Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[BVS]

We either have a Stephen Colbert within our midsts or an in the flesh Rush taught conservative. Either way it shows us how the combination of soulless and mindless are dangerous and funny at the same time.

No matter how you slice it. We cannot escape that we are a collective society, no society worth writing about has functioned or survived without understanding this.

There's a reason the Bible says: "And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Almost all religions have a similiar theme somewhere within it's texts.

The sick, the poor, the wealthy it doesn't matter; what happens to them will effect you(and your wallet). For those of you against any sort of government healthcare reform let me ask you this: how do you propose a system where the sick and poor don't effect you? In the private industry you pay into groups, if you don't know this you shouldn't be taking part in this conversation, and in those groups the healthy pay more to cover the sick. So what's your other option? Ignore the poor and sick? Ok, but when they start dying at alarming rates because they are being turned down healthcare are they of no cost burden anymore to you? Burial is free right? And let's not take in the factor that crime is directly correlated to health and poverty. I can go on and on all day, but the truth is you cannot come up with a solution where the least of your brothers don't effect your life.

 

[Danny Boy]

But don't worry, I walk every day and I'm not obese and I avoid sugar. I can't get my weight where I'd prefer it to be but I can't get in a time machine and make myself 25 either. A million apologies to my fellow taxpayers.

If you're not a vegan ultramarathon runner, you just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

If you're not a vegan ultramarathon runner, you just aren't trying hard enough.

Of course you are so right. I'm an extremely picky eater and I have bad knees, so I guess I should just end it all now. Hey that's an idea, self generated death panels. Only the fittest survive, and they don't have to pay for the diabetic fat slobs. When the Hunger Games start, pick off the diabetics first.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Chief Justice John Roberts Must Have Had an Epileptic Episode, Reason Increasingly Deluded Conservatives

The "epilepsy did it" theory is brought to you by conservative radio host Michael Savage, who implied on his radio show that Roberts' epilepsy-addled brain was ill-equipped to rule on the Affordable Care Act, because seizures make people change their political ideologies. The full quote, per Think Progress

" Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying."

 

[martha]

LOL

For real?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Wow. That's a novel explanation. A stupid one, but novel nonetheless.

If some of the people in here are dead serious about the whole, "If you get sick it's your own fault" thing, I'd like you to go say that to someone who is in a hospital dying. Say it to their families. Right to their faces. I dare you. See how long you last in that setting.

 

[corianderstem]

Chief Justice John Roberts Must Have Had an Epileptic Episode, Reason Increasingly Deluded Conservatives

Everybody ready?

All together now ..... with gusto ...

CHRIST, WHAT AN ASSHOLE!

 

[Danny Boy]

Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures.

This upsets me greatly. I don't want my tax dollars paying for Roberts' medical insurance any longer, because clearly it's his own fault that he suffers from epilepsy.

 

[INDY500]

And didn't elected legislators pass this law?

And didn't that House get voted out of office at the first opportunity? Didn't that Senate lose 6 seats?

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill without the bait & switch of "it's a mandate"--"now it's a tax"? The largest in history in fact.

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill had they not received a political bribe political favor?

A bill that no one read, was passed using reconciliation rules with no bipartisan support, has never gained majority approval in the polls and was funded by a mandate until they had to call it a tax in the courts, and whose cost estimates rise every month.

You must be very proud.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: OFF THE LIBERAL GRID
Posts: 4,013
Local Time: 11:11 PM

You really do think you are under siege in the United States?

 

[Irvine511]

And didn't that House get voted out of office at the first opportunity? Didn't that Senate lose 6 seats?

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill without the bait & switch of "it's a mandate"--"now it's a tax"? The largest in history in fact.

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill had they not received a political bribe political favor?

A bill that no one read, was passed using reconciliation rules with no bipartisan support, has never gained majority approval in the polls and was funded by a mandate until they had to call it a tax in the courts, and whose cost estimates rise every month.

You must be very proud.

Until you acknowledge the utter abuse of the filibuster and the fact that this incumbent is well positioned to possibly win reelection in the worst economy since the 1830s, your complaints about democracy ring hollow.

When people discover what is actually in the ACA, the more popular it gets.

 

[martha]

And didn't that House get voted out of office at the first opportunity? Didn't that Senate lose 6 seats?

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill without the bait & switch of "it's a mandate"--"now it's a tax"? The largest in history in fact.

How many of those elected legislators would have voted for the bill had they not received a political bribe political favor?

A bill that no one read, was passed using reconciliation rules with no bipartisan support, has never gained majority approval in the polls and was funded by a mandate until they had to call it a tax in the courts, and whose cost estimates rise every month.

You must be very proud.

You really know how to extrapolate. You must be very proud.

 

[financeguy]

I think it's unfortunate that US conservatives seem to experience the old "red mist descending" and see socialist and communist plots everywhere regarding this issue. Surely the best approach is to forget about ideology and figure out what system is optimal and delivers the best results for clients/patients at minimum or at least affordable cost to both taxpayer and patient, and work down from there?

While I cannot say Obama's plan is the solution, the US health system, as it stands, is clearly decidly suboptimal (unless the WHO is part of the secret communist conspiracy to destroy America, which seems unlikely). It ranks quite low on the international metrics regarding patient delivery (unless you are part of the 1%), very high on consultants' pay scale metrics, compared to other countries, and health insurance seemingly costs a bomb and is virtually unaffordable for most middle and low income earners. A mediocre system at Rolls Royce prices, basically. These are, I'm afraid, the hard truths - and conservatives, on most issues, are better at grasping and owning up to hard truths than liberals. Surely this very expensive system is something conservatives should react against, and advocate reform?

So, I would gently and respectfully request of my conservative brethren - who are almost always correct on practically every other issue, and demonstrably more intelligent, and indeed more fair-minded than most liberals - that they put aside party loyalties and pre-conceived prejudice and revisit this issue. I'm not asking you to sign up to the Obama plan - we know that he's dead wrong on most issues, and there's no particular reason to believe he is right on this one - but let's just acknowledge that the issue may be worth another look.

 

[financeguy]

We really don't need two of them.

I can think of about a dozen countries I would rather contract an acute or chronic illness in than the United States. Hardly saying this bill is air-tight, but we don't need our own healthcare system knocking us down once we get back on our feet.

According to the WHO, there are 36 other countries you would be better off contracting an acute or chronic illness than the US. Not a great result for the "Best Country on Earth" (TM). Must do better, more effort needed would be the verdict here, one thinks.

 

[Diemen]

So, I would gently and respectfully request

How nice of you!

- who are almost always correct on practically every other issue, and demonstrably more intelligent, and indeed more fair-minded than most liberals

... Oh.

FYM as a whole would be a lot better if we could all resist the temptation to throw in petty jabs at "the other side" all the time.

 

[Danny Boy]

...and conservatives, on most issues, are better at grasping and owning up to hard truths than liberals.

I'd certainly like to hear some clarification on this statement. From where I sit, the only hard truth for the conservative leadership is that they have lots of money and they'll do anything to hold onto as much of it as they can. They've convinced all the knuckle draggers that the liberals are trying to take away their freedom of choice, but if you don't have any money in the US, you don't really have a lot of choices to begin with.

 

[financeguy]

FYM as a whole would be a lot better if we could all resist the temptation to throw in petty jabs at "the other side" all the time.

Agreed. Consider it retracted.

 

[PhilsFan]

I think it's unfortunate that US conservatives seem to experience the old "red mist descending" and see socialist and communist plots everywhere regarding this issue. Surely the best approach is to forget about ideology and figure out what system is optimal and delivers the best results for clients/patients at minimum or at least affordable cost to both taxpayer and patient, and work down from there?

While I cannot say Obama's plan is the solution, the US health system, as it stands, is clearly decidly suboptimal (unless the WHO is part of the secret communist conspiracy to destroy America, which seems unlikely). It ranks quite low on the international metrics regarding patient delivery (unless you are part of the 1%), very high on consultants' pay scale metrics, compared to other countries, and health insurance seemingly costs a bomb and is virtually unaffordable for most middle and low income earners. A mediocre system at Rolls Royce prices, basically. Surely this very expensive system is something conservatives should react against, and advocate reform?

The problem is, essentially, a dispute about where that reform originates from: from regulation or from self-reform?

 

[INDY500]

I think it's unfortunate that US conservatives seem to experience the old "red mist descending" and see socialist and communist plots everywhere regarding this issue. Surely the best approach is to forget about ideology and figure out what system is optimal and delivers the best results for clients/patients at minimum or at least affordable cost to both taxpayer and patient, and work down from there?

While I cannot say Obama's plan is the solution, the US health system, as it stands, is clearly decidly suboptimal (unless the WHO is part of the secret communist conspiracy to destroy America, which seems unlikely). It ranks quite low on the international metrics regarding patient delivery (unless you are part of the 1%), very high on consultants' pay scale metrics, compared to other countries, and health insurance seemingly costs a bomb and is virtually unaffordable for most middle and low income earners. A mediocre system at Rolls Royce prices, basically. These are, I'm afraid, the hard truths - and conservatives, on most issues, are better at grasping and owning up to hard truths than liberals. Surely this very expensive system is something conservatives should react against, and advocate reform?

So, I would gently and respectfully request of my conservative brethren - who are almost always correct on practically every other issue, and demonstrably more intelligent, and indeed more fair-minded than most liberals - that they put aside party loyalties and pre-conceived prejudice and revisit this issue. I'm not asking you to sign up to the Obama plan - we know that he's dead wrong on most issues, and there's no particular reason to believe he is right on this one - but let's just acknowledge that the issue may be worth another look.

I've made my arguments for free market reforms here for 4 years. Let us not forget most of our problems are rooted in government policy going back to WWII. (Linking healthcare to our jobs via the tax code, mandating free health care at emergency rooms, Medicare pricing policies, not enforcing our border, failure to control tort litigation, etc).

This is a terrible bill for countless reasons, including fundamentally changing the relationship between government and citizen, but in the end all it really does is expand access to a flawed and unsustainable system.

 

[financeguy]

I've made my arguments for free market reforms here for 4 years. Let us not forget most of our problems are rooted in government policy going back to WWII. (Linking healthcare to our jobs via the tax code, mandating free health care at emergency rooms, Medicare pricing policies, not enforcing our border, failure to control tort litigation, etc).

This is a terrible bill for countless reasons, including fundamentally changing the relationship between government and citizen, but in the end all it really does is expand access to a flawed and unsustainable system.

I'm afraid I don't understand any of this. Can you explain your prescription, as it were, for improving the system and delivering better outcomes for end users? For example, the free market reforms you advocate, can you outline those once again, in simple terms?

 

[Steved1998]

Chief Justice John Roberts Must Have Had an Epileptic Episode, Reason Increasingly Deluded Conservatives

The "epilepsy did it" theory is brought to you by conservative radio host Michael Savage, who implied on his radio show that Roberts' epilepsy-addled brain was ill-equipped to rule on the Affordable Care Act, because seizures make people change their political ideologies. The full quote, per Think Progress

" Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying."

I don't blame epilepsy. There is more sinister force at work: Barack Obama. Obama obviously had men loyal to him threaten Chief Justice Roberts' family. What man would risk the safety of his family? Not I! That's the only explanation for his piss poor attempt to move the court to the center and support this socialist handout.

 

[martha]

It must've been the Kenyan Mafia.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

mandating free health care at emergency rooms

This is bad...why?

 

[Steved1998]

This is bad...why?

If you can't afford the doctor, than you're not entitled to the treatment. Don't get sick if you can't pay for it.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

This is bad...why?

i would think the more pressing issue would be to mandate the charges emergency rooms, err, charge. it shouldn't cost several thousands of dollars for an overnight stay in an er, especially if there's no surgery involved or anything. not to mention how ridiculously inaccurate the billing process can be.

perhaps if we reigned in those charges it wouldn't be so ridiculous that just a fraction of people can't afford to pay their hospital bills, and perhaps too if people didn't get $20k bills there'd also be less people declaring bankruptcy because they had a heart attack.

but that's just me.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

i would think the more pressing issue would be to mandate the charges emergency rooms, err, charge. it shouldn't cost several thousands of dollars for an overnight stay in an er, especially if there's no surgery involved or anything. not to mention how ridiculously inaccurate the billing process can be.

perhaps if we reigned in those charges it wouldn't be so ridiculous that just a fraction of people can't afford to pay their hospital bills, and perhaps too if people didn't get $20k bills there'd also be less people declaring bankruptcy because they had a heart attack.

but that's just me.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Just...the idea of turning people away who are sick because they don't have the money seems so cold-hearted to me. Doctors are there to help you get better, not get rich off your illness.

Steved, if you're serious, that just flat out makes no sense and isn't at all realistic. If you're not, is there a particular reason for the trolling, or...?

I'm dead serious, some of the comments on this part of the boards of late are really bugging the crap out of me.

 

[HBK-79]

Wholeheartedly agreed. Just...the idea of turning people away who are sick because they don't have the money seems so cold-hearted to me. Doctors are there to help you get better, not get rich off your illness.

Steved, if you're serious, that just flat out makes no sense and isn't at all realistic. If you're not, is there a particular reason for the trolling, or...?

I'm dead serious, some of the comments on this part of the boards of late are really bugging the crap out of me.

I agree with you, Angela. People can't help it if they get sick. Or get into an accident. Or get physically or sexually assaulted.

People can't help it if they are just unfortunate. Trust me. I used to work in an ER/trauma center.

 

[INDY500]

You really know how to extrapolate. You must be very proud.

Originally Posted by martha
And didn't elected legislators pass this law?

I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.

 

[INDY500]

This is bad...why?

If, as the argument goes, this new mandate, err, tax is only going to affect the 1% to 2% of "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but refuse to pay then why not, just like any other business, allow hospitals to collect on unpaid bills rather than cost-shifting that loss to those that do pay?

Why can the government collect a tax on these people but hospitals can't sue them for unpaid bills? Why not just cut out the middleman, government?

Oh wait, getting government MORE involved, not less, is the raison d'être of Obamacare.

 

[Danny Boy]

If, as the argument goes, this new mandate, err, tax is only going to affect the 1% to 2% of "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but refuse to pay then why not, just like any other business, allow hospitals to collect on unpaid bills rather than cost-shifting that loss to those that do pay?

Sorry, strawman argument. There are plenty of employed young people who choose not to buy health insurance because they are "healthy," but they can't afford to pay their medical bills if they have a catastrophic injury or illness like cancer.