competition and lower costs and it will take economic stress of off the middle class and poor. Lower costs means more money in the pockets of more people, less dependency on government more stability.

That is the theory anyway.

And you think that theory is at all plausible? The law limits competition by making much of the competition illegal. You can never expand competition by outlawing it. Lower costs? How? What measure in the law is going to lower costs? Raising taxes on medical equipment raises costs, insuring people who are sick costs more, removing lifetime limits costs more- everything in the law makes the outgoing expenses for insurance companies go higher. The result is that those costs will be passed to the consumer- insurance rates are going to go much higher than they are today. 

 

It would have been far better, and cheaper for us to go with a socialistic system than this fucked up monstrosity of bamacare. Especially with the massive extension of federal taxing power. Government has always been able to tax our actions, this is the first time they have been granted the authority to tax inaction. If you think this power is going to be limited to healthcare you are a naive dumbass. Corporations will be throwing millions at politicians to try to get similar laws passed to force you to purchase their products too. All brought to you by the supposedly "anti corporate" democrat party. This isn't about treating sick people, its about power and the federal government just got a shitload more power. And all you dumb fucks who supported this shit deserve everything you are going to get. 

 

For me personally, I will refuse to obey the law. I'm not going to purchase insurance, fuck them, I hate health insurance companies (I used to work for one) and they are not getting a penny from me. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:AND to be fair, Beyond

Quote:
AND to be fair, Beyond might claim, yea, your system looks good now, but how sustainable is it long term.

EXC is the one who ignores 40 years of successful medicare in Canada. I don't recall Beyond ever questioning the obvious and proven sustainability of our health system. I could be wrong.

I will say that many Americans are better off now, but I also agree with Beyond here. Giving big insurance companies a forced customer base is not the way to fix this. I can foresee all sorts of ways for this to end horribly.

Insurance companies should be outlawed, not given support through legislation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: EXC is the one

Vastet wrote:
EXC is the one who ignores 40 years of successful medicare in Canada.

The fact is you have to leave Canada for certain treatments or to avoid long waits. Taxes are higher in Canada to pay for this and you can exploit natural resources to pay for it. Canada controls the prices which reduces investment in new medical cures. They rely on the USA for medical innovations. Sorry but socialism does not mean a free lunch.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001648.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/20/canadian-healthcare.html

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/14139/canadidan-death-panel-decides-baby-should-die-canadian-court-agrees/

 

I do think that socialized medicine could work if it were part of a rational social contract. This would mean mandatory birth control while on welfare, not allowing students to study whatever they please, forcing people to work to get health care, etc... An entitlement society is unsustainable. The 40 years of not yet going bankrupt in Canada is testament only to the vast natural resources you all can exploit.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Why? Because

Vastet wrote:
Why? Because it's still nothing like the awesome that we've got. I don't give $ to any insurance companies, and never will. Biggest scam since religion. Though I'm happy you're making progress. This is certainly a step up. Healthcare here is almost exclusively based on tax income. Edit: The problem I have with your new system is the assumption that insurance companies will lower their fees just because they have more customers. But their costs will also rise, and as insurance companies are purely profit motivated, I don't see a significantly better system arising from this change.

This should substantially reduce costs because it reduces the number of people who get free healthcare at the ER.

What the Neo-Con press ignores is that we already had a free health care system.  With the Individual Mandate being upheld, the only people who'll now receive free healthcare are people who flat out can't afford it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
beyond wrote: Government has

beyond wrote:

Government has always been able to tax our actions, this is the first time they have power. Government has always been able to tax our actions, this is the first time they have been granted the authority to tax inaction.


I find this stuff bewildering, but wasn't car insurance the first time? If I don't buy car insurance then I pay a penalty, a tax, to the state. The penalty is more than my cost of insurance.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Want to save money?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This should substantially reduce costs because it reduces the number of people who get free healthcare at the ER.

What the Neo-Con press ignores is that we already had a free health care system.  With the Individual Mandate being upheld, the only people who'll now receive free healthcare are people who flat out can't afford it.

I've got some ocean front property in Arizona, I'll sell it to you half price! 

 

How much of a loss did hospitals suffer in 2010 from uncompensated care? What was it in total dollars and as a percentage of revenue? 

How much of a loss did hospitals suffer from underpayment from medicare & medicaid during the same time period? 

What is the estimated annual cost of the new government bureaucrats that will be hired to implement and run bamacare?

 

All of these facts are easily attainable through a simple google search in raw data form. I would provide it here but I'm sure you won't take me any more seriously than the neo-con press so I won't waste my time. But if you go through the effort to educate yourself you will see that your claim is absurd on its face, by the time you take out the government costs and consider that most of the poor are simply being shuffled by expanding medicaid, a program that already routinely fails to pay bills- there is no way to honestly claim it reduces costs.

 

There might be some argument that it is "better" because it makes medical care beyond emergency care more accessible to more people- an argument I think is wrong, but at least reasonable. To say it is going to be cheaper in any way is either flat out ignorance, delusional or a lie. It isn't cheaper. The only real debatable thing is whether the benefits are worth the extra expense. To me, there is no benefit worth losing the amount of freedom we lose with this law and allowing the government this much control over a service that is so important to our lives, even if the benefits are not overstated (which of course they are because all politicians always overstate benefits while downplaying costs, just like any other good salesperson)  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:beyond

ex-minister wrote:
beyond wrote:
Government has always been able to tax our actions, this is the first time they have power. Government has always been able to tax our actions, this is the first time they have been granted the authority to tax inaction.

I find this stuff bewildering, but wasn't car insurance the first time? If I don't buy car insurance then I pay a penalty, a tax, to the state. The penalty is more than my cost of insurance.

 

Car insurance is only required to drive on public roads. If you wish to have a car and drive around on private property without insurance you are free to do so. Also, car insurance is only required in the form of liability to protect others from your actions and you are only penalized if you perform the action of driving a car on a public road without insurance. You are essentially paying for the right to use public roads, just like you might pay for the right to camp in a public park or any other voluntary fee you might pay to use public services. This is taxing an action you have affirmatively taken. 

The health insurance mandate forces you to buy health insurance to cover your personal costs even if you are a hermit who never leaves the house and never goes to the doctor. So the huge difference is that auto insurance requirements protect others from you when you are voluntarily performing a dangerous activity on public roads. Health insurance mandates are imposed on you just because your alive.

 

Really, if worrying about people paying for their own health emergencies was the primary goal it could easily be taken care of by giving health care providers greater collections power or passing a law saying you have to pay your health bills, and if not government will cover it now and use its power to garnish you wages until it is paid back.

The reality is that non-payment of medical bills isn't a much larger factor in health care than non-payment of cable bills affects how much you pay for your tv. It is an insignificant of the total amount of money we spend on healthcare.   

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The fact is you

EXC wrote:
The fact is you have to leave Canada for certain treatments or to avoid long waits.

On very rare occasions, and still paid for by Canadian healthcare.

EXC wrote:
Taxes are higher in Canada to pay for this

So? It's worth it. Your taxes go to wars, you think you're better off? lol

EXC wrote:
and you can exploit natural resources to pay for it

A blatant lie, proven so hundreds of times over 4+ years. As was the rest of your post. You're a broken record of stupid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
PIP is Required in at least 17 states

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Also, car insurance is only required in the form of liability to protect others from your actions and you are only penalized if you perform the action of driving a car on a public road without insurance. You are essentially paying for the right to use public roads, just like you might pay for the right to camp in a public park or any other voluntary fee you might pay to use public services.

17 states have gone further then liability only with car insurance so it's not entirely true that it's to protect other's from your actions.

PIP is Personal Injury Protection part of No Fault insurance in some states.

I lived in Florida for about 20 years and it's required by law. You can't have a driver's license in Florida without it. This contributes to a large % of suspended licenses. It's not like they stop driving on the roads either.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:This

FurryCatHerder wrote:
This should substantially reduce costs because it reduces the number of people who get free healthcare at the ER.

This assumes the millions of people who never went to the doctor for minor things will still not go. A good chunk of the reason healthcare is expensive and slow for Canadians is because many Canadians take advantage of free healthcare to go to the doctor for a runny nose.

I'm sure ER's around the US will see some relief from this, but the industry in general will almost certainly see the opposite.

As a result, insurance rates will not be dropping significantly, or for long, if at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.