PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Oppose Obamacare for this reason if nothing else


jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 06:24 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? Fuck them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, Fuck them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 06:31 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? **** them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, **** them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels

You won't have to buy it now until you need it. Keep saving that dough.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 06:53 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? **** them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, **** them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levelsYou have until 2014 before its mandatory. Then its only a $90 fine if you don't have insurance.

CoMoChief
03-23-2010, 06:56 PM
You won't have to buy it now until you need it. Keep saving that dough.

Which will in return raise costs of people's premiums.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their nutjob clan are fucking morons if they think this is going to allow prices to go down and decrease our national debt.

CoMoChief
03-23-2010, 06:57 PM
You have until 2014 before its mandatory. Then its only a $90 fine if you don't have insurance.

Why should there be any fine at all?

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 06:59 PM
Why should there be any fine at all?Why do we pay taxes?

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 07:01 PM
You have until 2014 before its mandatory. Then its only a $90 fine if you don't have insurance.

HUH? no, the fine is $695 MINIMUM

. The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:02 PM
Why do we pay taxes?

lol..you would be taxed for something you dont want or have. why should you be?

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:03 PM
HUH? no, the fine is $695 MINIMUM

Hey, you have to insure all CP posters under this bill.

fan4ever
03-23-2010, 07:05 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Be quiet how. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. They know what's best for us.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:19 PM
HUH? no, the fine is $695 MINIMUMThats for the rich. It's a sliding scale based on household income. You make less than $100K it will less than $100.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:20 PM
Thats for the rich. It's a sliding scale based on household income. You make less than $100K it will less than $100.

Oh, thanks robin hood. ;) the rich..lol..too rich

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:21 PM
so only broke dick bishes making less than 100k (per household) get a break? lol..what makes anybody think over 100k is rich?

ROFL

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 07:22 PM
BRC it is 2.5% of income. Based on just $50,000 that would $1250.

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

bevischief
03-23-2010, 07:28 PM
Thats for the rich. It's a sliding scale based on household income. You make less than $100K it will less than $100.

Is that per family?

tmax63
03-23-2010, 07:34 PM
Why not choose to pay the mandate tax then and (saying he makes 100K) of 2500 and pocket the other $3700. $600/mon x 12 months = $7200-$2500 mandate=$3700 in his pocket.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 07:39 PM
Thats for the rich. It's a sliding scale based on household income. You make less than $100K it will less than $100.

NOPE... that is where it stops expanding in 2016... it STARTS at $95 (or 1% of income whichever is HIGHER) but will have a min. of $695(or 2% of income whichever is HIGHER) by 2016.

SNR
03-23-2010, 07:40 PM
HUH? no, the fine is $695 MINIMUMThis is my biggest problem. $695 is probably cheaper than annual health insurance.

What if people paid $695 with no health insurance until they got sick, waited awhile, and then went to get health insurance to pay for a large medical bill? That's one of the stipulations that insurance companies have a very difficult time turning down people because of pre-existing conditions.

If there's some enforcement or prevention in the bill, I probably haven't read that part yet. There might be a fix for this in the bill that I don't know of. But if there isn't, I imagine that health insurance fee is going to go way up, along with premiums for people that already HAVE the insurance. Companies won't be able to afford a cheated system like that.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:43 PM
No that is where it stops expanding in 2016... it STARTS at $95 but will have a min. of $695 by 2016.2016 is a long way off. Who knows what our stations in life will be, who will be President? To worry about a couple of hundred $'s that you might pay in 6 friggin years doesn't sound like a good use of time, at least IMHO.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:44 PM
BRC it is 2.5% of income. Based on just $50,000 that would $1250.

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
That is not correct information.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:46 PM
This is my biggest problem. $695 is probably cheaper than annual health insurance.

What if people paid $695 with no health insurance until they got sick, waited awhile, and then went to get health insurance to pay for a large medical bill? That's one of the stipulations that insurance companies have a very difficult time turning down people because of pre-existing conditions.

If there's some enforcement or prevention in the bill, I probably haven't read that part yet. There might be a fix for this in the bill that I don't know of. But if there isn't, I imagine that health insurance fee is going to go way up, along with premiums for people that already HAVE the insurance. Companies won't be able to afford a cheated system like that.
Great point. and if that goes down that way, it will only screw the millions of Americans who already had health insurance.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 07:49 PM
2016 is a long way off. Who knows what our stations in life will be, who will be President? To worry about a couple of hundred $'s that you might pay in 6 friggin years doesn't sound like a good use of time, at least IMHO.

This is IN the BILL, it isn't going away, unless the BILL is stopped NOW, we are stuck with it in perpetuity... and 2016 is damn close... I have no problem with the money... it is the CONCEPT of fining a person because they didn't choose to PAY A PRIVATE COMPANY FOR INSURANCE!!!!

No way around it, that is just plain wrong.

**** this, I am starting a new religion that qualifies for the "Religious Conscience Exemption" ... or just join the Amish

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:54 PM
This is IN the BILL, it isn't going away, unless the BILL is stopped NOW, we are stuck with it in perpetuity... and 2016 is damn close... I have no problem with the money... it is the CONCEPT of fining a person because they didn't choose to PAY A PRIVATE COMPANY FOR INSURANCE!!!!

No way around it, that is just plain wrong.

**** this, I am starting a new religion that qualifies for the "Religious Conscience Exemption" ... or just join the AmishI'm not happy about forcing people to buy insurance either. Goes against some basic principles that we all see ourselfs sharing regardless of political affiliation.

But it can be fixed later. We spent over a year debating this ad nausem. This was it, either we passed this bill as it is or health care reform waits another 10-20 years for some future president to take it up again. It was better than the status quo.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:57 PM
This is IN the BILL, it isn't going away, unless the BILL is stopped NOW, we are stuck with it in perpetuity... and 2016 is damn close... I have no problem with the money... it is the CONCEPT of fining a person because they didn't choose to PAY A PRIVATE COMPANY FOR INSURANCE!!!!

No way around it, that is just plain wrong.

**** this, I am starting a new religion that qualifies for the "Religious Conscience Exemption" ... or just join the Amish

ROFL

tmax63
03-23-2010, 07:57 PM
I'm not so sure of that.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm not happy about forcing people to buy insurance either. Goes against some basic principles that we all see ourselfs sharing regardless of political affiliation.

But it can be fixed later. We spent over a year debating this ad nausem. This was it, either we passed this bill as it is or health care reform waits another 10-20 years for some future president to take it up again. It was better than the status quo.

ROFL

OMFG dude! you were doing back flips last night over this bill! until somebody proves you wrong. then you become ''middleman big red chief'' the fence sitter..lmao

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm not happy about forcing people to buy insurance either. Goes against some basic principles that we all see ourselfs sharing regardless of political affiliation.

But it can be fixed later. We spent over a year debating this ad nausem. This was it, either we passed this bill as it is or health care reform waits another 10-20 years for some future president to take it up again. It was better than the status quo.

I disagree, I think the free market was about to take a giant dump on health care... forcing reforms. I know more and more people who are leaving the system and refusing to participate (especially at younger healthier ages)...

What we did this week was prop up a giant cluster**** of a system with more govt susidies ... most of which will benefit big insurance.


I am AMAZED that any republican was against this bill... it is exactly the kind of corporate welfare they have promoted over the last decade.

This will have the EXACT opposite effect on TRUE costs that it intends.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 08:02 PM
I disagree, I think the free market was about to take a giant dump on health care... forcing reforms. I know more and more people who are leaving the system and refusing to participate (especially at younger healthier ages)...

What we did this week was prop up a giant cluster**** of a system with more govt susidies ... most of which will benefit big insurance.


I am AMAZED that any republican was against this bill... it exactly the kind of corporate welfare they have promoted over the last decade.

This will have the EXACT opposite effect on TRUE costs that it intends.
My friend works for a health insurance company. and he says theyre giddy over this bill..lol :(

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 08:02 PM
ROFL

OMFG dude! you were doing back flips last night over this bill! until somebody proves you wrong. then you become ''middleman big red chief'' the fence sitter..lmaolook at my first post on this matter. I said the same thing in the first post. You guys need to grow up and quit demonizing and marginalizing the "others" who disagree with your point of view. Stating bald faced lies like this one above to make anyone who differs from your viewpoint as some sort of fanatic, not worthy of consideration is nothing less than shallow displacement.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:02 PM
Health Care needed to suffer a catastrophic collapse to get fixed properly.... this steaming pile of crap called a BILL will make sure that doesn't happen.

Once again... yay for govt intervention to save those poor insurance companies and doctors and oh so effecient hospitals... don't forget teh VASTLY inflated prices on medical equipment... wouldn't want those guys to suffer!

(don't get me started on the MRI/CatScan swindle)

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2010, 08:04 PM
The left can pound their chest all they want. They know like everyone else this is a patchwork bill that was not well thought out. It took shameless back door dealing to get passed. The long standing extreme left and their pretty talking black puppet only cared to pass something really anything to claim victory as the first to do so and damn the consequences. The right has done nothing and their high and mighty stance is sickening. This is a sad time and all those who are celebrating are merely pawns in a system where piece by piece our corrupt incompetent government gains more and more power~

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 08:05 PM
look at my first post on this matter. I said the same thing in the first post. You guys need to grow up and quit demonizing and marginalizing the "others" who disagree with your point of view. Stating bald faced lies like this one above to make anyone who differs from your viewpoint as some sort of fanatic, not worthy of consideration is nothing less than shallow displacement.

Dude, calling you ''middleman'' and ''fence sitter'' is somehow ''demonizing'' you as a fanatic? lol..good lord man.

do you have health insurance? and do you like it?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 08:05 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? Fuck them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, Fuck them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels

Yeah, if only my relative would have done this when diagnosed with kidney cancer. Then she could easily pay off her $14,000 a month tyrosine kinase inhibitors by just paying at the $600 dollar a month rate that would be worked out from debt collection.

Bwana
03-23-2010, 08:08 PM
Thanks for the hope and CHANGE Barry. 4321

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 08:09 PM
Dude, calling you ''middleman'' and ''fence sitter'' is somehow ''demonizing'' you as a fanatic? lol..good lord man.

do you have health insurance? and do you like it?You really arn't aware of what you are doing?

Besides you just repeated a lie about me. A bald faced lie.

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2010, 08:11 PM
Thanks for the hope and CHANGE Barry. 4321

He is nothing more than a puppet~

stevieray
03-23-2010, 08:14 PM
look at my first post on this matter. I said the same thing in the first post. You guys need to grow up and quit demonizing and marginalizing the "others" who disagree with your point of view. Stating bald faced lies like this one above to make anyone who differs from your viewpoint as some sort of fanatic, not worthy of consideration is nothing less than shallow displacement.

demonizing and marginilzing only bothers you when 'you guys' do it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 08:16 PM
Health Care needed to suffer a catastrophic collapse to get fixed properly.... this steaming pile of crap called a BILL will make sure that doesn't happen.

Once again... yay for govt intervention to save those poor insurance companies and doctors and oh so effecient hospitals... don't forget teh VASTLY inflated prices on medical equipment... wouldn't want those guys to suffer!

(don't get me started on the MRI/CatScan swindle)

This isn't Best Buy. You can't just get pissed and decide that you aren't going to shop at the hospital anymore. People need doctors.

People will get sick. People are born with ailments and disabilities. Most would like to have those treated, and they aren't going to be able to barter for the price of an MRI like they are arguing over the price of a sweater at a garage sale.

Arguing market forces for health care is completely fucking insane.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:21 PM
This isn't Best Buy. You can't just get pissed and decide that you aren't going to shop at the hospital anymore. People need doctors.

People will get sick. People are born with ailments and disabilities. Most would like to have those treated, and they aren't going to be able to barter for the price of an MRI like they are arguing over the price of a sweater at a garage sale.

Arguing market forces for health care is completely ****ing insane.

Why? Because everyone needs it (or MOST everyone)? Everyone needs FOOD, but for the most part.. market forces control that industry... Same with shelter... How about water?

And YES you can get pissed and decide you won't get insurance... happens all the time and more so as insurance companies (and the ENTIRE MEDICAL INDUSTRY) participates in one form of price-gouging or another.

Tell me exactly WHY insurance companies pay 10x more for an MRI here in the US as opposed to Japan?

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 08:23 PM
Thats for the rich. It's a sliding scale based on household income. You make less than $100K it will less than $100.

Thats why insurance premiums will sky rocket - until the one payer system is created. People will choose to pay the fine instead of paying for the insurance premium. Because the gov't now MANDATES that everyone can buy a policy at the time they need it, not before they need it.

Can you imagine being able to buy fire insurance on your house when your house is on fire ??? Imagine being able to buy Life Insurance when your
heart stops beating !!! Life Insurance is what should be mandated. What
are the odds of you dying ?

This O care will lead to the health insurance companies losing bsn. and
they're cash reserves. Insurance companies HAVE to make a profit - but the gov't doesn't have too. We know what the end game is. It won't be good.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:24 PM
I would love nothing more than to see a huge chunk of the populace join exempt religions and then use doctors(when they need the marginally knowledgable mistake prone industry shills) on a cash basis and buy their drugs online from India

This industry is so vastly ineffecient and corrupt that it almost disgusts me as much as Congress does.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:26 PM
So, is it perfectly okay for us then, to allow you to bleed-out if you come to the emergency room with life threatening injuries....but don't have coverage or the ability to pay your bills? Or to die of cancer, or heart disease...if you need treatment that you don't have coverage for, and cannot pay for? You and every single other douchebag uninsured/uncovered person who comes into the emergency room or hospital with such injuries or disease?

I'm serious. If we can't require people to cover themselves, then I say...you bleed out in the lobby of the emergency room--or die without any treatment for your disease. No exceptions.

How about that??? :hmmm:

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:27 PM
So, is it perfectly okay for us then, to allow every single uninsured/uncovered person who comes into the emergency room with life threatening injuries....to simply bleed-out?

I'm serious. If we can't require people to cover themselves, then I say...you bleed out in the lobby of the emergency room No exceptions.

How about that??? :hmmm:

That should be a policy decision by each hospital

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 08:29 PM
Yeah, if only my relative would have done this when diagnosed with kidney cancer. Then she could easily pay off her $14,000 a month tyrosine kinase inhibitors by just paying at the $600 dollar a month rate that would be worked out from debt collection.

They made a choice to not pay for it...they chose to roll the dice.

Sorry for your relative.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 08:29 PM
So, is it perfectly okay for us then, to allow every single uninsured/uncovered person who comes into the emergency room with life threatening injuries....to simply bleed-out?

I'm serious. If we can't require people to cover themselves, then I say...you bleed out in the lobby of the emergency room No exceptions.

How about that??? :hmmm:Yeah, If we can't afford insurance we shouldn't buy them a band aid or stitches. And if they have a lacerated liver or lung from a car accident, too bad. We can't afford you. Just go over in the corner or lay there on the gurney and die.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 08:31 PM
That should be a policy decision by each hospitalDoesn't work that way. If you get federal money you have to treat whoever walks in your ER. Hospitals wouldn't survive without federal money, not even the Mayo clinic.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 08:33 PM
Yeah, If we can't afford insurance we shouldn't buy them a band aid or stitches. And if they have a lacerated liver or lung from a car accident, too bad. We can't afford you. Just go over in the corner or lay there on the gurney and die.

Just wait long enough and you just might see that here in America.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:33 PM
That should be a policy decision by each hospital

Nope. Wrong. Because then insurance companies and hospitals SHIFT their expenses to the rest of us who do pay--just like they do now. Because that's what has gotten us into the mess we are currently in.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:35 PM
Just wait long enough and you just might see that here in America.

And if you choose not to cover yourself (because you are young and healthy, or some such horseshit reasoning)...then you should. Right?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 08:42 PM
Why? Because everyone needs it (or MOST everyone)? Everyone needs FOOD, but for the most part.. market forces control that industry... Same with shelter... How about water?

And YES you can get pissed and decide you won't get insurance... happens all the time and more so as insurance companies (and the ENTIRE MEDICAL INDUSTRY) participates in one form of price-gouging or another.

Tell me exactly WHY insurance companies pay 10x more for an MRI here in the US as opposed to Japan?

Here's the difference:

We can afford food, because most anyone can grow it.

We can't afford chemotherapy because almost no sole individual can provide it for us.

One is an everyday need that requires little specialization.

One is a rare need that requires immense specialization.

A good portion of people will not pay for things that aren't immediately necessary.

Yeah, you can decide that you won't get insurance. Then when you are faced with a medical bill in the thousands, what are your options? Pay it off (oops you can't), or declare bankruptcy.

Well, have fun negotiating a good home or car loan now :thumb:

Oh, and for the record:

Insurance companies get "charged" that amount. They don't "pay" that amount. Furthermore, Japanese MRI machines are cheaper than American counterparts b/c they are less precise. One's a Celeron, the other is an i7.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:43 PM
Doesn't work that way. If you get federal money you have to treat whoever walks in your ER. Hospitals wouldn't survive without federal money, not even the Mayo clinic.

exactly my point... propping up AWFUL systems.

Hospitals are wasteful, ineffecient disease factories ... the Federal Govt props them up and gives them virtually no incentive for major changes.

This bill does the same for insurance. Yay

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 08:45 PM
exactly my point... propping up AWFUL systems.

Hospitals are wasteful, ineffecient disease factories ... the Federal Govt props them up and gives them virtually no incentive for major changes.

This bill does the same for insurance. YayI know. I worked in health care for 10 years. It's a horrible inefficient health care delivery system we have here in America.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:46 PM
Insurance companies get "charged" that amount. They don't "pay" that amount. Furthermore, Japanese MRI machines are cheaper than American counterparts b/c they are less precise. One's a Celeron, the other is an i7.

Are you high? No, that amount is what the insurance companies have negotiated... they have SET rates and if they are CHARGED more they just don't pay it...

and you are DEAD wrong on the machines themselves...

Most of them are from the same manufacturers.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 08:48 PM
They made a choice to not pay for it...they chose to roll the dice.

Sorry for your relative.

Well, she has insurance (Medicare, that was once supplemented with AARP), but it still subject to the doughnut hole.

Before today, the first 1500 of the medication would have been paid out of pocket at 75/25 (of course, Medicare doesn't pay 1.00 on the dollar to those who charge it), then from 1500 to about 4500 they foot everything. From 4500 or so on up, catastrophic kicks in and you pay 5 and MC takes 95.

So, each year, said medication (w/ insurance) would cost her roughly 3375 plus 700 dollars every month. Of course, it's chemo, so you aren't on it constantly.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:50 PM
exactly my point... propping up AWFUL systems.

Hospitals are wasteful, ineffecient disease factories ... the Federal Govt props them up and gives them virtually no incentive for major changes.

This bill does the same for insurance. Yay

So you are on board for letting uninsured folks who can't pay for potentially expensive services....to go untreated, and bleed out if that's the way it goes? Right?

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 08:53 PM
So you are on board for letting uninsured folks who can't pay for potentially expensive services....to go untreated, and bleed out if that's the way it goes? Right?

If that is what it takes to destroy this God awful system and replace it with a better one.. ABSOLUTELY.


I am think you are being over the top with your assumption... but if it had to go that far... yes.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 08:56 PM
And if you choose not to cover yourself (because you are young and healthy, or some such horseshit reasoning)...then you should. Right?

Its a choice.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 08:58 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? **** them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, **** them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels

If you get cancer and run up a $1.5MM bill, how do you expect to pay for it? You wont. You'll declare medical bankruptcy, the hospital will pass the cost onto the rest of us, and our insurance premiums are higher because you dont feel like making insurance companies rich. (The profit they make is incredibly tiny, by the way)

You are basically insured by the rest of us. People who can afford insurance and choose to go without are freeloaders.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:58 PM
If that is what it takes to destroy this God awful system and replace it with a better one.. ABSOLUTELY.


I am think you are being over the top with your assumption... but if it had to go that far... yes.

If we are going to allow people who are, currently "healthy and young," to opt out of a system that is predicated upon insurance coverage that is designed to be payed into over an extended period of time....so that funds are available to used when they are needed, and someone tries to stiff the system and save themselves money now because they don't "think" they need the coverage.....

Then I say, let the douchebags bleedout in those emergency rooms with that lacerated liver they got from their drunk driving accident. Shit happens, afterall. If you don't want insurance, fine; but don't expect the rest of us to fund your gamble shitty cost-shifting practices the system currently employs. If you gamble, you better hope you have good luck. Really good luck.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 08:58 PM
Are you high? No, that amount is what the insurance companies have negotiated... they have SET rates and if they are CHARGED more they just don't pay it...

and you are DEAD wrong on the machines themselves...

Most of them are from the same manufacturers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/ikegami.html#1

But here's the deal, co-pays vary according to plan, and doctors covered vary. They will cover the doctor, but they will not necessarily cover the billed cost of his office visits. Anything above a certain standard is lopped off, and they negotiate that internally.

As far as the MRIs in Japan, they are

1) Not the same machines
2) Because they have government-subsidized healthcare, the government is able to negotiate the price of the machines and buy them in bulk, which drives down their prices.


Excerpt:

Prof. YEKAGAMI: Two thousand dollars, I would think, is a state-of-the-art MRI, most expensive type.



JOFFE-WALT: So, we have better machines? They are different machines
.
Prof. YEKAGAMI: Well, in general you have some more expensive types.



JOFFE-WALT: In the U.S., we tend to demand the best, state-of-the-art machines available. But they are not that much fancier. It doesn't explain the more than tenfold difference in price. So, another possible explanation can be found by typing MRI into a Japanese search engine. This is something I asked Dr. Michi Kokinora Bruno(ph) to do. She is a Japanese trained neurologist. And she gets all these ad results, including one that offers to satisfy your MRI needs in a spa-like environment.



In Japan, we can buy a less fancy MRI machine and then you can make up the cost fast because MRIs are incredibly popular. Now, it's unclear if MRIs are popular because they are cheap or if they are cheap in part because they are popular. So, I have two more quick theories for you. We here in the U.S. pay our radiologists much more than Japan does. So that's the cost. And then there is this from Professor Gerard Anderson at Johns Hopkins.



Professor GERARD ANDERSON (Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University): I'm talking about the MRI machine. When you go and you buy it from Siemens or General Electric or any of the manufacturers, you will be paying about twice as much in the United States for the exact same machine.



JOFFE-WALT: Japan sets the price they pay for MRIs super low. And so to get into the Japanese market, the manufacturers lower their prices. They charge more here in the U.S. because we will pay more. How come? Well, I called a number of American hospitals and doctors and I got basically two reactions. The first and most popular: a shrug. We could never get those prices. That's just how it is. And the second: some were surprised. Just like that radiologist getting his first MRI. Health care prices even to them are something of a mystery.
Chana Joffe-Walt, NPR News.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120545569



In this case, a single payer works according to market forces, but you can't extrapolate that idea out into people getting healthcare.

60+% of bankruptcies in the US are healthcare based, and over 80% of those people have insurance.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 09:05 PM
If you get cancer and run up a $1.5MM bill, how do you expect to pay for it? You wont. You'll declare medical bankruptcy, the hospital will pass the cost onto the rest of us, and our insurance premiums are higher because you dont feel like making insurance companies rich. (The profit they make is incredibly tiny, by the way)

You are basically insured by the rest of us. People who can afford insurance and choose to go without are freeloaders.

This plan by law states that people can pay the fine yearly until they need the insurance. Ultimatley this will destroy our current system and we'll end up with a single payer system. We've heard Obama say that and Barney Frank say that. This bill is just the beginning of what the ultimate end game will be. It may take 10 or 20 years, but that is what will happen and thats what they want to see happen.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 09:06 PM
If that is what it takes to destroy this God awful system and replace it with a better one.. ABSOLUTELY.


I am think you are being over the top with your assumption... but if it had to go that far... yes.

This would be a cool path to go down as a thought experiment in a "lets pretend we could do anything we want with health care, what would be the best approach?" kind of topic.

However, this will never, ever, ever happen for as long as we, our kids, their kids, their kids, their kids, and their kids live, so its not really worth discussing.

We will treat everyone who walks into the ER without regard to ability to pay. That is an absolute un-changable given. Now, given thats the case, now what? Is it fair to let people gamble that they wont get sick and when they lose, WE pay? I'd rather not indirectly pay for their care, I have my insurance, they should buy their own damned insurance.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 09:08 PM
If you get cancer and run up a $1.5MM bill, how do you expect to pay for it? You wont. You'll declare medical bankruptcy, the hospital will pass the cost onto the rest of us, and our insurance premiums are higher because you dont feel like making insurance companies rich. (The profit they make is incredibly tiny, by the way)

You are basically insured by the rest of us. People who can afford insurance and choose to go without are freeloaders.

This plan by law states that people can pay the fine yearly until they need the insurance. Ultimatley this will destroy our current system and we'll end up with a single payer system. We've heard Obama say that and Barney Frank say that. This bill is just the beginning of what the ultimate end game will be. It may take 10 or 20 years, but that is what will happen and thats what they want to see happen.Typical the sky is falling post from you. You should stick to UFO/Birther/fake moon landing schtick.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 09:08 PM
...
We will treat everyone who walks into the ER without regard to ability to pay. That is an absolute un-changable given. Now, given thats the case, now what? Is it fair to let people gamble that they wont get sick and when they lose, WE pay? I'd rather not indirectly pay for their care, I have my insurance, they should buy their own damned insurance.

THIS

alnorth
03-23-2010, 09:09 PM
If you get cancer and run up a $1.5MM bill, how do you expect to pay for it? You wont. You'll declare medical bankruptcy, the hospital will pass the cost onto the rest of us, and our insurance premiums are higher because you dont feel like making insurance companies rich. (The profit they make is incredibly tiny, by the way)

You are basically insured by the rest of us. People who can afford insurance and choose to go without are freeloaders.

This plan by law states that people can pay the fine yearly until they need the insurance. Ultimatley this will destroy our current system and we'll end up with a single payer system. We've heard Obama say that and Barney Frank say that. This bill is just the beginning of what the ultimate end game will be. It may take 10 or 20 years, but that is what will happen and thats what they want to see happen.

So, you believe we need to increase the fine to make sure people who can afford it do buy their insurance? Great, I agree. Lets yell at congress, I'll let you write the first letter.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 09:10 PM
Well, she has insurance (Medicare, that was once supplemented with AARP), but it still subject to the doughnut hole.

Before today, the first 1500 of the medication would have been paid out of pocket at 75/25 (of course, Medicare doesn't pay 1.00 on the dollar to those who charge it), then from 1500 to about 4500 they foot everything. From 4500 or so on up, catastrophic kicks in and you pay 5 and MC takes 95.

So, each year, said medication (w/ insurance) would cost her roughly 3375 plus 700 dollars every month. Of course, it's chemo, so you aren't on it constantly.

Sorry, I misunderstood your first take on your relative.
I've got numerous relatives that have had chemo treatments. They are a
bitch. Had an uncle die this past February that choose not to refight his
prostate cancer that hit him about 18 months ago. He choose not to
go through the chemo treatments again. We burried him in a cemetary in NW Iowa whiuch had to move 3 ft. of snow to dig the hole. That was one
windy cold 15 minutes on top of that hill.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 09:11 PM
edit: oops, you werent talking to me.

How in the holy hell is my post wrong?

Are you saying that if you are uninsured the hospital WONT treat you?

Or alternatively, are you saying that people who are uninsured and get slapped with a huge bill can somehow pay it and cost us nothing?

Are you saying the hospital can treat them for free without incurring any additional costs at all, the hospital can treat uninsured patients all day long without needing to pass on costs?

I honestly want to know which specific type of crazy is in your head.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 09:11 PM
As far as the MRIs in Japan, they are

1) Not the same machines
2) Because they have government-subsidized healthcare, the government is able to negotiate the price of the machines and buy them in bulk, which drives down their prices.

Professor GERARD ANDERSON (Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University): I'm talking about the MRI machine. When you go and you buy it from Siemens or General Electric or any of the manufacturers, you will be paying about twice as much in the United States for the exact same machine.



JOFFE-WALT: Japan sets the price they pay for MRIs super low. And so to get into the Japanese market, the manufacturers lower their prices. They charge more here in the U.S. because we will pay more. How come? Well, I called a number of American hospitals and doctors and I got basically two reactions. The first and most popular: a shrug. We could never get those prices. That's just how it is. And the second: some were surprised. Just like that radiologist getting his first MRI. Health care prices even to them are something of a mystery.
Chana Joffe-Walt, NPR News.

You do realize the site you quoted said what I said.. they ARE the same machines (yes some could argue that we tend to buy the HIGHEST model... but the difference is miniscule)...

Now given that they cost 2x more here in the US (I think it is actually higher) ... why do the insurance companies pay 10x more than in Japan? If Japan was SO far off on their payouts... wouldn't you see a reduction in MRI buying since it is unprofitable for medical professionals?

Just another example of our broken system. Medical equipment manufacturers engage in relentless price gouging, so do pharmaceutical companies (although they do make ONE valid claim that the FDA processes are so ineffecient that they need to make up some costs)

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 09:14 PM
So, you believe we need to increase the fine to make sure people who can afford it do buy their insurance? Great, I agree. Lets yell at congress, I'll let you write the first letter.

Believe it or not, that would help. Because what they've done now is set the table for a massive amount of "free loading" if what you call by paying the fine "free loading".

BRC, I'm not the one with his head stuck in the ground.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 09:14 PM
How in the holy hell is my post wrong?

Are you saying that if you are uninsured the hospital WONT treat you?

Or alternatively, are you saying that people who are uninsured and get slapped with a huge bill can somehow pay it and cost us nothing?

Are you saying the hospital can treat them for free without incurring any additional costs at all, the hospital can treat uninsured patients all day long without needing to pass on costs?

I honestly want to know which specific type of crazy is in your head.

oops, crap. I just noticed that due to some bad quoteing from this board's UI, your (BRC) post looked like it was addressed to me. Sorry.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 09:15 PM
How in the holy hell is my post wrong?

Are you saying that if you are uninsured the hospital WONT treat you?

Or alternatively, are you saying that people who are uninsured and get slapped with a huge bill can somehow pay it and cost us nothing?

Are you saying the hospital can treat them for free without incurring any additional costs at all, the hospital can treat uninsured patients all day long without needing to pass on costs?

I honestly want to know which specific type of crazy is in your head.

I didn't say that, some how BRC got his fingers on the wrong keys or something. Because I didn't post that. BRC thinks I'm a UFO worshipper because I don't follow his line of thinking on this health care bill.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 09:16 PM
oops, crap. I just noticed that due to some bad quoteing from this board's UI, your (BRC) post looked like it was addressed to me. Sorry.

All is well.

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2010, 09:20 PM
You do realize the site you quoted said what I said.. they ARE the same machines (yes some could argue that we tend to buy the HIGHEST model... but the difference is miniscule)...

Now given that they cost 2x more here in the US (I think it is actually higher) ... why do the insurance companies pay 10x more than in Japan? If Japan was SO far off on their payouts... wouldn't you see a reduction in MRI buying since it is unprofitable for medical professionals?

Just another example of our broken system. Medical equipment manufacturers engage in relentless price gouging, so do pharmaceutical companies (although they do make ONE valid claim that the FDA processes are so ineffecient that they need to make up some costs)

Nobody is going to mess with the pharmaceutical drug cartels. That was the first group Barry met with behind closed doors before this whole shameful debacle started~

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 09:45 PM
That is not correct information.

How can you deny it. I provided the link from the house ways and means committee. Just because you dont want to believe it, doesn't mean it is not true.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 09:52 PM
You do realize the site you quoted said what I said.. they ARE the same machines (yes some could argue that we tend to buy the HIGHEST model... but the difference is miniscule)...

Now given that they cost 2x more here in the US (I think it is actually higher) ... why do the insurance companies pay 10x more than in Japan? If Japan was SO far off on their payouts... wouldn't you see a reduction in MRI buying since it is unprofitable for medical professionals?

Just another example of our broken system. Medical equipment manufacturers engage in relentless price gouging, so do pharmaceutical companies (although they do make ONE valid claim that the FDA processes are so ineffecient that they need to make up some costs)

I've never said that Med Equip companies don't gouge. They definitely do. However, there's not a lot that an individual can do about it. You can't boycott getting healthcare the way that others might boycott Wal-Mart.

You are trapped. As such, you need an entity larger than yourself (in this case, government) to advocate for your best interests, because you, nor a collection of like minded individuals, will be enough to sway an insurance company.

However, you are overlooking a couple of things

1) The Japanese are buying cheaper machines, they admit as much
2) They buy more per capita
3) Their government advocates and purchases in large quantities, and as such, gets a discount on the machines (even if they aren't bleeding edge)

Ultimately, people have a completely wrong outlook on this bill.

They see it as the end game. It's not.

I see it as part of a dialectical process that will eventually break up the cabal of insurance companies in this country.

Eventually we will have a single payer system. It's going to happen, and when it happens, it will be cheaper due to bulk purchasing. This is a first step, and one of the first steps is cutting out overhead (Private Insurance companies have preposterous overhead compared to Medicare, for example). The second is making those companies carry everyone, not just the medical brahmans.

Medical insurance companies don't have a right to exist. They are about to be pared significantly, and I think that's a good thing.

Take it from someone who has been denied coverage not because I had a preexisting condition, but because some bean counter at an insurance company didn't know the difference between a lipoma (a fatty cyst on my leg removed in a 5 minute procedure by my GP) and lymphoma.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 09:55 PM
This would be a cool path to go down as a thought experiment in a "lets pretend we could do anything we want with health care, what would be the best approach?" kind of topic.

However, this will never, ever, ever happen for as long as we, our kids, their kids, their kids, their kids, and their kids live, so its not really worth discussing.

We will treat everyone who walks into the ER without regard to ability to pay. That is an absolute un-changable given. Now, given thats the case, now what? Is it fair to let people gamble that they wont get sick and when they lose, WE pay? I'd rather not indirectly pay for their care, I have my insurance, they should buy their own damned insurance.

I'd rather see the elimination of insurance altogether than have this fascism forced on our society. More fascism will follow. It has to. The slippery slope will continue to get steeper.

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 09:55 PM
If you get cancer and run up a $1.5MM bill, how do you expect to pay for it? You wont. You'll declare medical bankruptcy, the hospital will pass the cost onto the rest of us, and our insurance premiums are higher because you dont feel like making insurance companies rich. (The profit they make is incredibly tiny, by the way)

You are basically insured by the rest of us. People who can afford insurance and choose to go without are freeloaders.

You do realize that only about 1% of health insurance claims are over $100,000? If I have a claim under $100,000, then I will find a way to pay for it. If something catastrophic happens, then I guess I am screwed. I make the choice to take that chance. It is my right and the government has no business telling me that I can't make that choice.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:00 PM
You do realize that only about 1% of health insurance claims are over $100,000? If I have a claim under $100,000, then I will find a way to pay for it. If something catastrophic happens, then I guess I am screwed. I make the choice to take that chance. It is my right and the government has no business telling me that I can't make that choice.

So, if one of your children is diagnosed with leukemia, and your options are either to pay for it (you can't w/o insurance) or for your kid to die, you'll have the same philosophical purity, right?

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:00 PM
Eventually we will have a single payer system. It's going to happen, and when it happens, it will be cheaper due to bulk purchasing.


You are hereby banned from ever making an anti-slippery slope argument. Thanks for playing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:01 PM
You are hereby banned from ever making an anti-slippery slope argument. Thanks for playing.

I don't view it as the devil, and I don't care if Lew Rockwell tells you that you should.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:03 PM
So you are on board for letting uninsured folks who can't pay for potentially expensive services....to go untreated, and bleed out if that's the way it goes? Right?

Where do I sign up? I want to go back to the American way. I'm opposed to introducing fascism to solve our problems.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 10:03 PM
How can you deny it. I provided the link from the house ways and means committee. Just because you dont want to believe it, doesn't mean it is not true.Thats just old information. It's not what ended up in the bill signed today.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 10:06 PM
You are trapped. As such, you need an entity larger than yourself (in this case, government) to advocate for your best interests, because you, nor a collection of like minded individuals, will be enough to sway an insurance company.

I am not against govt enforcing antitrust and antipredatory laws... I am against govt propping up the entities engaged in these practices.

This was the absolute WRONG way to go about health care reform... we are coming at the problem ASS BACKWARDS and expecting some wonderous outcome. I don't buy it.

We KNOW what was broken... attack the GOD DAMN problems themselves...

Price gouging, ineffecient systems, corporate welfare for the entities involved...

ONCE AGAIN... I have no problem with govt getting involved in situations where they HAVE to... if this is one of those cases .. so be it.... but don't tell me THIS type of govt involvement is the right path to take... it simply isn't.

There is no excuse for this complete abortion of a bill.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:06 PM
I don't view it as the devil, and I don't care if Lew Rockwell tells you that you should.


Just so we got it square that your anti-slippery slope argument days here are done. It was disingenuous for you to make them before.

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 10:13 PM
So, if one of your children is diagnosed with leukemia, and your options are either to pay for it (you can't w/o insurance) or for your kid to die, you'll have the same philosophical purity, right?

IF that were to happen, I would regret the decision I made, but since I made that decision, why should anyone else, including the government have to pay for it? The way I was raised, actions have consequences. And regardless of my personal circumstances, the government still has no authority to force me, you, or anyone else to purchase a product we dont want, whether we need it or not. Suppose the government said you had to buy a new 30 mpg Chevy car from Government Motors or pay a fine. You might need a more efficient vehicle to drive to work, but you can drive an old beater, ride a bike, or walk. It's your choice. Just like health insurance.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:14 PM
Just so we got it square that your anti-slippery slope argument days here are done. It was disingenuous for you to make them before.

Point to one instance where I did in relation to this argument or shut the fuck up.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:14 PM
IF that were to happen, I would regret the decision I made, but since I made that decision, why should anyone else, including the government have to pay for it? The way I was raised, actions have consequences. And regardless of my personal circumstances, the government still has no authority to force me, you, or anyone else to purchase a product we dont want, whether we need it or not. Suppose the government said you had to buy a new 30 mpg Chevy car from Government Motors or pay a fine. You might need a more efficient vehicle to drive to work, but you can drive an old beater, ride a bike, or walk. It's your choice. Just like health insurance.

And does your daughter have a choice?

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:15 PM
Point to one instance where I did in relation to this argument or shut the **** up.

I don't care to go into the search engine over this. You and I are clear on this matter. You've admitted that the slippery slope is the strategy, and that's all I need to know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:19 PM
I am not against govt enforcing antitrust and antipredatory laws... I am against govt propping up the entities engaged in these practices.

This was the absolute WRONG way to go about health care reform... we are coming at the problem ASS BACKWARDS and expecting some wonderous outcome. I don't buy it.

We KNOW what was broken... attack the GOD DAMN problems themselves...

Price gouging, ineffecient systems, corporate welfare for the entities involved...

ONCE AGAIN... I have no problem with govt getting involved in situations where they HAVE to... if this is one of those cases .. so be it.... but don't tell me THIS type of govt involvement is the right path to take... it simply isn't.

There is no excuse for this complete abortion of a bill.

Again, you are looking at this as an end case and not a process of changing the system.

Social Security as it exists now is not the same as when it was first enacted. It has been amended dozens of times.

Furthermore, it's extending coverage to those who don't have it, and it's cutting the deficit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:20 PM
I don't care to go into the search engine over this. You and I are clear on this matter. You've admitted that the slippery slope is the strategy, and that's all I need to know.

No I haven't. I've never once said anything about your strategy other than the fact that it involves demonization over coherent analysis.

You got caught in a lie and you aren't going to own up. Don't worry, I don't respect you, anyway, so you aren't out anything.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:20 PM
Again, you are looking at this as an end case and not a process of changing the system.

Social Security as it exists now is not the same as when it was first enacted. It has been amended dozens of times.

Furthermore, it's extending coverage to those who don't have it, and it's cutting the deficit.


I can't believe you guys think that anybody is going to buy this whole "cutting the deficit" farce.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 10:21 PM
You do realize that only about 1% of health insurance claims are over $100,000? If I have a claim under $100,000, then I will find a way to pay for it. If something catastrophic happens, then I guess I am screwed. I make the choice to take that chance. It is my right and the government has no business telling me that I can't make that choice.

I dont really care if it even costs me only $10/year extra. (It probably doesn't, one group estimated (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124353194170163283.html) that the average family with insurance pays over $1,000/yr extra because of the uninsured)

I also have uninsured motorists coverage, but at least we make driving without insurance illegal, so we are doing everything we reasonably can to minimize that cost.

Anyone who has no assets and is basically "judgement-proof" can just crawl bleeding into the hospital without insurance and pass their costs on to people like me, guilt-free. I'd really rather not pay for more uninsured than I have to.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 10:25 PM
I can't believe you guys think that anybody is going to buy this whole "cutting the deficit" farce.

I briefly argued against the myth that this will be a net win for the deficit a while ago, but eventually gave up. I dont have a time machine, and some people will continue to believe that we will actually make good on the plan to make a huge cut in Medicare payments until it finally gets delayed indefinitely by congress.

It is not really an arguement that can be proven one way or the other even though common sense and our history with entitlement programs suggests what is likely.

We may or may not decide the cost is worth it, but lets not fool ourselves that future taxes or coverage cuts wont be needed down the road.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:27 PM
I can't believe you guys think that anybody is going to buy this whole "cutting the deficit" farce.

The CBO is clearly in the tank for Obama, or something.

BTW, I've used the word "slippery" in DC (or quoted someone using it) exactly 14 times before this post. None in relation to health care.

Fuck, I think the first time I've really discussed the issue of health care in DC has been in the last week.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:27 PM
No I haven't. I've never once said anything about your strategy other than the fact that it involves demonization over coherent analysis.

You got caught in a lie and you aren't going to own up. Don't worry, I don't respect you, anyway, so you aren't out anything.

I'm not talking about my strategy. I'm talking about the strategy of health reform by way of the slippery slope. You've made it clear that this is the objective and that you sponsor this approach.


Could you please, once draw a logical progression from the implementation of a specific policy proposal to its ultimate end without resorting to nothing but a narrow application of fallacious logic via the slippery slope? Just one time?


Just once, I'd like to see a Libertarian engage in an argument that didn't rely completely on a slippery slope fallacy.


Thanks for proving me right all along.

RJ
03-23-2010, 10:29 PM
jjchieffan, I hope for your sake and especially for your children that none of you ever develops a chronic, long term illness, cause 30K ain't gonna cover it. Seriously, best of luck to you.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 10:31 PM
IF that were to happen, I would regret the decision I made, but since I made that decision, why should anyone else, including the government have to pay for it? The way I was raised, actions have consequences. And regardless of my personal circumstances, the government still has no authority to force me, you, or anyone else to purchase a product we dont want, whether we need it or not. Suppose the government said you had to buy a new 30 mpg Chevy car from Government Motors or pay a fine. You might need a more efficient vehicle to drive to work, but you can drive an old beater, ride a bike, or walk. It's your choice. Just like health insurance.

even in this ideal situation you prefer (no insurance? Sorry, you die), we would still have to give medical care to children, if for no other reason than because it is not their choice or fault that they are uninsured. (even if they say they wanted no insurance, they are not old enough to legally make life or death decisions)

Its basically the same reason why religious crazy people whose kids die because they believed Jesus would cure them usually go to jail.

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2010, 10:31 PM
jjchieffan, I hope for your sake and especially for your children that none of you ever develops a chronic, long term illness, cause 30K ain't gonna cover it. Seriously, best of luck to you.

You ring up that tab in hours~

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:31 PM
The CBO is clearly in the tank for Obama, or something.

BTW, I've used the word "slippery" in DC (or quoted someone using it) exactly 14 times before this post. None in relation to health care.

****, I think the first time I've really discussed the issue of health care in DC has been in the last week.



The CBO didn't get the slippery slope numbers that you've confirmed are coming, did they?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:32 PM
I'm not talking about my strategy. I'm talking about the strategy of health reform by way of the slippery slope. You've made it clear that this is the objective and that you sponsor this approach.







Thanks for proving me right all along.

What TJ, the lying sack of shit forgot to mention, is that my reply was in direct response to his own post (some 1.5 years ago, no less) that the government would "begin telling people how to live".

Yeah...no.

His post (because clearly this happens in Canada and every other Western nation).

Originally Posted by Taco John http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5214750#post5214750)
It eventually will. Once the government starts paying for healthcare, rules on how we are to live will eventually, inevitably be enacted.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:34 PM
The CBO didn't get the slippery slope numbers that you've confirmed are coming, did they?

If they were, it would cut costs even more, because there wouldn't be a profit motive in the medical industry for corporations to exploit out of those who can't choose whether or not they want to pay it.

It's pretty obvious that a single payer system lowers costs. There are literally dozens of examples that prove this.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 10:36 PM
The CBO is clearly in the tank for Obama, or something.

I honestly do not believe they are biased. I don't care if Goldwater rose from the grave and said it was so, I just simply will not believe this result until it happens.

Even if it is theoretically deficit-neutral on paper, I definitely dont believe the Medicare cuts will stand. We all know they had to get a neutral or better score to get this passed in the Senate, but after that procedural hurdle is cleared, they can always reconsider later and decide that cutting Medicare payments is probably not a great idea after all.

Hopefully when that happens, they will pay for a big chunk of it with some serious health care cost-cutting reform and/or coverage decreases (everyone doesn't have to have a $20 co-pay and zero deductible.) and go light on the inevitable tax increases.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:38 PM
What TJ, the lying sack of shit forgot to mention, is that my reply was in direct response to his own post (some 1.5 years ago, no less) that the government would "begin telling people how to live".

Yeah...no.

His post (because clearly this happens in Canada and every other Western nation).

Originally Posted by Taco John http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5214750#post5214750)
It eventually will. Once the government starts paying for healthcare, rules on how we are to live will eventually, inevitably be enacted.






We're clear right. You no longer have claim to deny slippery slope arguments. You've demonstrated that using the slippery slope is how to enact reform.

Iowanian
03-23-2010, 10:45 PM
If you're 400lbs, it's at least 150lbs of Bullshit.

You absolutely ARE happy about forcing people to buy insurance, you don't mind everyone being taxed even more to pay for the non-producers and you've been jerking off all over the board for 2 days.

Stop trying to play the middle because you'd let Obama mount you and everyone here knows it.


I'm not happy about forcing people to buy insurance either. Goes against some basic principles that we all see ourselfs sharing regardless of political affiliation.

But it can be fixed later. We spent over a year debating this ad nausem. This was it, either we passed this bill as it is or health care reform waits another 10-20 years for some future president to take it up again. It was better than the status quo.


GM isn't doing great....next stop.....Everyone has to buy a Chevy Volt?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:45 PM
We're clear right. You no longer have claim to deny slippery slope arguments. You've demonstrated that using the slippery slope is how to enact reform.

You really should stick to copying and pasting your arguments, because you aren't intellectually capable of stringing together sentences that make any sense.

For your own benefit, let's engage in a little exercise.

1) Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. If this happens, then the world will end because of A, B, C, etc.

2) What I was doing in the above post was pointing out your inability to discuss the merits or drawbacks of health care reform logically. Instead, you rely on fear mongering via a slippery slope fallacy. In this case, you say the government is going to tell us all how to live. You are playing the role of Sarah Palin, in essence.

That's clearly not the case in any other country with a single payer system.

Of course, a of disclaimer must be made:

I think that we will eventually become single payer. That doesn't mean it absolutely will happen. I'm just basing that assumption on the progressive nature of large social groups.

You weren't basing your argument off of what the end result of health care reform would be (that is how would it look). You were using fear then (gov't controlling our lives) just like you are now (allusions to fascism).

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 10:47 PM
Hamas did you ever find a peice of legislation that's been made the last 20 years that wasn't for corporations?

Taco John
03-23-2010, 10:48 PM
Thanks for the disclaimer that invalidates everything you said and validates everything that I said. You should have just admitted I was right, and saved some typing strokes.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:51 PM
Thanks for the disclaimer that invalidates everything you said and validates everything that I said. You should have just admitted I was right, and saved some typing strokes.

The above bluster is not a rebuttal, and no one is buying it as such.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:52 PM
Hamas did you ever find a peice of legislation that's been made the last 20 years that wasn't for corporations?

Why would I look for it, and how is this germane to this debate?

Dave Lane
03-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Why should there be any fine at all?

Because a large reason that healthcare is expensive is the large number of people that get injured go to the hospital and then either never pay their $20,000 bill or make $600 a month payments till a portion of it is paid off.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 10:54 PM
Why would I look for it, and how is this germane to this debate?

Because earlier you said government does not equal corporation. You might want to look at the legislation that has been passed the last 20 years or so and exmaine your claim.

KC Dan
03-23-2010, 10:56 PM
Even if it is theoretically deficit-neutral on paper, I definitely dont believe the Medicare cuts will stand. We all know they had to get a neutral or better score to get this passed in the Senate, but after that procedural hurdle is cleared, they can always reconsider later and decide that cutting Medicare payments is probably not a great idea after all.

Hopefully when that happens, they will pay for a big chunk of it with some serious health care cost-cutting reform and/or coverage decreases (everyone doesn't have to have a $20 co-pay and zero deductible.) and go light on the inevitable tax increases.
hahahahaha, You know what Aerosmith said: "Dream On". Our deficit and debt are going up, up and awayyyyyyy because of this bill. Bet on it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 10:58 PM
Because earlier you said government does not equal corporation. You might want to look at the legislation that has been passed the last 20 years or so and exmaine your claim.

A Government's role isn't to maximize profits for itself, billay.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. A government is an empty vessel whose direction will be determined by its inhabitants.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 11:01 PM
A Government's role isn't to maximize profits for itself, billay.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. A government is an empty vessel whose direction will be determined by its inhabitants.

Not when the government works for said corporations.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:06 PM
Not when the government works for said corporations.

:facepalm:

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 11:07 PM
:facepalm:



Are you saying that politicans don't work for lobbyist? Politicans supported things like NAFTA and tax breaks for companies that move overseas because it was a good idea? :rolleyes:

Taco John
03-23-2010, 11:08 PM
The above bluster is not a rebuttal, and no one is buying it as such.

I have nothing to rebut. I showed you the quotes. And you admitted that slippery slope is where this thing goes next.

My work was done when you opened your mouth.

jjchieffan
03-23-2010, 11:16 PM
This thread has drifted away from my original point. That being that the government does not have the right to force me to buy anything. And that includes insurance. You can argue until you are blue in the face as to the reasons I should have insurance, but that has nothing to do with the government forcing me to buy it. Just because I need to have something doesn't mean that lawmakers can force me to buy it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:16 PM
I have nothing to rebut. I showed you the quotes. And you admitted that slippery slope is where this thing goes next.

My work was done when you opened your mouth.

A Hegelian dialectic is not a slippery slope

Saying that government run health care is going to lead us to a fascist dictatorship is.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:17 PM
Are you saying that politicans don't work for lobbyist? Politicans supported things like NAFTA and tax breaks for companies that move overseas because it was a good idea? :rolleyes:

No, billay, I'm saying that government is merely as good as the people who occupy it. It's not a "good" or "bad" entity, despite what demagogues may tell you. It's value neutral. It's value is dependent upon those who comprise it.

Fat Elvis
03-23-2010, 11:17 PM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that? I am married, and have a daughter. I dropped health insurance over 4 years ago because I felt I could find a better use for my $600 a month than to make insurance companies rich. So far, I have saved over $30000. I could have invested that money to have in case of health issues. However, I haven't saved any of it. But if big medical bills arise, I can probably make $600/month payments to pay them off. I see no reason for me to buy insurance. Yet now Obama, Pelosi, and their Socialist left wing cohorts tell me I have to buy insurance or pay a fine?? **** them!! In America, we are free to make that choice for ourselves. If the Supreme Court does not overturn this crap, **** them too!!

Thanks for letting me rant. I think this is my first post in D.C. I usually dont get involved in politics, but this shit is just wrong on so many levels

You refuse to get health insurance even though you can pay for it? I hate to break it to you, but Christopher Walken has a better chance of making it out of The Deer Hunter than you actually realizing a savings.

KingPriest2
03-23-2010, 11:20 PM
Thats why insurance premiums will sky rocket - until the one payer system is created. People will choose to pay the fine instead of paying for the insurance premium. Because the gov't now MANDATES that everyone can buy a policy at the time they need it, not before they need it.

Can you imagine being able to buy fire insurance on your house when your house is on fire ??? Imagine being able to buy Life Insurance when your
heart stops beating !!! Life Insurance is what should be mandated. What
are the odds of you dying ?

This O care will lead to the health insurance companies losing bsn. and
they're cash reserves. Insurance companies HAVE to make a profit - but the gov't doesn't have too. We know what the end game is. It won't be good.

life insurance companies dont make a profit in the first year of the policy

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 11:21 PM
No, billay, I'm saying that government is merely as good as the people who occupy it. It's not a "good" or "bad" entity, despite what demagogues may tell you. It's value neutral. It's value is dependent upon those who comprise it.

It has a large corporation influence how can you deny that especially with with supreme courts latest ruling? For fucks sake Kuchinich even admitted this bill was a bailout for insurance companies.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 11:25 PM
A Hegelian dialectic is not a slippery slope

Saying that government run health care is going to lead us to a fascist dictatorship is.


Does this bill not dictate that people buy insurance or face the IRS?

Fat Elvis
03-23-2010, 11:29 PM
This thread has drifted away from my original point. That being that the government does not have the right to force me to buy anything. And that includes insurance. You can argue until you are blue in the face as to the reasons I should have insurance, but that has nothing to do with the government forcing me to buy it. Just because I need to have something doesn't mean that lawmakers can force me to buy it.

The government forces you to buy a lot of things. The government forces you to buy roads. It forces you to buy public schools. It forces you to buy protection from fire and crime (fire and police departments). The government forces you to buy protection from invading forces (the military). It forces you to buy many other things as well. Why should healthcare be any different?

Personally, I think roads are a good thing. I also think fire and police departments are good things. I think universal public education is a good thing. I think having a military force is a good thing.

I think affordable (if not universal) healthcare is a good thing as well.

CoMoChief
03-23-2010, 11:36 PM
2016 is a long way off. Who knows what our stations in life will be, who will be President? To worry about a couple of hundred $'s that you might pay in 6 friggin years doesn't sound like a good use of time, at least IMHO.

ROFL Gotta love your "who gives a fuck about the future" attitude to try and help your argument.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 11:40 PM
IF that were to happen, I would regret the decision I made, but since I made that decision, why should anyone else, including the government have to pay for it? The way I was raised, actions have consequences. And regardless of my personal circumstances, the government still has no authority to force me, you, or anyone else to purchase a product we dont want, whether we need it or not. Suppose the government said you had to buy a new 30 mpg Chevy car from Government Motors or pay a fine. You might need a more efficient vehicle to drive to work, but you can drive an old beater, ride a bike, or walk. It's your choice. Just like health insurance.

And your children pay for your sins with their lives. You are one cold and callous MFer. :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:40 PM
Does this bill not dictate that people buy insurance or face the IRS?

Clearly the same as facing the Gestapo.

cdcox
03-23-2010, 11:41 PM
jjchieffan, I hope for your sake and especially for your children that none of you ever develops a chronic, long term illness, cause 30K ain't gonna cover it. Seriously, best of luck to you.

This. I'll pay $30K out of pocket this year alone on a family member's illness. And I have insurance that has covered most of the cost over the 5 years we've been fighting this. A normal family budget can't touch even "moderate" medical expenses.

stevieray
03-23-2010, 11:41 PM
Personally, I think roads are a good thing. I also think fire and police departments are good things. I think universal public education is a good thing. I think having a military force is a good thing.

I think affordable (if not universal) healthcare is a good thing as well.

...and out of all those things listed, only one is a good or service.

saying we have a right to healthcare is like saying the paraplegic has a right to walk, or the blind have a right to see. we don't have a right to be healthy.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 11:43 PM
Clearly the same as facing the Gestapo.

Who said anything about facing the gestapo? You keep moving the target. You said it was different than a dictatorship. I said, they're dictating that people buy insurance, right... And then you think that you can spin out of what you said after I just hit the target.

You've admitted it already. This thing is just the marker. They're going to rely on the slippery slope to shape this thing into what they want.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 11:44 PM
I am not against govt enforcing antitrust and antipredatory laws... I am against govt propping up the entities engaged in these practices.

This was the absolute WRONG way to go about health care reform... we are coming at the problem ASS BACKWARDS and expecting some wonderous outcome. I don't buy it.

We KNOW what was broken... attack the GOD DAMN problems themselves...

Price gouging, ineffecient systems, corporate welfare for the entities involved...

ONCE AGAIN... I have no problem with govt getting involved in situations where they HAVE to... if this is one of those cases .. so be it.... but don't tell me THIS type of govt involvement is the right path to take... it simply isn't.

There is no excuse for this complete abortion of a bill.

Well, at least you see the forest for the trees--unlike so many of the simpleton dittoheads and ideologue "conservatives" here. We just diverge on whether or not we see this a means to an end--albeit a less efficient means than could be had in a less politically complicated circumstance.

AustinChief
03-23-2010, 11:46 PM
The government forces you to buy a lot of things. The government forces you to buy roads. It forces you to buy public schools. It forces you to buy protection from fire and crime (fire and police departments). The government forces you to buy protection from invading forces (the military). It forces you to buy many other things as well. Why should healthcare be any different?

Personally, I think roads are a good thing. I also think fire and police departments are good things. I think universal public education is a good thing. I think having a military force is a good thing.

I think affordable (if not universal) healthcare is a good thing as well.

yes, but all of those are provided BY THE GOVERNMENT... not some deuchebag profiteering corporation on federal welfare.

I have problems with govt health care or public option or whatever ... but I can at least SEE some logic to those ideas... but what we have now(with the new bill) is UNACCEPTABLE.

Taco John
03-23-2010, 11:48 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m9tiJnSgGME&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m9tiJnSgGME&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="385"></embed></object>

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:52 PM
It has a large corporation influence how can you deny that especially with with supreme courts latest ruling? For fucks sake Kuchinich even admitted this bill was a bailout for insurance companies.

Because the people who are in this iteration of government are overly beholden to corporate influence.

But it is not universal and it is not axiomatic.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 11:55 PM
Who said anything about facing the gestapo? You keep moving the target. You said it was different than a dictatorship. I said, they're dictating that people buy insurance, right... And then you think that you can spin out of what you said after I just hit the target.

You've admitted it already. This thing is just the marker. They're going to rely on the slippery slope to shape this thing into what they want.

You are the one who kept invoking fascism. I merely took your assumption to its illogical end.

I'm not spinning anything. If you think this is dictatorial, I'd love to hear your opinions on Car Insurance, vaccines, and numerous other requirements. I obviously need some entertainment.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 11:58 PM
This thread has drifted away from my original point. That being that the government does not have the right to force me to buy anything. And that includes insurance. You can argue until you are blue in the face as to the reasons I should have insurance, but that has nothing to do with the government forcing me to buy it. Just because I need to have something doesn't mean that lawmakers can force me to buy it.

okie doke, focusing away from reasons and into nerdy legalese...

The government has the right (and all the legal challenges from the states will die), because the SCOTUS has given very broad deference to the congress for taxation. The legal critics are basically focusing on the wrong thing (regulating interstate commerce). Essentially, this is an income tax increase for everyone, along with a way you can avoid it.

If the government can give me a tax break for buying a home or for buying a car with great gas mileage, then they sure as hell can give me a tax break for just about anything else I might buy, including insurance.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 12:01 AM
...and out of all those things listed, only one is a good or service.

saying we have a right to healthcare is like saying the paraplegic has a right to walk, or the blind have a right to see. we don't have a right to be healthy.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....

"life" is pretty meaningless if health cannot be had at affordable costs for average folks....

:hmmm:

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:03 AM
Because the people who are in this iteration of government are overly beholden to corporate influence.

But it is not universal and it is not axiomatic.


It's not axiomatic. It's just that it happens in every government.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:05 AM
It's not axiomatic. It's just that it happens in every government.

No, it doesn't. Will it happen when your economic system is your preferred type of completely unregulated capitalism? Absolutely. And then, the panacea of the market as the great arbiter of all that is fair (which is an illusion to begin with) will be corrupted even more.

That's why corporations are inimical to the common good, and as such, should be regulated.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:05 AM
You are the one who kept invoking fascism. I merely took your assumption to its illogical end.

There was no assumption made on my part. Your logical fallacy aside.



I'm not spinning anything. If you think this is dictatorial, I'd love to hear your opinions on Car Insurance, vaccines, and numerous other requirements. I obviously need some entertainment.

You already admitted that they are dictating insurance coverage to the American people. I don't have to "think" it's dictatorial when it can be observed by even you.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:06 AM
No, it doesn't. Will it happen when your economic system is your preferred type of completely unregulated capitalism? Absolutely. And then, the panacea of the market as the great arbiter of all that is fair (which is an illusion to begin with) will be corrupted even more.

That's why corporations are inimical to the common good, and as such, should be regulated.

God damn you are one stupid mother fucker.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:07 AM
"Bleach will kill you, therefore we should regulate the amount of bleach that can be served to you."

stevieray
03-24-2010, 12:13 AM
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....

"life" is pretty meaningless if health cannot be had at affordable costs for average folks....

:hmmm:

health can not be had. michael jackson died within two miles of a hospital with a doctor in the house. on how many medications? people die on the battlefield waitng for medics. people die in amberlamps on the way to the hospital, while emt's are trying to save their lives. not because of money, but because of humanity. there is no guarantee that you won't have complications in surgery and not pull through. it's why doctors say we did everything we could and we say thank you. it's a service...


we don't even have the right to wake up tomorrow.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:14 AM
"Bleach will kill you, therefore we should regulate the amount of bleach that can be served to you."

It's funny that the person consistently bringing up the slippery slope and moving the goalposts is the one consistently doing it.

But if you want to continue to make asinine analogies and yearn for the days of the Gilded Age, that's your prerogative. I can also laugh at you for your ideological myopia.

wutamess
03-24-2010, 12:17 AM
http://i44.tinypic.com/wc23d5.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/swesra.jpg

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:18 AM
health can not be had. michael jackson died within two miles of a hospital with a doctor in the house. on how many medications? people die on the battlefield waitng for medics. people die in amberlamps on the way to the hospital, while emt's are trying to save their lives. not because of money, but because of humanity. there is no guarantee that you won't have complications in surgery and not pull through. it's why doctors say we did everything we could and we say thank you. it's a service...


we don't even have the right to wake up tomorrow.

Of course everyone will die, but when someone dies because they can't pay for a medication or for a routine checkup that could catch something while still curable, that's a pretty fucking stupid reason to die.

If a child gets Ewing's Sarcoma, I'm not sufficiently Darwinistic to say "too effing bad" because his/her parents can't afford the insurance/treatments. If some guy in his 40s with three kids and a wife has his business fail because the economy sucks, and he finds out he needs a bypass, he shouldn't have to fuck off and die.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:22 AM
There was no assumption made on my part. Your logical fallacy aside.





You already admitted that they are dictating insurance coverage to the American people. I don't have to "think" it's dictatorial when it can be observed by even you.

You are desperately trying to clutch every last ounce out of that semantic escape, all the while trying to make an erroneous comparison between our country with this bill and an authoritarian regime.

You know what "dictatorial" really is? It's having your political enemies arrested. It's gassing people for demonstrating, sending them to the gulag, or burying them alive.

The fact that you are trying to make a subconscious allusion to that is honestly, revolting, and shows how much integrity you don't have.

alnorth
03-24-2010, 12:26 AM
Of course everyone will die, but when someone dies because they can't pay for a medication or for a routine checkup that could catch something while still curable, that's a pretty ****ing stupid reason to die.

If a child gets Ewing's Sarcoma, I'm not sufficiently Darwinistic to say "too effing bad" because his/her parents can't afford the insurance/treatments. If some guy in his 40s with three kids and a wife has his business fail because the economy sucks, and he finds out he needs a bypass, he shouldn't have to **** off and die.

To those still harboring hopes that this will be "repealed" or "replaced". You see how easy that argument is? I hardly ever agree with this dude, but on this issue? Tone it down a bit, put some dying kids on TV, you can write commercials against "repeal" all day long.

Chocolate Hog
03-24-2010, 12:26 AM
You are desperately trying to clutch every last ounce out of that semantic escape, all the while trying to make an erroneous comparison between our country with this bill and an authoritarian regime.

You know what "dictatorial" really is? It's having your political enemies arrested. It's gassing people for demonstrating, sending them to the gulag, or burying them alive.

The fact that you are trying to make a subconscious allusion to that is honestly, revolting, and shows how much integrity you don't have.

You really don't want to get into a debate about civil liberties. The goverment has violated pretty much all of them.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:29 AM
You really don't want to get into a debate about civil liberties. The goverment has violated pretty much all of them.

At times (WWII, for example) yes.

But as many problems as citizens of the United States express over their lack of civil liberties, there are few citizens anywhere else in the world who have more.

To honestly compare something like this to a dictatorship is an insult to the millions of people who have suffered and died under real dictatorships. It shows an astonishing amount of arrogance, and a preposterous lack of understanding of history.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:29 AM
You are desperately trying to clutch every last ounce out of that semantic escape, all the while trying to make an erroneous comparison between our country with this bill and an authoritarian regime.

You know what "dictatorial" really is? It's having your political enemies arrested. It's gassing people for demonstrating, sending them to the gulag, or burying them alive.

The fact that you are trying to make a subconscious allusion to that is honestly, revolting, and shows how much integrity you don't have.


What a joke you are. "Dictatorial" measures aren't determined based on whether you like the outcome of the force being used or not. If I force you to eat ice cream before going to bed each night, I'm still being dictatorial, even if you like ice cream. And what happens if you decide you're fed up with ice cream and refuse? I punch you in the gut until you decide that you'd rather eat ice cream than be punched in the gut. The message to you is I own you, and decide what is good for you and what the punishment will be if you disagree.

Yes, I know what "dictatorial" really is, and it's not a matter of taste you fool.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:34 AM
What a joke you are. "Dictatorial" measures aren't determined based on whether you like the outcome of the force being used or not. If I force you to eat ice cream before going to bed each night, I'm still being dictatorial, even if you like ice cream. And what happens if you decide you're fed up with ice cream and refuse? I punch you in the gut until you decide that you'd rather eat ice cream than be punched in the gut. The message to you is I own you, and decide what is good for you and what the punishment will be if you disagree.

Yes, I know what "dictatorial" really is, and it's not a matter of taste you fool.

And even to use this analogy, you have to resort to the use of force.

When the troops set foot on the doorstep of the first person who won't pay his insurance and send him off to the work camps, I'll be right behind you.

Until then, you have to resort to the wild use of hyperbole, all the while ignoring the litany of federal (and state) mandates that exist for citizens of all stripes, every day.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:34 AM
"But, but, but... Insurance is GOOD so it can't be considered dictatorial to use force in order to get people to buy it from insurance companies!"

stevieray
03-24-2010, 12:35 AM
Of course everyone will die, but when someone dies because they can't pay for a medication or for a routine checkup that could catch something while still curable, that's a pretty ****ing stupid reason to die.

If a child gets Ewing's Sarcoma, I'm not sufficiently Darwinistic to say "too effing bad" because his/her parents can't afford the insurance/treatments. If some guy in his 40s with three kids and a wife has his business fail because the economy sucks, and he finds out he needs a bypass, he shouldn't have to **** off and die.
...and people died from polio becuase there wasn't a vaccine. and people died on the oregon trail simply because they got sick or caught a fever. and the doc in dodge city tried to save the leg, and lo and behold he got there a liitle too late the wound caught an infection and someones loses a leg and possibly their life. women miscarry children, there is no guarantee your child will be born healthy, even if the mother has no complications during pregnancy.

If I, in my forties, with a wife and three kids, whose business has failed because the economy sucks, and I find out I need a bypass..I don't **** off..I appreciate the brief time I've had, make amends, make peace with God, and die.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 12:37 AM
When the troops set foot on the doorstep of the first person who won't pay his insurance and send him off to the work camps, I'll be right behind you.



Troops?

You have a laughably narrow understanding of the word "force." I thought you were some sort of scholar?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 12:59 AM
"But, but, but... Insurance is GOOD so it can't be considered dictatorial to use force in order to get people to buy it from insurance companies!"

Actually, not dying of preventable illness due to lack of money is GOOD. Subsidizing the insurance of someone who can't afford it is a means to that end.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 01:02 AM
...and people died from polio becuase there wasn't a vaccine. and people died on the oregon trail simply because they got sick or caught a fever. and the doc in dodge city tried to save the leg, and lo and behold he got there a liitle too late the wound caught an infection and someones loses a leg and possibly their life. women miscarry children, there is no guarantee your child will be born healthy, even if the mother has no complications during pregnancy.

If I, in my forties, with a wife and three kids, whose business has failed because the economy sucks, and I find out I need a bypass..I don't **** off..I appreciate the brief time I've had, make amends, make peace with God, and die.

So, all things being equal, you think that it would be better if one of your children got a curable disease and died because the economy went tits up, you lost your business, and had no safety net?

Sometimes, things cannot be changed. Sometimes people will get pancreatic cancer and that's that. But if someone loses his job because a pencil pusher decided to downsize, he shouldn't have to die because he lost his health insurance and he needs a bypass.

But maybe I'm just a bleeding heart pussy for thinking that.

CoMoChief
03-24-2010, 01:02 AM
Man.....Taco and Hamas in an epic duel.

Guru
03-24-2010, 01:58 AM
Hell, after looking at what I pay per year plus what my employer fronts for me, it might just be the best option for me to drop it and pay the fine. Pick it up when I need it.

Christ I am blowing a bunch of money for nothing.

AustinChief
03-24-2010, 02:02 AM
When the troops set foot on the doorstep of the first person who won't pay his insurance and send him off to the work camps, I'll be right behind you.

...but what happens when I refuse to pay my insurance and I refuse to pay the $695+ fine for not having it.... the TROOPS(IRS) will show up at my door... the garnishing of wages and freezing of bank accounts (accepted IRS tactics) is morally the SAME DAMN THING as enforced work camps...

I won't argue the finer points of govt subsidized health care... that is a whole other issue for me... THIS BILL is not about that.. it is about forcing people to pay into a corrupt system and further subsidizing mismanaged corrupt insurance companies.

I understand your means to an end argument.. I just don't agree with it in concept or realization.

Conceptually it is FLAT OUT WRONG(morally) for the govt to go about it in this manner... REALISTICALLY it doesn't lead to a better option... it just continues more of the same but with the Fed becoming the jack booted enforcement wing of the insurance industry....

How is that RIGHT by any stretch of the imagination?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 02:29 AM
...but what happens when I refuse to pay my insurance and I refuse to pay the $695+ fine for not having it.... the TROOPS(IRS) will show up at my door... the garnishing of wages and freezing of bank accounts (accepted IRS tactics) is morally the SAME DAMN THING as enforced work camps...

I won't argue the finer points of govt subsidized health care... that is a whole other issue for me... THIS BILL is not about that.. it is about forcing people to pay into a corrupt system and further subsidizing mismanaged corrupt insurance companies.

I understand your means to an end argument.. I just don't agree with it in concept or realization.

Conceptually it is FLAT OUT WRONG(morally) for the govt to go about it in this manner... REALISTICALLY it doesn't lead to a better option... it just continues more of the same but with the Fed becoming the jack booted enforcement wing of the insurance industry....

How is that RIGHT by any stretch of the imagination?

If your scenario were correct, then it's not, but I don't believe that it is. One of the things that this bill is doing is causing insurance companies to take on less than desirable customers. That's a good first step.

Just like income tax, you are paying into a system that provides you with services. Not paying the fine is, to me, akin to not paying income tax.

This isn't a new idea. How do you think defense contractors operate? The entire defense industry is a publicly funded subsidy of high technology industry, and it's done through your tax money to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

You are also gaining a lot of rights.

32 million people are gaining a right to health insurance without fear of financial ruin.

We are also going to get more transparency into the insurance industry, we can't be kicked off, we get an appeals system for insurance claims, plus people can get insurance through exchanges, which will facilitate the lowering of prices.

It's not perfect by any means, but I do think that it is a means to a better end, and the Health Care system we have in 10 years with this bill will be far better than the system if we did nothing.

However, this will not, in and of itself, fix the problem. More changes will be needed down the road.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 02:49 AM
One of the things that this bill is doing is FORCING insurance companies to take on less than desirable customers.

Fixed your silly post.


A question: when a business reserves the 9th amendment right to refuse service to anyone, where in the constitution does the government have the authority to deny this right?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 03:18 AM
Fixed your silly post.


A question: when a business reserves the 9th amendment right to refuse service to anyone, where in the constitution does the government have the authority to deny this right?

The 14th.

FWIW, your entire idea is founded upon a misreading:

Laurence Tribe: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution".

And before you go off about he's a liberal, Scalia agrees with this reading.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 03:32 AM
The 14th.

FWIW, your entire idea is founded upon a misreading:

Laurence Tribe: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution".

And before you go off about he's a liberal, Scalia agrees with this reading.

LOL!

How silly to watch you butcher the 14th amendment to give the government the right to use force to coerce businesses to take on risk that they'd rather avoid and then lecture me about a supposed misreading of the 9th.

The 14th amendment requires state governments to treat people as equal under the law. It's an unecessary amendment, because all people are granted constitutional rights, regardless of the immorality that government allowed itself to operate in the past. But I digress. Where is the clause that forces private businesses to take on customers that they deem an unacceptable business risk?

Your reading of the constitution is anarchy. There are no lines. Government can do whatever it wants provided people want stuff, and other people have stuff that can be taken away.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-24-2010, 03:46 AM
1) You aren't addressing the fact that your reading of the 9th amendment is completely erroneous as judged both by pre-eminent Constitutional law scholars and sitting Supreme Court Justices

2) The 14th Amendment has been applied to a plethora of laws on the federal level, including the Commerce Clause.

stevieray
03-24-2010, 08:19 AM
So, all things being equal, you think that it would be better if one of your children got a curable disease and died because the economy went tits up, you lost your business, and had no safety net?

Sometimes, things cannot be changed. Sometimes people will get pancreatic cancer and that's that. But if someone loses his job because a pencil pusher decided to downsize, he shouldn't have to die because he lost his health insurance and he needs a bypass.

But maybe I'm just a bleeding heart pussy for thinking that.

itd be better...ya,, the grocery bill would ease up..:rolleyes:

and children shouldn't have to die because their mom is an irresponsible slut, or they weren't wanted, or will grow up in poverrty..but hey every day all day long. ironic, huh?

he dies because his health deteriorated, not because of the economy.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 08:30 AM
itd be better...ya,, the grocery bill would ease up..:rolleyes:

and children shouldn't have to die because their mom is an irresponsible slut, or they weren't wanted, or will grow up in poverrty..but hey every day all day long. ironic, huh?

he dies because his health deteriorated, not because of the economy.

So you honestly see no virtue in attempting to preserve life when possible, in a society that is suppose to value life? Ironic position for such a staunch pro-life advocate as you've seemingly been....

Guess life after birth is somehow less valuable than life before birth? :hmmm:

Fat Elvis
03-24-2010, 08:31 AM
yes, but all of those are provided BY THE GOVERNMENT... not some deuchebag profiteering corporation on federal welfare.

I have problems with govt health care or public option or whatever ... but I can at least SEE some logic to those ideas... but what we have now(with the new bill) is UNACCEPTABLE.

This wasn't always the case; each one of those entitites used to be, at some point in time, private for profit entities (and in some instances still are).

stevieray
03-24-2010, 08:35 AM
So you honestly see no virtue in attempting to preserve life when possible, in a society that is suppose to value life? Ironic position for such a staunch pro-life advocate as you've seemingly been....

Guess life after birth is somehow less valuable than life before birth? :hmmm:

....and you didn't respond to my original reply.

:hmmm:

..and I guess it's ok for you to receive health insurance from your work while you're here during business hours...i can see where the enttilement comes from.

abortion: preserving life when possible, in a society that values life.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 08:41 AM
health can not be had. michael jackson died within two miles of a hospital with a doctor in the house. on how many medications? people die on the battlefield waitng for medics. people die in amberlamps on the way to the hospital, while emt's are trying to save their lives. not because of money, but because of humanity. there is no guarantee that you won't have complications in surgery and not pull through. it's why doctors say we did everything we could and we say thank you. it's a service...


we don't even have the right to wake up tomorrow.

I understand and agree with your point. However, what's that have to do with the price of tea of China?

There is a huge gulf between....death due to mitigating factors, and death that can be prevented by modest and reasonable intervention.

:shrug:


....and you didn't respond to my original reply.

:hmmm:

..and I guess it's ok for you to receive health insurance from your work while you're here during business hours...i can see where the enttilement comes from.

abortion: preserving life when possible, in a society that values life.

FWIW, I put in far beyond my 8 hours....nearly everyday.

So, how DO you defend the notion you seemingly hold that....while life before birth is somehow more valuable than life after birth that can be preserved with nominal medical intervention, if it were simply made available?

BigRedChief
03-24-2010, 09:16 AM
So, how DO you defend the notion you seemingly hold that....while life before birth is somehow more valuable than life after birth that can be preserved with nominal medical intervention, if it were simply made available?I'd like to know the answer to this also. If every life has value and should be protected why would you not be in favor of paying for surgery to repai a lacerated liver in a guy that just had a car accident? Without the surgery he's a dead man. What id its an 8 year old girl without insurance? A 60 year old? Does age enter into the discussion? or only before we are born?

Taco John
03-24-2010, 09:38 AM
So, how DO you defend the notion you seemingly hold that....while life before birth is somehow more valuable than life after birth that can be preserved with nominal medical intervention, if it were simply made available?

False dichotomy

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:46 AM
False dichotomy


Not for anti-abortion zealots, it's not.

cdcox
03-24-2010, 09:53 AM
For those that argue that health care is not a right: all people in this country do have the right to emergency care. It may not be a constitutional right, but in a practical sense it is as real as any other right. That argument was decided a long time ago.

To those who argue that being forced to buy health insurance is morally wrong I offer that a moral wrong of equal magnitude already exists. Those that have insurance or the financial ability to pay their own bills involuntarily subsidize the health care of the poor. Where is your moral outrage over this injustice?

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2010, 10:45 AM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine. What person in their right mind would be okay with that?

Not one.

The only people ok with this are moonbats and (other?) people who don't pay taxes.

Dottefan
03-24-2010, 01:46 PM
DC LOUNGE IS NOW KNOWN AS DOTTEFAN LOUNGE....WE OWN IT..

AustinChief
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
This wasn't always the case; each one of those entitites used to be, at some point in time, private for profit entities (and in some instances still are).

The US Military was run as a for-profit entity? Same for Federal and State highway depts? Local boards of education?

um no. I understand that the govt has to hire out to for-profit industry to get services... but that is vastly different then the situation we are in now.

Spin it however you want... this bill is a complete travesty in its implentation.

It comes at the problem from the EXACT wrong angle and does nothing to address the underlying issues.

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 04:32 PM
And your children pay for your sins with their lives. You are one cold and callous MFer. :shake:

Now if that isn't classic liberal bullshit tactics. Make it about the children and who could possibly be against it. Listen here Fuqtard. I love my daughter and would do anything to protect her. I would get a second mortgage on my home and sell everything I have if she needed medical treatment to save her life. How dare you insinuate otherwise because I dont carry insurance, FUCK YOU!!!

CoMoChief
03-24-2010, 04:54 PM
Now if that isn't classic liberal bullshit tactics. Make it about the children and who could possibly be against it. Listen here Fuqtard. I love my daughter and would do anything to protect her. I would get a second mortgage on my home and sell everything I have if she needed medical treatment to save her life. How dare you insinuate otherwise because I dont carry insurance, **** YOU!!!

"But you shouldn't have to do that......you should have others pay for it."
-liberals-

Amazing how many people don't want to take responsibility for themselves and be self reliant. Always needing the govt to assist them with whatever life's hurdles are thrown at them.

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 05:28 PM
Oh crap, CoMo Agrees with me. Now I have to question my beliefs:shake:
:evil:

Fat Elvis
03-24-2010, 05:29 PM
The US Military was run as a for-profit entity? Same for Federal and State highway depts? Local boards of education?

um no. I understand that the govt has to hire out to for-profit industry to get services... but that is vastly different then the situation we are in now.

Spin it however you want... this bill is a complete travesty in its implentation.

It comes at the problem from the EXACT wrong angle and does nothing to address the underlying issues.

The American Revolution. Not only was it fought by a private army, but the US paid for a foreign army to help figt it.

Private roads? Check.

Public schooling in america didn't start until the 19th century.

I'm not saying th bill is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction.

(I'm all for universal health care by the way.)

AustinChief
03-24-2010, 08:23 PM
The American Revolution. Not only was it fought by a private army, but the US paid for a foreign army to help figt it.

Private roads? Check.

Public schooling in america didn't start until the 19th century.

I'm not saying th bill is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction.

(I'm all for universal health care by the way.)

The American Revolution doesn't really count... seeing how we were not quite a country yet....

public schools- so there was a law stating you had to send your child to private schools?

private roads- again.. law forcing me to pay DIRECTLY for a private road?

I get what you are saying... but I don't think you realize what a HUGE fuckup this bill is...

The Federal govt is skipping the normal steps of hiding corporate welfare and just forcing the people to prop up a crap industry... under penalty of IMPRISONMENT.

That is WRONG, no two ways around it.

Let's take it to an (silly)extreme case....

Jethro doesn't want health care so he refuse to pay it... Jethro gets fined $695 by the IRS which he also refuses to pay... Bill the IRS agent comes repeatedly to Jethro's house seeking payment.. finally Bill get Andy the sherrif to come arrest Jethro... Jethro refuses... guns are drawn and Bill and Andy get shot in the head for trying to enforce a corrupt law.

LAW=FORCE - so if you truly believe it is ok to kill/imprison people for the sake of making sure every American has PAID a PRIVATE insurer... sorry, I think you have some fucked up priorities. (the YOU is not directed to any particular poster, that is the general "you" as in "one")

AustinChief
03-24-2010, 08:31 PM
What if I chose to sign a waiver saying I refuse health insurance AND I refuse emergency service at a hospital. Do I still have to pay a PRIVATE COMPANY or face a fine?

btw.. if this were a payroll tax... I would see it COMPLETELY differently... I am not a big fan of social security and such... but it makes a HELL of alot more sense and has more moral justification to it than this boondoggle.
At least then, the govt is taking up a tax that they are then (suppossedly) using for the greater good and welfare of the nation... basically the same argument applies for education... I pay taxes to educate America's youth (even if I have no children) because WE ALL BENEFIT from an educated populous....

alnorth
03-24-2010, 08:33 PM
To those who argue that being forced to buy health insurance is morally wrong I offer that a moral wrong of equal magnitude already exists. Those that have insurance or the financial ability to pay their own bills involuntarily subsidize the health care of the poor. Where is your moral outrage over this injustice?

This bill just officially recognizes the cost that is currently unofficially passed on.

go bowe
03-24-2010, 08:33 PM
...and people died from polio becuase there wasn't a vaccine. and people died on the oregon trail simply because they got sick or caught a fever. and the doc in dodge city tried to save the leg, and lo and behold he got there a liitle too late the wound caught an infection and someones loses a leg and possibly their life. women miscarry children, there is no guarantee your child will be born healthy, even if the mother has no complications during pregnancy.

If I, in my forties, with a wife and three kids, whose business has failed because the economy sucks, and I find out I need a bypass..I don't **** off..I appreciate the brief time I've had, make amends, make peace with God, and die.good thing you don't need a bypass...

you're too young to leave us...

AustinChief
03-24-2010, 08:34 PM
...and I hope to god no one uses the auto insurance dodge...

Driving is a privilege, I CHOSE to drive... therefore it is somehwat reasonable to have to jumpo thru a few hoops... oh and also I am allowed to post a bond and not pay insurance anyway...

on the other hand... LIFE is a right. I shouldn't have to pay for INSURANCE to live it.

alnorth
03-24-2010, 08:37 PM
What if I chose to sign a waiver saying I refuse health insurance AND I refuse emergency service at a hospital. Do I still have to pay a PRIVATE COMPANY or face a fine?

Interesting thought. An exemption if you sign a DNR? Maybe you could lobby congress for that. I doubt it would pass though, so yeah, you pretty much have to buy insurance even if you want to die. If you are in that situation though, you could save time and not worry about buying insurance with the help of a sealed garage, a car, and a towel.

Fat Elvis
03-24-2010, 10:24 PM
...and I hope to god no one uses the auto insurance dodge...

Driving is a privilege, I CHOSE to drive... therefore it is somehwat reasonable to have to jumpo thru a few hoops... oh and also I am allowed to post a bond and not pay insurance anyway...

on the other hand... LIFE is a right. I shouldn't have to pay for INSURANCE to live it.

Not according to Stevie....

Fat Elvis
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
Now if that isn't classic liberal bullshit tactics. Make it about the children and who could possibly be against it. Listen here Fuqtard. I love my daughter and would do anything to protect her. I would get a second mortgage on my home and sell everything I have if she needed medical treatment to save her life. How dare you insinuate otherwise because I dont carry insurance, **** YOU!!!

Just out of curiosity: Do you plan on buying health insurance now that there is a tax CREDIT for purchasing it if you make less than 400% of the federal poverty level? (That is roughly $88,200 for your family of three.)

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Just out of curiosity: Do you plan on buying health insurance now that there is a tax CREDIT for purchasing it if you make less than 400% of the federal poverty level? (That is roughly $88,200 for your family of three.)

You already know what someone as irresponsible as this dude sounds like is gonna say about that....

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 10:59 PM
Just out of curiosity: Do you plan on buying health insurance now that there is a tax CREDIT for purchasing it if you make less than 400% of the federal poverty level? (That is roughly $88,200 for your family of three.)

I have thought about it. I am unsure ar this time to be perfectly honest. I choose not to have insurance because it costs too much. A tax credit would certainly address that, but, I still have my principles. I cant very well sream to get rid of the bill and then turn around and take advantage of the tax credit it provides. Tough call. I have to give it more thought.

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 11:02 PM
You already know what someone as irresponsible as this dude sounds like is gonna say about that....

Listen here FUQTARD. Just because I choose not to buy insurance does not make me irresponsible. I am a homeowner. I have a decent paying job. I make sure my bills are paid every month. My daughter is healthy, and well taken care of. Get your head out of Obamas ass and take a breathe you Socialist prick!!!

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 11:32 PM
Listen here FUQTARD. Just because I choose not to buy insurance does not make me irresponsible. I am a homeowner. I have a decent paying job. I make sure my bills are paid every month. My daughter is healthy, and well taken care of. Get your head out of Obamas ass and take a breathe you Socialist prick!!!

Refusing to get health insurance, by choice...puts you, at best, into the lowest levels of the "normal" gene pool. Perhaps you can explore this on a Jerry Springer episode with other ilk such as yourself.

stevieray
03-24-2010, 11:40 PM
Refusing to get health insurance, by choice...puts you, at best, into the lowest levels of the "normal" gene pool. Perhaps you can explore this on a Jerry Springer episode with other ilk such as yourself.
now who is putting value or no value on someones life?

you're batshit crazy. you might even be dottefan.

stevieray
03-24-2010, 11:45 PM
I understand and agree with your point. However, what's that have to do with the price of tea of China?

There is a huge gulf between....death due to mitigating factors, and death that can be prevented by modest and reasonable intervention.

:shrug:


So, how DO you defend the notion you seemingly hold that....while life before birth is somehow more valuable than life after birth that can be preserved with nominal medical intervention, if it were simply made available?
no there is a huge gap between purposely bashing someones skull in and dying because you got sick.

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 11:56 PM
Refusing to get health insurance, by choice...puts you, at best, into the lowest levels of the "normal" gene pool. Perhaps you can explore this on a Jerry Springer episode with other ilk such as yourself.

Do you brainwash your students with this crap? My decision to be self insured puts me as simply a free man making the decision he feels in his best interest. You and Hamas resort to attacking people you disagree with rather than make valid points. Sounds to me like you two fit the white trash Jerry Springer types more than I do. If you want to give up your freedoms to the federal government, be my guest. I like my freedoms, and I intend to fight to keep them.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 11:58 PM
no there is a huge gap between purposely bashing someones skull in and dying because you got sick.

Stevie, I love ya man....seriously. Not in a weird and creepy way though, to be clear. Such minimalization of God's precious gift of health and life is truly comfounding to me, though.

I understand we are all gonna go, when we are gonna go....but it don't sound like you are even willing to fight for it, which I just can't fathom. I'm not talking millions of dollars to squeak out 6 extra months for an 83 year old; I'm talking cost-effective and preventative measures to preserve years of life.

Reasonable people can disagree though, so we'll have to leave it at that I guess. Peace, man.

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 12:00 AM
now who is putting value or no value on someones life?

you're batshit crazy. you might even be dottefan.

Yeah, controversies like this bring out the nastiness of sarcasm and hyperbole that I usually reserve for folks like jAZ and TJ....it's a character flaw, I suppose. I'll keep trying though.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:02 AM
Not according to Stevie....
what a chickenshit you are, piggybacking on someone elses reply, when I reposnded directly to you earlier in the thread.

I said you don't have a right to health...bet you that when your child was born you and your wife said.."I'm just glad they were born HEALTHY."

Taco John
03-25-2010, 12:07 AM
Stevie, I love ya man....seriously. Not in a weird and creepy way though, to be clear. Such minimalization of God's precious gift of health and life is truly comfounding to me, though.


What a dope. Reject this form of fascism and you reject God's precious gift of health and life. Confounding!

Fat Elvis
03-25-2010, 12:09 AM
what a chickenshit you are, piggybacking on someone elses reply, when I reposnded directly to you earlier in the thread.

I said you don't have a right to health...bet you that when your child was born you and your wife said.."I'm just glad they were born HEALTHY."

LOL, I'm a chickenshit, Mr. Get'em Out of the Womb and Toss Them to the Curb? You either have no morals or no intelligence, perhaps neither.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:10 AM
LOL, I'm a chickenshit, Mr. Get'em Out of the Womb and Toss Them to the Curb? You either have no morals or no intelligence, perhaps neither.

keep avoiding the point, chickenshit.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:13 AM
What a dope. Reject this form of fascism and you reject God's precious gift of health and life. Confounding!
Ironic, considering how liberals scream about separation of church and state.


..and even more confounding, this is exactly what Beck said they would do.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 12:14 AM
Ironic, considering how liberals scream about separation of church and state.


..and even more confounding, this is exactly what Beck said they would do.

:spock:

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 12:15 AM
...

..and even more confounding, this is exactly what Beck said they would do.

:doh!:

Nighty-night, Stevie.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:18 AM
Stevie, I love ya man....seriously. Not in a weird and creepy way though, to be clear. Such minimalization of God's precious gift of health and life is truly comfounding to me, though.

I understand we are all gonna go, when we are gonna go....but it don't sound like you are even willing to fight for it, which I just can't fathom. I'm not talking millions of dollars to squeak out 6 extra months for an 83 year old; I'm talking cost-effective and preventative measures to preserve years of life.

Reasonable people can disagree though, so we'll have to leave it at that I guess. Peace, man.
see those big hospitals with all those lights on, employing all those people...and super expensive equipment, ran by doctors who are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a degree to ATTEMPT to help you..it costs money, and lots of it.

It's saddening that one of the major factors in cost is Health Insurance FRAUD, yet it doen't appear anywhere in any of these conversations.

Fat Elvis
03-25-2010, 12:18 AM
keep avoiding the point, chickenshit.

Even countries with horrendous human rights records disagree with you.

Every country in the world is now party to at least one human rights treaty that addresses health-related rights. This includes the right to health as well as other rights that relate to conditions necessary for health.

http://www.who.int/hhr/en/

Congratulations, you've managed to make governments that practice ethnic cleansing look like good guys.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:25 AM
Even countries with horrendous human rights records disagree with you.

Every country in the world is now party to at least one human rights treaty that addresses health-related rights. This includes the right to health as well as other rights that relate to conditions necessary for health.

http://www.who.int/hhr/en/

You've managed to make governments that practice ethnic cleansing look like good guys.

Rights don't come from man, or the WHO. They come from God.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 12:45 AM
see those big hospitals with all those lights on, employing all those people...and super expensive equipment, ran by doctors who are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a degree to ATTEMPT to help you..it costs money, and lots of it.

It's saddening that one of the major factors in cost is Health Insurance FRAUD, yet it doen't appear anywhere in any of these conversations.

Actually, it does. They are implementing new screening procedures to both eliminate fraud and waste.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 12:52 AM
eliminate fraud and waste.
..like that is EVER going to happen.

how long have amtrak and the post office been in the red? years?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 12:57 AM
..like that is EVER going to happen.

how long have amtrak and the post office been in the red? years?

That's a different argument, and also irrelevant.

Even if the Post Office is losing money, it doesn't mean that they are being fraudulent or wasteful. It simply means that they incur more expenses than they generate in revenue.

But back to the main point, it seems like you've made up your mind to be pissed off. You say that there's nothing in this bill to eliminate fraud and waste, which is saddening, and when faced with the fact that there is, you attempt to rationalize it by saying that they'll never eliminate fraud and waste anyway.

That falls under the category of "bitching just to bitch".

stevieray
03-25-2010, 01:01 AM
That's a different argument, and also irrelevant.

Even if the Post Office is losing money, it doesn't mean that they are being fraudulent or wasteful. It simply means that they incur more expenses than they generate in revenue.

But back to the main point, it seems like you've made up your mind to be pissed off. You say that there's nothing in this bill to eliminate fraud and waste, which is saddening, and when faced with the fact that there is, you attempt to rationalize it by saying that they'll never eliminate fraud and waste anyway.
I said conversations, implying this forum.

some people are dishonest. that isn't going to change.

..and expenses never involve waste and/or fraud? uh-huh.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 01:07 AM
I said conversations, implying this forum.

some people are dishonest. that isn't going to change.

..and expenses never involve waste and/or fraud? uh-huh.

I never said some expenses never involve waste or fraud, but just because a business is losing money does not mean that is either wasteful or fraudulent.

Furthermore, why would we have conversations about the lack of reforming waste and fraud in this bill whenever it is making specific provisions in order to curb those problems as well as add transparency to the insurance industry?

stevieray
03-25-2010, 01:16 AM
[QUOTE='Hamas' Jenkins;6631178]I never said some expenses never involve waste or fraud.

'to curb those problems'

I didn't claim you did...I stated it's a factor, not the mitigating factor.
curb?...a couple of minutes ago it was eliminate..

gotta go to bed.

later.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 01:29 AM
Good God.

Fat Elvis
03-25-2010, 08:29 AM
Rights don't come from man, or the WHO. They come from God.


Jesus hates healing people?

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/miracles/

or how about this?

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

Fat Elvis
03-25-2010, 08:35 AM
Rights don't come from man, or the WHO. They come from God.

Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? Let me put it in perspective for you:

Kim Jong Il:
Has a bad haircut
Wears women's sunglasses in public
Wears a jumpsuit
Has publically acknowledged that health is a human right



stevieray:
Has a bad haircut
Wears women's sunglasses in public
Wears a jumpsuit
Publically denies that health is a human right

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 08:42 AM
Jesus hates healing people?

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/miracles/

or how about this?

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same."


In fairness to stevie, I suppose in translation they could have left out the rest of what Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same...whence ye can payeth for that chit thynself--otherwise, without insurance or a fateth bank account, thine will bleed outeth, hard times or nay."

jjchieffan
03-25-2010, 04:17 PM
You already know what someone as irresponsible as this dude sounds like is gonna say about that....

Tell me genius. What am I gonna say about it. I would be interested to hear you convoluted idea of what I think.

stevieray
03-25-2010, 11:57 PM
Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? Let me put it in perspective for you:

Kim Jong Il:
Has a bad haircut
Wears women's sunglasses in public
Wears a jumpsuit
Has publically acknowledged that health is a human right



stevieray:
Has a bad haircut
Wears women's sunglasses in public
Wears a jumpsuit
Publically denies that health is a human right

sounds like queer eye for the straight guy.

let me give you some perspective...ever started or replied to a prayer request thread for someone in the hospital?

The Mad Crapper
07-20-2010, 08:13 AM
You will be forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

"Liar!" -orange & bunyon

You have until 2014 before its mandatory. Then its only a $90 fine if you don't have insurance.

HUH? no, the fine is $695 MINIMUM

ROFL