Export thread

More or less (I think). The Individual Mandate is a tax, which not only means that it's ok, it also means that it can't be challenged in court until 2015 again (some law about suing over taxes).

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ourt-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1

Edit: Fun fact. Roberts was a deciding vote.

YES! Now we just need to keep Romney out, as that disconnected little rich bitch says he'd introduce legislation to strike all of the law down.

BLOODY ACTIVIST JUSTICES.....

Oh, I'm for the law, never mind.

The celebrations on Facebook (mostly by people under the age of 30) have been interesting. I know a few people who are going to be able to get treatment/surgeries they need for pre-existing conditions who wouldn't have been able to if Obamacare was struck down. I myself now know I'm going to have health insurance when I start my business in a few more weeks, as I can get back on my parents' plan. I'm really not sure what a lot of the long-term implications of Obamacare are going to be, but it seems today there's a lot of good coming out of it.

whew, thank goodness those poor starving private insurance corporations will be able to survive now thanks to Obama's help.

Ok, so you people smarter than me might be able to explain this to me.

What is the point of the individual mandate? Whatever I read about it says that it basically forces people who don't have health insurance to buy it. But considering I assume everyone who can afford health insurance has bought it (religious groups notwithstanding), wont that just make life worse for people without a lot of money?

But if you can add millions of people to in rolls of the insured, you can drive down the price to where it is more affordable.

You have to have everyone playing the game for it to work. If only the sick people have insurance then insurance prices are too high. Basically you need young/healthy people buying insurance to help pay for the others. The pre-existing conditions policy also requires this, as there's no reason to buy insurance until you are really sick in if they can't turn you away.

But if they have to buy it, won't it just let the insurance companies say "Hey, they have to buy this! We can raise prices now!"

If they collude, sure, but that is illegal. There is still a marketplace for insurance.

It could, but there's still a free market, people get to choose which insurance company to go to. So if one of them jacks up their prices people just go to another one. And if they do some sort of collusion w/ hospitals or each other that requires you to go to an expensive one then that is called price-fixing, which is illegal.

There's probably other laws stopping it as well.

But if I remember my basic micro-economics class right, increased demand leads to higher prices, collusion or not.

In places where supply is limited, sure, but insurance doesn't work like that. It's like a bank. An increase in the number of people wanting to save money there doesn't drive up the costs of saving money there.

Alright, that makes sense. I still don't see why prices would go down though.

Supply is virtually unlimited. A free market theoretically drives the price closer to the operating costs, which are basically administrative costs + average insurance payouts/person.

Shared risk/cost. Right now the people that don't really need health insurance don't get it, and the peopel that do need it get it, but end up costing insurance companies more than they pay in premiums.

So like, if I'm a baby boomer there's a pretty good chance I will need a major operation (like say knee surgery) in 10 years, and I will probably need a handful of regular medicines for blood pressure etc. And I'm more likely to go to get a CT scan of my chest or something. The cost of those items may well end up exceeding the amount I pay for my premium.

Now, if I'm a young healthy guy, I may pay 200$/mo but I almost never go to the doctor. The money I am putting into health insurance is more than I am recieving in services.

The problem right now is that the people from the second group don't really use insurance, or at least not nearly as much as the people from the first group. The people in the second group who have insurance (like myself) have to pay higher premiums to make up for all the other people in the second group who don't have insurance. So when the number of people in the second group increases the burden I have to pay to support those in the first group decreases.

Edit: Another point is that there are a lot of people without health insurance who don't catch health issues early and end up going to the ER or getting treatments that are wayyyyy more expensive than it would have cost early on. Since they are unable to pay their bills the expense of their visit ends up getting put on the second group.

Now, by forcing them to buy insurance (or fining them), means that they may well get the preventative medicne they need to ensure that the cost of their ailment is mitigated and controlled early on.

So, another cost saver.

Ah. That makes sense. I don't think its right or fair, but at least I understand the logic behind it now.

The more Necronic describes it that way, the more it seems like a Social Security tax.

Mitt's giving his speech right now, blasting the healthcare model he pioneered and implemented in Massachusetts.

I'm really relieved by this, as my kidney disease could count as a pre-existing condition. I won't suddenly lose my care because the insurance company doesn't want to pay. There were too many people paying their monthly fees, and then getting cut when they got sick on some flimsy pretext - like acne. You kinda feel safe when that can't happen to you.

I'm glad the pre-existing condition thing stands. I've got a friend who could potentially be in a lot of trouble if it didn't. I've also got a brother who wouldn't be on health insurance anymore if the "able to be on your parents' health insurance until age 26" thing fell through.

But I don't trust for one moment that insurance companies are going to lower their prices. They all know they don't have to, and they all know that everyone has to buy insurance anyway -- or pay a fine. I foresee this ending badly for those who can't afford insurance. I also forsee this ending badly for the economy, as it gives employers an additional cost for hiring people.

I mean, I can't say for sure how things will turn out, but the entire plan seems to hinge on trusting insurance companies and corporations to do the right thing for the good of the people -- and there is no way they're going to do that.

Soliloquy said:

I mean, I can't say for sure how things will turn out, but the entire plan seems to hinge on trusting insurance companies and corporations to do the right thing for the good of the people -- and there is no way they're going to do that.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It hinges on people being able to pick and choose who they give their money to.

If you think that overcharging your customers is a good way to make money then you don't understand how business works.

MindDetective said:

No it doesn't. It hinges on people being able to pick and choose who they give their money to.

Click to expand...

I don't have faith that the free market system will work to lower prices when the demand reaches the level of "mandatory."

Necronic said:

If you think that overcharging your customers is a good way to make money then you don't understand how business works.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.

Being a high-risk situation for this, I can't help but to be in the corner for health care reform, but this could be setting a bad precedent.

Enjoying watching far right heads explode as this is thought to be the "End of the Great Republic".

Meanwhile the majority of them are the greatest beneficiaries of the program.

BananaHands said:

Being a high-risk situation for this, I can't help but to be in the corner for health care reform, but this could be setting a bad precedent.

Click to expand...

nobody puts bananahands in a corner

Adam said:

Enjoying watching far right heads explode as this is thought to be the "End of the Great Republic".

Meanwhile the majority of them are the greatest beneficiaries of the program.

Click to expand...

Yeah, www.kurrently.com is a goldmine

it almost takes the sting off of this bill not being the solution I'd want

MindDetective said:

The more Necronic describes it that way, the more it seems like a Social Security tax.

Click to expand...

A private S.Security tax regulated by the free market. Seems to me a lot of people who are against it should be in favor (especially if you consider as an alternative not what you previously had but the public systems in place in several other countries).

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Yeah, www.kurrently.com is a goldmine

it almost takes the sting off of this bill not being the solution I'd want

Click to expand...

A quick sampling of titles from Freerepublic:
Fourth of July Canceled.(vanity)

Health Care Ruling: What It Means For You (It means Obama is toast!)

DEATH PANELS HAVE ARRIVED

The Silver Lining: Mitt Romney just won the election.

The Dream Is Over: SCOTUS Says You're No Longer Free

Fly Your Flags UPSIDE DOWN in Distress

We plan to fire the liberals in our company

It's the End of America As We Know It!

America Crosses The Rubicon

Stock market tanks on Supreme Court Decision (going vertical)

(The stock market one makes me laugh because it was vertical well before the decision was announced)
Will John Roberts be remembered in history the same as Benedict Arnold?

Today is The Day U.S. Citizens Became Slaves of Their Government

ObamaCare ruling means Americans hostage to 70 years of Supreme Court madness

I don't dare go to free republic at work, not even on my phone since I like people not thinking I'm a racist

Wow. I had never been there before. And I will never be there again.

Like Nick's prom night.

Well. I can't go on Facebook for about a week.

Hehe: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

I know!!

Ok, I can't read that link at work, but oh wow I wish I could.

Also that freerepublic site is pretty depressing since I consider myself a bit of a conservative. Morons like that give us a bad name.

Necronic said:

Ok, I can't read that link at work, but oh wow I wish I could.

Also that freerepublic site is pretty depressing since I consider myself a bit of a conservative. Morons like that give us a bad name.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it too much. Most of the country knows that sites like that are completely off-base and way out of touch. It's like being a fairly liberal person in Washington state. Sure, I identify as a liberal. That doesn't mean that I want to abolish gun ownership or that I don't support the troops; but if you say the word liberal, that's what everyone around here automatically assumes you stand for. That and criminalizing religion, getting rid of road funds, replacing highways with bike trails, jacking up the tax rate through the roof.

MindDetective said:

Hehe: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Click to expand...

Do these people know anything about the Canadian government?

If anything, it'd be worthwhile to move to Canada because the government has more involvement in health care.

So THAT'S where GasBandit went!

I don't have time to do a full post about it because I'm still covering for somebody else and thursday's our busiest day to start with but -

1) Obamacare fixes health care like making it illegal not to buy food solves world hunger.
2) Whether Obamacare is repealed or not, now the precedent is now set that government can charge you a fee (by calling it a tax) for doing/not doing anything they want/don't want, and can call it a tax, and there is no countermeasure. For instance - own an american car or pay a penalty. Even if you don't own a car at all. Now held as constitutional.

MindDetective said:

Hehe: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Click to expand...

Man, we don't want any of these idiots up here...

Stolen shamelessly.

The precedent started by this (creating mandatory fees based on certain actions) isn't really that bothersome to me because it still requires congress to enact it, and there are already a TON of examples of this in existence (tax brakes based on actions). All you have to do is look to your own taxes:

Are you married?
Do you own a home?
Do you earn through short term or long term capital gains?
Do you correctly manage gift contributions to members of your household to avoid estate taxes?
Have you incorporated yourself and itemized deductions based on "business" expenses?

And that's just personal taxes. Corporate taxes have millions of these kinds of things. The government has used the tax system as a motivating factor for years. The only difference with this one is that it's viewed as an additional tax/fine if you don't do it instead of a credit/exemption if you DO do it.

Nothing new.

Also I have changed my mind on Free Republic. I think it's beautiful and I have made an account. We shall see how "free" their speech really is there.

Edit: First post in , on the death panel thread:

"I don't understand how Obama can get a Peace Prize when he is using this legislation to PERSONALLY murder people"

Also that is one of the worst formatted forums I have ever seen. Their webdesigner should not work in web design.

Dave said:

Stolen shamelessly.

Click to expand...

Looking at that account, it has to be a poser.

Necronic said:

The precedent started by this (creating mandatory fees based on certain actions) isn't really that bothersome to me because it still requires congress to enact it, and there are already a TON of examples of this in existence (tax brakes based on actions). All you have to do is look to your own taxes:

Are you married?
Do you own a home?
Do you earn through short term or long term capital gains?
Do you correctly manage gift contributions to members of your household to avoid estate taxes?
Have you incorporated yourself and itemized deductions based on "business" expenses?

And that's just personal taxes. Corporate taxes have millions of these kinds of things. The government has used the tax system as a motivating factor for years. The only difference with this one is that it's viewed as an additional tax/fine if you don't do it instead of a credit/exemption if you DO do it.

Nothing new.

Also I have changed my mind on Free Republic. I think it's beautiful and I have made an account. We shall see how "free" their speech really is there.

Edit: First post in , on the death panel thread:

"I don't understand how Obama can get a Peace Prize when he is using this legislation to PERSONALLY murder people"

Also that is one of the worst formatted forums I have ever seen. Their webdesigner should not work in web design.

Click to expand...

It's not a free speech site at all. That is very, very, very clear from my 10 years posting on there. It's a Conservative Pissing Contest, every one one upping each other in order to be more 'conservative' than the last person, and then the least conservative person gets banned. Libertarians are not allowed.

Adam said:

my 10 years posting on there. .

Click to expand...

just leaving this out there

also that freep dude is actually accidentally right. Obama getting the peace prize is a fucking joke since he can't reach orgasm without killing an arab with an unmanned drone.

Call me cynical, but here's how I think this entire thing will play out:

• Before the mandate goes into effect, companies will have to insure people they normally wouldn't. Without the large pool of people to even things out yet, health insurance prices go up significantly.
• The mandate goes into effect. Many large corporations choose to pay the much cheaper fine instead of paying for high-priced health insurance for their low-income employees.
• These uninsured low-income employees couldn't afford their own health insurance to begin with, and also must pay the fine, causing huge financial issues for these families.
• The "almost everyone has health insurance" goal never pans out. Even if the insurance companies would have lowered prices had the goal been reached, they aren't able to do so.
• Insurance prices continue to rise.
• I point back to this post and tell everyone "I told you so."
• I win all the internets.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

also that freep dude is actually accidentally right. Obama getting the peace prize is a fucking joke since he can't reach orgasm without killing an arab with an unmanned drone.

Click to expand...

But he's killing them for Peace, Charlie! Like Megaman!

Charlie Don't Surf said:

also that freep dude is actually accidentally right. Obama getting the peace prize is a fucking joke since he can't reach orgasm without killing an arab with an unmanned drone.

Click to expand...

If you call a Pashtun an Arab, he'd likely gut you.

sixpackshaker said:

If you call a Pashtun an Arab, he'd likely gut you.

Click to expand...

Don't expect Charlie to worry about actual facts and details.

yes I'm clearly being 100% factual and not exagerrating stuff for jokes when I say Obama can't achieve erection without murdering people with missles

Charlie Don't Surf said:

yes I'm clearly being 100% factual and not exagerrating stuff for jokes when I say Obama can't achieve erection without murdering people with missles

Click to expand...

That has always worked for me.

Soliloquy said:

Call me cynical, but here's how I think this entire thing will play out:

• Before the mandate goes into effect, companies will have to insure people they normally wouldn't. Without the large pool of people to even things out yet, health insurance prices go up significantly.
• The mandate goes into effect. Many large corporations choose to pay the much cheaper fine instead of paying for high-priced health insurance for their low-income employees.
• These uninsured low-income employees couldn't afford their own health insurance to begin with, and also must pay the fine, causing huge financial issues for these families.
• The "almost everyone has health insurance" goal never pans out. Even if the insurance companies would have lowered prices had the goal been reached, they aren't able to do so.
• Insurance prices continue to rise.
• I point back to this post and tell everyone "I told you so."
• I win all the internets.

Click to expand...

This chain of events relies on the Health Care Industry having enough saved up to last months/years with vastly decreased income, while still paying out to the people who actually kept it (who can now freely shop around for lowers rates, which would surely arise as the desperation increased). It would basically become a game of Chicken with the election to see who could survive longer: the companies or the politicians. And even than it comes down how the people are going to vote.

sixpackshaker said:

If you call a Pashtun an Arab, he'd likely gut you.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change his point though

Charlie Don't Surf said:

just leaving this out there

Click to expand...

Coupled with my similar term on Democratic Underground and CrooksAndLiars.com. I listen to retards on both sides of the political spectrum.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

also that freep dude is actually accidentally right.

Click to expand...

m8, that was a joke from a comedy death ray impersonation of an insane Gary Busey. Except instead of talking about health care he was said "when he is personally firebombing people". Which was basically what you just said.

You just unironically agreed with a farsical charicature of an insane Garey Busey.

blotsfan said:

Doesn't change his point though

Click to expand...

It just makes him a racist for thinking everyone in the Middle East is an Arab.

Soliloquy said:

Call me cynical, but here's how I think this entire thing will play out:

• Before the mandate goes into effect, companies will have to insure people they normally wouldn't. Without the large pool of people to even things out yet, health insurance prices go up significantly.
• The mandate goes into effect. Many large corporations choose to pay the much cheaper fine instead of paying for high-priced health insurance for their low-income employees.
• These uninsured low-income employees couldn't afford their own health insurance to begin with, and also must pay the fine, causing huge financial issues for these families.
• The "almost everyone has health insurance" goal never pans out. Even if the insurance companies would have lowered prices had the goal been reached, they aren't able to do so.
• Insurance prices continue to rise.
• I point back to this post and tell everyone "I told you so."
• I win all the internets.

Click to expand...

*Democrats say "see, we tried leaving it in the free market, but it couldn't perform under the ludicrous limitations and requirements we set, so guess we have to have single payer now."

Which has been the plan all along.

GasBandit said:

*Democrats say "see, we tried leaving it in the free market, but it couldn't perform under the ludicrous limitations and requirements we set, so guess we have to have single payer now."

Which has been the plan all along.

Click to expand...

for once I wish your delusional theory was absolutely correct

GasBandit said:

*Democrats say "see, we tried leaving it in the free market, but it couldn't perform under the ludicrous limitations and requirements we set, so guess we have to have single payer now."

Which has been the plan all along.

Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure the process ends with me winning all the internets.

Necronic said:

m8, that was a joke from a comedy death ray impersonation of an insane Gary Busey. Except instead of talking about health care he was said "when he is personally firebombing people". Which was basically what you just said.

You just unironically agreed with a farsical charicature of an insane Garey Busey.

Click to expand...

None of this changes the fact that Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama assassinates people in the Middle East like it's going out of style and actively fights to keep it possible.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

None of this changes the fact that Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama assassinates people in the Middle East like it's going out of style and actively fights to keep it possible.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that most people don't care when it's the guy on their side of the aisle blatantly violating human rights and international treaties.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

None of this changes the fact that Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama assassinates people in the Middle East like it's going out of style and actively fights to keep it possible.

Click to expand...

here you go, couldn't link it from work.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

None of this changes the fact that Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama assassinates people in the Middle East like it's going out of style and actively fights to keep it possible.

Click to expand...

This is true...it's definitely not going out of style.

This mandated private insurance thing sounds batshit loony to me. Just do actual socialized medicine with optional private insurance like the rest of civilization. Jesus.

Frank said:

This mandated private insurance thing sounds batshit loony to me. Just do actual socialized medicine with optional private insurance like the rest of civilization. Jesus.

Click to expand...

We would but SOCIALISM. Even if it would be cheaper in the long run. Even if it would bring down medical prices for everyone, because your no longer paying for the guy who didn't pay. Even if it would allow the government to negotiate for prescription drug prices.

Because SOCIALISM.

Frank said:

This mandated private insurance thing sounds batshit loony to me. Just do actual socialized medicine with optional private insurance like the rest of civilization. Jesus.

Click to expand...

That means letting the Ruskies win. Ain't gonna do that.

*spits into spittoon*

Charlie Don't Surf said:

None of this changes the fact that Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama assassinates people in the Middle East like it's going out of style and actively fights to keep it possible.

Click to expand...

You mean he takes time out his busy schedule of ruling the world to personally assassinate people in the Middle East? Sounds like he's a Superhero or Supervillain depending your view.

Essentially, by 2015 you're gonna have one more "deduction" from your paycheck if you don't currently have health insurance. That deduction will be the "tax" of not having health insurance.

Oh, and people in the medical community around the nation? Welcome to my world. I've been getting screwed by the government since February of 2011.

The funny thing is that insurance is inherently socialist on it's own by definition. Right now (without the "obamacare" the young and healthy subsidize the old and infirm. Why? Why can't I get on a healthcare plan that doesn't pay for old people and sick people, the kinds of folks that drive up my costs? I'm not running a god damned charity.

Fuck them.

Right?

Necronic said:

The funny thing is that insurance is inherently socialist on it's own by definition. Right now (without the "obamacare" the young and healthy subsidize the old and infirm. Why? Why can't I get on a healthcare plan that doesn't pay for old people and sick people, the kinds of folks that drive up my costs? I'm not running a god damned charity.

Fuck them.

Right?

Click to expand...

Yes, except the same applies to every other piece of tax, ever, everywhere. Why am I paying for putting down roads? I use the tram. Why do I have to pay for cultural stuff? I just sit in front of my tv. Why should I pay for the army? I don't care if Iraqis kill Kuwaiti by the hundreds. Why should I pay those greenhouse taxes? I don't care if the world goes to hell after my death. Why should I pay for NASA? I don't care if anyone ever goes to the moon. Why should I pay for schools? I don't have children. Why should I pay for [etc].

All taxes are ways of sharing costs of things that society, as a whole, needs. Individuals are paying for things they don't need/use/want, but on the other side, there's people paying for things you need/want, keeping it more affordable for you.

Yes, there's certianly a point of diminishing returns, and there's definitely things a government shouldn't be enforcing; things that're better off on the open market, and so on and so forth. Deciding which those are, is what most of politics is all about. Tax the poor, tax the rich, tax corporations, tax based on income, tax based on capital, tax flatly based on nothing at all, abolish the army to lower taxes, abolish health care to lower taxes, abolish all public schooling to lower taxes - it's all options, and they're all opinions (though not all of them intelligent ones). Saying this is evil because you're forced to pay for something you don't want in general, is either moronic, or reflecting a personal view of anarchism or extreme libertarianism (which are more or less the same anyway ).

Anyway, it'll take time to sort out; going this sort of mixed public private route certainly holds dangers nobody can properly assess, for the simple reason that al lthe rest of the world knows it's silly - but whichever way it plays out (this system works, it's changed to a more tried system, whatever), I'm convinced that, IF it stands, the vast majority of Americans will benefit enormously from this. Anyone who's relatively poor and wants to abolish this or fight it, is shooting themselves in the foot.

As a Canadian I cannot imagine life without free healthcare.

Welcome to the 21st century bitches. Now shut up and enjoy the ride.

I don't see how this is free.

Jay said:

As a Canadian I cannot imagine life without free healthcare.

Welcome to the 21st century bitches. Now shut up and enjoy the ride.

Click to expand...

Except it isn't free. I don't know why every non-american on the internet seems to think we just implemented single payer.

It's simply now illegal not to buy health insurance, with the penalty being a tax that makes 70% of the costs of the program now be paid for by the middle class.

Once the system works, it WILL be cheaper for the majority. People's health WILL go measurably up.
Single payer or not (it would be even more effective, but nooo), you're all paying so all can receive. So you're paying to corporations instead of the government - that's just the American way, isn't it?

You're insured -> you get sick -> you go to a doctor and your insurance pays.
I'm covered by state health care -> I get sick -> I go to a doctor and the government pays.

Same principle. Yes, I still pay a small part of the medical costs (and get reimbursed for part of it later). Yes, there'll probably still be bits to pay for yourself. It'll be cheaper and/or free, depending on the way it's set up.

Because
1- The internet Most people are a bunch of uninformed assholes.
2- If they don't want to make the effort to understand what's going on, you may just assimilate it to what you have in your own contry.
3- Some non-american media are most probably explaining this wrong due to 1- and 2-

Bubble181 said:

Once the system works, it WILL be cheaper for the majority. People's health WILL go measurably up.
Single payer or not (it would be even more effective, but nooo), you're all paying so all can receive. So you're paying to corporations instead of the government - that's just the American way, isn't it?

You're insured -> you get sick -> you go to a doctor and your insurance pays.
I'm covered by state health care -> I get sick -> I go to a doctor and the government pays.

Click to expand...

After a 2 month waiting period.

GasBandit said:

After a 2 month waiting period.

Click to expand...

Crappy, admittedly; still not much good for people on the lower end of the wage scale (who can't miss a couple of hundred dollars for a few months); needs finetuning but any attempt at, perhaps, making it more social would be shot down by a conservative/republican Congres and House. Also, it'd probably cost Obama the elections since "dirty commie" is still a lot easier to sell than "it'll save some people some money in a few years' time".

Bubble181 said:

Crappy, admittedly; still not much good for people on the lower end of the wage scale (who can't miss a couple of hundred dollars for a few months); needs finetuning but any attempt at, perhaps, making it more social would be shot down by a conservative/republican Congres and House. Also, it'd probably cost Obama the elections since "dirty commie" is still a lot easier to sell than "it'll save some people some money in a few years' time".

Click to expand...

We'll see. They've been saving the RomneyCare card in reserve... after all, Romney's Massachusetts health care law was the blueprint from which ObamaCare was built. So objectively, it's really hard to take his repeal-and-replace rhetoric seriously when he implemented pretty much the exact same thing on a smaller scale, and refuses to say it was a mistake/bad idea.

His argument has been that the two are not equivalent since RomneyCare is a state policy, which he feels is appropriate (as opposed to the federal scale of Obama's policy). To be honest I think this is a fair argument.

But yeah, when he steps up to the plate he HAS to have an alternative. Apparently there is some talk from his camp about a policy that does away with the employer based model we currently work with. I haven't heard many/any details on it except that Republicans that have heard it absolutely hate it.

Necronic said:

But yeah, when he steps up to the plate he HAS to have an alternative.

Click to expand...

That's the false narrative that has been shoved down our throats. We don't have to have a better idea to stop doing an idea that makes things worse than they were. Remember this entire debacle was precipitated on a lie (the "40 million without insurance" fib that took illegal aliens, the willfully uninsured and those already insured under SCHIP into account so the actual number was closer to 10 million, or 0.3 percent of americans). And that's just health insurance, not being "denied health care" which actually never happened - flocks of people were not dying in the streets of pneumonia in 2007. Were there problems with our system? Yes, but this does not solve them - this exacerbates them. And to say that "whoever wants to repeal obamacare best have an alternative solution" is like saying "whoever wants to repeal don't ask don't tell best have an alternative solution."

I wish people (including you, GB) could state their hypotheses as the predictions they are instead of as unsubstantiated facts. When you say something like "this does not solve them - this exacerbates them" you are claiming to know something that nobody could know. It is the problem with the media as well. Boldly assert and it sounds like the truth. The truth is, this is an experiment. It absolutely may fail, and spectacularly. It may do almost nothing. It may improve some things. Sure, it sounds like weaker language to say "may, might, or could" but it is honest and appropriate. By not hedging assertions of things you (not specifically GB, media, anybody) doesn't actually know, you mislead, and that doesn't aid the discussion, just your own agenda.

MindDetective said:

I wish people (including you, GB) could state their hypotheses as the predictions they are instead of as unsubstantiated facts. When you say something like "this does not solve them - this exacerbates them" you are claiming to know something that nobody could know. It is the problem with the media as well. Boldly assert and it sounds like the truth. The truth is, this is an experiment. It absolutely may fail, and spectacularly. It may do almost nothing. It may improve some things. Sure, it sounds like weaker language to say "may, might, or could" but it is honest and appropriate. By not hedging assertions of things you (not specifically GB, media, anybody) doesn't actually know, you mislead, and that doesn't aid the discussion, just your own agenda.

Click to expand...

Anything posted anywhere has an implied 'I believe' before it

I can fly.

(Did it work?)

I can touch the sky

is the newest Justin Bieber album.

Once again, Halforums proves an internet hypothesis, using SCIENCE!

In a thing called love.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Anything posted anywhere has an implied 'I believe' before it

Click to expand...

except people ignore or miss the implication most of the time. It is worth stating once in a while.

...our children are our future.

GasBandit said:

That's the false narrative that has been shoved down our throats. We don't have to have a better idea to stop doing an idea that makes things worse than they were. Remember this entire debacle was precipitated on a lie (the "40 million without insurance" fib that took illegal aliens, the willfully uninsured and those already insured under SCHIP into account so the actual number was closer to 10 million, or 0.3 percent of americans). And that's just health insurance, not being "denied health care" which actually never happened - flocks of people were not dying in the streets of pneumonia in 2007. Were there problems with our system? Yes, but this does not solve them - this exacerbates them. And to say that "whoever wants to repeal obamacare best have an alternative solution" is like saying "whoever wants to repeal don't ask don't tell best have an alternative solution."

Click to expand...

The current system (ED: I mean the old system really) is so completely broken that I am seriously considering moving to Canade in the near future. I know I can get work there, and probably citizenship (eventually). While I don't think that Obama's solution makes things better, it has forced the issue, which is the major point and why I am happy with the legislation.

Right now returning to the old ways is no longer an acceptable solution, and would be political suicide for a candidate because it would literally threaten the lives of constituents to do so. The current solution is also untennable because it's simply too expensive to be sustainable. But don't act like the old ways were sustainable either. Right now things appear to be that way because the baby boomers are still working/kind of young.

But when they retire, and when they start gobbling up medical resources at the same rate per capita as their parents did, the entire system will be under a major threat. The old system would have collapsed under this with all of the youth/gen x/etc subsidizing the healthcare of the boomers, watching their premiums (and medicaire related taxes) skyrocket. Then there's the problem that so many of the young generation simply can't find work in this forever recession. The full effects of that haven't entirely been felt yet since they can still sit on their parents health insurance, but obviously that's not a permanent solution either.

A huge part of the problem is that "Free Market" concepts simply do not apply to a value discussion involving living or dying. The value equation breaks down. Yet the politics of economics is a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

And I don't know what the solution is either. I'll be honest. I know what some of the solution should be, like forcing price regulation into the Insurance company - Hospital pricing structure/price negotiations, and eliminating the ridiculously granular itemized payment system that health services have, and (this is a huge one) forcing Doctors to appreciate that understanding cost of services IS PART OF THEIR JOB. Or simply rolling medicaire/medicaid/SCHIP/Obamacare into a single logical package instead of creating a spiderweb of overlapping and conflicting legislation.)

It's a shame that there's no precedent for mandating that people buy insurance in the US at the federal level. I've heard several arguments made that this is identical to the concept behind car insurance however that's set state by state.

Necronic said:

forcing Doctors to appreciate that understanding cost of services IS PART OF THEIR JOB.

Click to expand...

Doctors simply aren't that bright.

I'll repeat my statement that, when viewed as a tax, there is absolutely nothing new about it and there are oodles of precedents. The federal government has given tax breaks/credits for certain actions taken by individuals throughout history. This is EXACTLY the same thing, except that no one wants to couch it as a new universal tax with potential breaks/credits because it sounds a LOT worse politically.

Well, for whatever reason your country views taxes the same way Europeans view showers. *Shrug*

blotsfan said:

Alright, that makes sense. I still don't see why prices would go down though.

Click to expand...

Prices go up because when poor people get sick they go to the emergency room where they can't be turned away. The Hospital will do whatever steps are nessesary in order to save their lives at a rather high cost. Then when it comes time for the bill the person shrugs their shoulders and goes "I can't afford this" and the hospital is going to have to eat that bill. Now the hospital isn't just going to take that lying down janitors need to be paid to clean up the puke/blood of that person, the doctor and nurses need to be compensated for their time, linens need to be switched out, so they then pass those costs on to those people who can afford to pay mainly us with health insurance.

If everybody pays into the system you'll no longer be paying for the healthcare that a complete stranger used up but couldn't pay for.

Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.

Now, we should caveat the statement that prices will go down with this:

For a while, they are going to go up. In the short term this system is going to increase costs to insurance companies by a fair amount, specifically the pre-existing conditions clause. Over time though it's likely you will see hospital costs decrease which will have a significant ripple effect. Then there's the national healthcare database which will definitely have a downward pressure on prices.

Dave said:

Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.

Click to expand...

Mate, I'm saying I'm moving to canada FOR the universal healthcare.

So... who watched SICKO?

Jay said:

So... who watched SICKO?

Click to expand...

Me!

Are you talking about that movie where he talks about the success that is Cuba's health care system, by ignoring facts like infant mortality rates and access to healthcare? People need to get it into their heads that Michael Moore hasn't been a documentarist in years. He's an entertainer with a political message that gave up journalistic ethics for advocacy years ago because in his mind the ends justify the means.

I still like some of his movie appearances though, particularly in Team America.

You know what pisses me off more than anything else?

This:





+

(survival rates)



HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW ARE WE SPENDING MORE BUT GETTING NO IMPROVEMENTS?

Oh yeah, and while that first chart is ALL SPENDING per capita, we ALSO SPEND MORE PUBLIC MONEY on healthcare per capita than most socialist countries.

HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW DO WE SPEND MORE PUBLIC FUNDS ON HEALTHCARE PER CAPITA THAN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS?

HOW?

This is why I want to move to Canada (whose per capita public funding of healthcare is ~60% of what america's is per capita), meaning that if we were to, overnight, switch to their system (identically, obviously a thought experiment), OUR TAXES WOULD GO DOWN.

This is an AMAZING read:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

Edit: Sorry for the 5 posts.....

Also Japan may be the model for all other countries to look at for health care. The stats around it are simply astounding.

Necronic said:

Mate, I'm saying I'm moving to canada FOR the universal healthcare.

Click to expand...

Oh.

On NPR they were interviewing a person who was against the healthcare bill. They were a small business owner and decried the fact that they were going to have to pay more for their employee's coverage. Then when they were asked how much their premiums had gone up in the last year they said 5%...when in years past before the bill the rises were 20-50%.

Dave said:

Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.

Click to expand...

Found this...

DarkAudit said:

Found this...

Click to expand...

I kinda want to move to Canada now.

Dave said:

Oh.

Click to expand...

It's cool man I looked at my post and I could tell it was confusing.

Also, after reading that paper I linked (well, skimming it, its 70 pages long), I am TOTALLY going to move to Canada. There's like ZERO downside....well, I would have to stop makin Canada jokes.

There is no way Canada has 45% atheists. Are the counting moose?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

There is no way Canada has 45% atheists. Are the counting moose?

Click to expand...

The Canadian Ipsos Reid poll released September 12, 2011 entitled "Canadians Split On Whether Religion Does More Harm in the World than Good," sampled 1,129 Canadian adults and came up 30% who do not believe in a god. Interestingly, the same poll found that 33% of respondents who identified themselves as Catholics and 28% Protestants said they didn't believe in a god.

I understand that. A lot of religion is a culture. I don't know what my views on God will necessarily be my whole life, but I can't imagine not considering myself Jewish.

I look at that date and take a huge grain of salt with it

Ravenpoe said:

I kinda want to move to Canada now.

Click to expand...

I'd say you could come up here to Wisconsin, but we're DEFINITELY not Canada.

Necronic said:

Oh yeah, and while that first chart is ALL SPENDING per capita, we ALSO SPEND MORE PUBLIC MONEY on healthcare per capita than most socialist countries.

HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW DO WE SPEND MORE PUBLIC FUNDS ON HEALTHCARE PER CAPITA THAN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS?

HOW?

This is why I want to move to Canada (whose per capita public funding of healthcare is ~60% of what america's is per capita), meaning that if we were to, overnight, switch to their system (identically, obviously a thought experiment), OUR TAXES WOULD GO DOWN.

Click to expand...

It may seem like a tautology for many americans, but not everything the government does, it does badly. The free market model isn't copy-paste-able in every situation. There's a combination of several factors at work.
For example, national obligatory official IDs mean the government actually knows who lives where and how many of every group there are. National census data in Europe are about 10x more accurate than in the US. This also means preventive campaigns are more useful - the belgian government can send a mail or a letter to every woman between 45 and 55 with no trouble at all; in the US, that's an invasion of privacy. Crap like that.
Also, the acceptance of more government meddling means more obligatory prevention. If I don't go to the dentist's ofice once every 18 months, they don't pay me when I go there for caveties or whatever later on. As long as I *do* go in for a check-up, it's basically free (somewhere around $10 after rebate ). Same for optician. Starting at a certain age, same for colon inspection/mammography. Same for a host of other things. Early capture -> lower risk -> lower costs and more effectiveness.
Also, maximum tariffs for many "standard" procedures, means doctors can't just fleece their patients/insurance companies/... In the US, there's littel to no reason for a doctor to ask less money than more.

Dave said:

Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.

Click to expand...

--Patrick (& Kris)

Necronic said:

You know what pisses me off more than anything else?
graphs
HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW ARE WE SPENDING MORE BUT GETTING NO IMPROVEMENTS?

Click to expand...

ARE YOU A COMMUNIST OR WHAT???

(I'm sure you already know, but the common hypotheses (which makes a lot of sense, maybe it's even fact, I don't know) is that prevention drives the costs down for the same survival rate.)

Every contry has their philias and phobias, and you have this big socialismphobia which drags you down a lot, really (in the sense that the population will allow political solutions that are less efficient and involve more government meddling as long as they don't seem SOCIALISM).

tegid said:

Every contry [sic] has their philias and phobias, and you have this big socialismphobia which drags you down a lot

Click to expand...

Dude, don't even get (most of) us started on this whole you're-either-a-patriot-or-you-hate-America thing that got (re)started a decade or so ago.

--Patrick

That's sort of fading away. They've certainly become less obnoxious about it. And really, it pops up during every war.