PDA

View Full Version : Elections Newt Gingrich Endorses Obamacare


Chocolate Hog
01-30-2012, 04:23 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/newt-gingrich-endorses-obamacare-individual-mandate-audio-2012-1

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QSXJLZx5mpY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 04:36 PM
So has Mitt!

That makes two unelectable morons.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 04:38 PM
LOL! This is HCf's man, too?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 04:43 PM
LOL! This is HCf's man, too?

Ya it's like totally conservative ya know?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 04:47 PM
Newt and Mitt loves themselves some lobbyists!

|Zach|
01-30-2012, 05:38 PM
Republicans are all kinds of confusing.

FD
01-30-2012, 05:56 PM
At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a center-right health care reform and not some kind of socialist monstrosity.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 06:03 PM
At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a center-right health care reform and not some kind of socialist monstrosity.

I would much rather have single payer, if you're going to do it then do it right. This is just an end run around by the insurance companies forcing you to buy it.

Chocolate Hog
01-30-2012, 06:28 PM
HCF has no problems sucking off the government teet as long as it's his guy.

Calcountry
01-30-2012, 06:41 PM
At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a center-right health care reform and not some kind of socialist monstrosity.At some point, the left wing socialists, are going to run out of taxpayers. Then, and ONLY then, are they gonna have to get over it.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 06:42 PM
At some point, the left wing socialists, are going to run out of taxpayers. Then, and ONLY then, are they gonna have to get over it.

Until that time enjoy spending money you don't have, party hardy dude!

FD
01-30-2012, 06:56 PM
At some point, the left wing socialists, are going to run out of taxpayers. Then, and ONLY then, are they gonna have to get over it.

I assume by "left wing socialists" you mean Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2012, 07:01 PM
At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a center-right health care reform and not some kind of socialist monstrosity.

ROFL

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 07:07 PM
ROFL

In a way he's right, the New Right is all about this sort of thing. Socialism for your friends and fascism for the peons.

ChiefsCountry
01-30-2012, 08:42 PM
National health care is stupid as hell, but if each state wants to do it and the voters approve it - more power to them.

ClevelandBronco
01-30-2012, 08:47 PM
So has Mitt!

That makes two unelectable morons.

Three. Except that Obamacare somehow doesn't make Obama himself unelectable.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 09:04 PM
Three. Except that Obamacare somehow doesn't make Obama himself unelectable.

Well ya but that is stating the obvious. Unfortunately if 3 unelectable morons are all we have one will be elected.

notorious
01-30-2012, 09:15 PM
National health care is stupid as hell, but if each state wants to do it and the voters approve it - more power to them.

Best post I have read in DC.


Give the power to the states. If you don't like a state's ideas, you can move to a state that suits your needs.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Best post I have read in DC.


Give the power to the states. If you don't like a state's ideas, you can move to a state that suits your needs.

Absolutely. That was a big part why I left Washington state and moved to Missouri. I hated the politics, policies, and taxes up there. So I left.

Taco John
01-30-2012, 09:31 PM
At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a center-right health care reform and not some kind of socialist monstrosity.

Here's what I read: "At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a socialist monstrosity, and not some kind of socialist monstrosity."

Of course, I have little concept of what "center-right" means. I understand how people use this phrase to assign a spectrum of meaning, but I can't connect any philisophical substance behind what the term "center-right" means.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-30-2012, 10:56 PM
Here's what I read: "At some point the GOP base is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a socialist monstrosity, and not some kind of socialist monstrosity."

Of course, I have little concept of what "center-right" means. I understand how people use this phrase to assign a spectrum of meaning, but I can't connect any philisophical substance behind what the term "center-right" means.

It's like being Kind of pregnant.

ClevelandBronco
01-30-2012, 10:57 PM
At some point everyone is just going to have to get over the fact that Obamacare is a gold mine for insurance corporations and not some kind of health care plan.

As long as we're bagging on you.

alnorth
01-30-2012, 11:46 PM
I would much rather have single payer, if you're going to do it then do it right. This is just an end run around by the insurance companies forcing you to buy it.

I dont get this insurance company hate. Left to themselves, they obviously didn't provide universal health care. This wasn't their idea, and they didn't invite this law. The insurance companies love cherry-picking healthy people and leaving the rest to rot. The individual mandate is absolutely required if you want them to accept everyone.

You can either get rid of the sad situation where people discover they are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (and maybe not their fault, maybe they are born with something, or maybe their insurance company goes out of business and they are stuck with no insurance until Medicare), or you can avoid the individual mandate. You can not have both.

A lot of republicans have been blowing this stupid happy-gas where they have been saying "oh don't worry, we'll still get rid of the pre-existing condition thing, we'll take all the good things and get rid of the individual mandate, it'll all work out, you'll see!

Bullcrap. If you want everyone to have the ability to buy coverage if they want to, then the individual mandate is required.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 12:04 AM
I dont get this insurance company hate. Left to themselves, they obviously didn't provide universal health care. This wasn't their idea, and they didn't invite this law. The insurance companies love cherry-picking healthy people and leaving the rest to rot. The individual mandate is absolutely required if you want them to accept everyone.

You can either get rid of the sad situation where people discover they are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (and maybe not their fault, maybe they are born with something, or maybe their insurance company goes out of business and they are stuck with no insurance until Medicare), or you can avoid the individual mandate. You can not have both.

A lot of republicans have been blowing this stupid happy-gas where they have been saying "oh don't worry, we'll still get rid of the pre-existing condition thing, we'll take all the good things and get rid of the individual mandate, it'll all work out, you'll see!

Bullcrap. If you want everyone to have the ability to buy coverage if they want to, then the individual mandate is required.

I disagree they didn't have anything to do with this, as it is nothing more than a bailout for the insurance companies. In a free market they should be allowed to go under or admit that we have a socialist system and the government takes care of it. I don't see how this is constitutional at all.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 12:14 AM
I disagree they didn't have anything to do with this, as it is nothing more than a bailout for the insurance companies. In a free market they should be allowed to go under or admit that we have a socialist system and the government takes care of it. I don't see how this is constitutional at all.

Bullcrap. If the insurance companies wanted this law they would not have advertised against it, trying to sway senators to kill Obamacare.

Ideally, they would rather be left alone and allowed to pick who to insure and who to turn away. However, if they are going to be required to accept all comers, then the individual mandate is required, but that is not their preference, they would prefer status quo.

And again, you can either get rid of this sad situation where people are uninsurable till Medicare, sometimes through no fault of their own, or you can avoid the individual mandate. You can not have both.

Republicans who claim they can keep the pre-existing ban without the individual mandate are either ignorant or they are lying.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 12:35 AM
Bullcrap. If the insurance companies wanted this law they would not have advertised against it, trying to sway senators to kill Obamacare.

Ideally, they would rather be left alone and allowed to pick who to insure and who to turn away. However, if they are going to be required to accept all comers, then the individual mandate is required, but that is not their preference, they would prefer status quo.

And again, you can either get rid of this sad situation where people are uninsurable till Medicare, sometimes through no fault of their own, or you can avoid the individual mandate. You can not have both.

Republicans who claim they can keep the pre-existing ban without the individual mandate are either ignorant or they are lying.

So you're saying the quality of care will go up? This will bring more money to the insurance companies because more people will have to be insured, mainly those that are healthy and do not need it. Can you explain how this is an improvement? Who exactly stands to gain from this situation? and who loses?

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:18 AM
So you're saying the quality of care will go up? This will bring more money to the insurance companies because more people will have to be insured, mainly those that are healthy and do not need it. Can you explain how this is an improvement? Who exactly stands to gain from this situation? and who loses?

The losses to insurance companies will outweigh the gains, unless you believe the insurance companies were drooling retards when they advertised against Obamacare.

As for who gains and who loses, the people who are uninsurable through no fault of their own gain at the expense of those who are healthy. Also those who are healthy but stupidly, retardedly think they don't need insurance then get in a car wreck, gain by being forced to buy the insurance they should have gotten in the first place. Insured people overall also gain by not having to shoulder the burden of these worthless, useless free-loaders who go bankrupt.

Maybe you are fine with paying for worthless useless freeloaders who decide to indirectly force you to pay for their care when they could have bought insurance but chose not to.

<font size=5>I am not.</font>

I don't want to pay for these worthless, useless free-loaders who could buy insurance but cynically decide they will instead force me to pay for their care because they don't have any assets and can skate in bankruptcy court. If you are ready to allow people to take no personal responsibility whatsoever, if you are ready to let useless, worthless free-loaders win, fine, but that doesn't seem very conservative of you.

Maybe you also don't give a rat's ass about people who are uninsurable through no fault of their own. Maybe your attitude to them is "tough luck, sucks to be you, glad I'm healthy, now stop whining and go away, if the medical bills are too much, go bankrupt a couple times, or just die, whatever, I don't care"

Its no coincidence that the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea. Most conservatives don't want to pay for worthless, useless freeloaders, right? That's exactly what you are asking me to do, by allowing mandatory care at the ER, but also allowing those worthless, useless freeloaders to skate on their bill in bankruptcy court. The real, true conservative option, assuming we don't want to let people bleed in a ditch, is to force these useless, worthless freeloaders to pay for their own damned hospital bill.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:21 AM
The losses to insurance companies will outweigh the gains, unless you believe the insurance companies were drooling retards when they advertised against Obamacare.

As for who gains and who loses, the people who are uninsurable through no fault of their own gain at the expense of those who are healthy. Also those who are healthy but stupidly, retardedly think they don't need insurance then get in a car wreck, gain by being forced to buy the insurance they should have gotten in the first place. Insured people overall also gain by not having to shoulder the burden of these worthless, useless free-loaders who go bankrupt.

Maybe you are fine with paying for worthless useless freeloaders who decide to indirectly force you to pay for their care when they could have bought insurance but chose not to. I am not. I don't want to pay for these worthless, useless free-loaders who could buy insurance but cynically decide they will instead force me to pay for their care because they don't have any assets and can skate in bankruptcy court. If you are ready to allow people to take no personal responsibility whatsoever, if you are ready to let useless, worthless free-loaders win, fine, but that doesn't seem very conservative of you.

Maybe you also don't give a rat's ass about people who are uninsurable through no fault of their own. Maybe your attitude to them is "tough luck, sucks to be you, glad I'm healthy, now stop whining and go away, if the medical bills are too much, go bankrupt a couple times, or just die, whatever, I don't care"

Its no coincidence that the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea. Most conservatives don't want to pay for worthless, useless freeloaders, right? That's exactly what you are asking me to do, by allowing mandatory care at the ER, but also allowing those worthless, useless freeloaders to skate on their bill in bankruptcy court. The real, true conservative option, assuming we don't want to let people bleed in a ditch, is to force these useless, worthless freeloaders to pay for their own damned hospital bill.

Actually if you're in an auto accident car insurance will cover that. Also as it is now if you don't have insurance it is written off by the doctor/hospital not the insurance company.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:31 AM
Actually if you're in an auto accident car insurance will cover that. Also as it is now if you don't have insurance it is written off by the doctor/hospital not the insurance company.

oops, the accident was your fault. Tough luck.

Or a freaking uninsured illegal alien hit you shortly before dashing off to Mexico. Try again.

Hospitals don't have a magical money machine, if a useless, worthless freeloader cant pay their bill, SOMEONE has to. Either other insureds through higher bills, or through my freaking taxes to support the county facility. ("useless worthless freeloaders" don't include the poor who may have to be subsidized, which we are doing anyway. Useless worthless freeloaders are people who could have afforded health insurance, but chose not to buy it)

I know this is hard to accept because you've been brainwashed into "individual mandate = bad" but again, its no coincidence that this was originally a conservative idea.

If you want mandatory ER treatment but oppose the individual mandate, then you are supporting useless worthless freeloaders, and you are asking ME to pay for them.

No thanks, I'd rather not. If we wont let them die, then they should buy their own damned insurance rather than relying on me to insure them.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:33 AM
oops, the accident was your fault. Tough luck.

Of a freaking uninsured illegal alien hit you shortly before dashing off to Mexico. Try again.

Hospitals don't have a magical money machine, if a useless, worthless freeloader cant pay their bill, SOMEONE has to. Either other insureds through higher bills, or through my freaking taxes to support the county facility. ("useless worthless freeloaders" don't include the poor who may have to be subsidized, which we are doing anyway. Useless worthless freeloaders are people who could have afforded health insurance, but chose not to buy it)

I know this is hard to accept because you've been brainwashed into "individual mandate = bad" but again, its no coincidence that this was originally a conservative idea.

If you want mandatory ER treatment but oppose the individual mandate, then you are supporting useless worthless freeloaders, and you are asking ME to pay for them.

No thanks, I'd rather not. If we wont let them die, then they should buy their own damned insurance rather than relying on me to insure them.

uninsured motorist is a beautiful thing man.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:38 AM
uninsured motorist is a beautiful thing man.

oops, you were injured by a freaking potted plant that fell off a 2nd floor ledge, either no one at fault or whoever is at fault has no assets, or whatever. Or someone (who is a criminal with no assets) pushed you off the upperdeck into the lower bowl at the chiefs game.

They aren't all car wrecks.

Again, you can either allow uninsured people to die, or you can force them to buy health insurance. If you opt for neither, you are asking me to pay for worthless, useless freeloaders.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:40 AM
Or hell, no need for exotic incidents, some criminal just up and stabs you. Maybe you are getting mugged and he was pissed that you only had $20 or he thought you got too much of a look at his face.

Either way, if you are a useless, worthless freeloader who could have bought insurance but chose not to, guess who is paying for your ER bill? ME!

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:41 AM
Or hell, no need for exotic incidents, some criminal just up and stabs you. Maybe you are getting mugged and he was pissed that you only had $20 or he thought you got too much of a look at his face.

Either way, if you are a useless, worthless freeloader who could have bought insurance but chose not to, guess who is paying for your ER bill? ME!

A true conservative would not carry insurance, but rather keep an account set up to take care of such instances. Just sayin'

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:42 AM
Or you have no insurance and simply have freaking cancer. Nothing happened, no one's fault, you were 24 years old and thought you were healthy, but you have cancer and are ready to declare bankruptcy if necessary. We aren't going to let you die, you'll get emergency treatment. Guess who pays for that? I DO!

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:43 AM
Or you have no insurance and simply have freaking cancer. Nothing happened, no one's fault, you were 24 years old and thought you were healthy, but you have cancer and are ready to declare bankruptcy if necessary. We aren't going to let you die, you'll get emergency treatment. Guess who pays for that? I DO!

So what is the endgame here? Are you going to guarantee this fixes the problems with our healthcare industry? Rates will surely go down due to this right?

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:43 AM
A true conservative would not carry insurance, but rather keep an account set up to take care of such instances. Just sayin'

Don't be a friggen moron, do you have ANY damned idea how much a hospital stay costs?

NO ONE but rich people can save for that. Health insurance is not an option, its a freaking requirement, unless you are poor, or you are a.... wait for it..... useless, worthless freeloader.

You seem to support useless worthless freeloaders. I do not.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:44 AM
Don't be a friggen moron, do you have ANY damned idea how much a hospital stay costs?

NO ONE but rich people can save for that. Health insurance is not an option, its a freaking requirement, unless you are poor, or you are a.... wait for it..... useless, worthless freeloader.

You seem to support useless worthless freeloaders. I do not.

I can guarantee you this will fix nothing, the rates will continue to climb and were left with another burden on the wallet.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:46 AM
So what is the endgame here? Are you going to guarantee this fixes the problems with our healthcare industry? Rates will surely go down due to this right?

I am going to require that people who currently want to be worthless, useless freeloaders.... wait for it... BUY THEIR OWN DAMNED INSURANCE! If you are poor, fine, but if you have money, I dont want to cover you!

Sound familiar? Its the conservative solution to the health care crisis. Requiring people to go out and buy their own damned insurance to cover their own damned problems and stop relying on the rest of us, unless they are poor.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:47 AM
I am going to require that people who currently want to be worthless, useless freeloaders.... wait for it... BUY THEIR OWN DAMNED INSURANCE! If you are poor, fine, but if you have money, I dont want to cover you!

Sound familiar? ITs the conservative solution to the health care crisis. Requireing people to go out and buy their own damned insurance to cover their own damned problems and stop relying on the rest of us, unless they are poor.

So you're admitting this will do nothing for your bottom line right? Your costs will continue to increase, then who will you blame?

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:48 AM
I can guarantee you this will fix nothing, the rates will continue to climb and were left with another burden on the wallet.

You are out of intelligent responses.

If insurance is fated to increase, so be it. (actually it is, due to inflation if nothing else, so this is a stupid argument)

I want the useless, worthless freeloaders to buy their own damned insurance.

There is no good intelligent argument in favor of the status quo over the individual mandate.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:50 AM
You are out of intelligent responses.

If insurance is fated to increase, so be it. (actually it is, due to inflation if nothing else, so this is a stupid argument)

I want the useless, worthless freeloaders to buy their own damned insurance.

There is no good intelligent argument in favor of the status quo over the individual mandate.

So you will feel better paying more knowing that there aren't any freeloaders and health care costs continue to rise even though the root of the problem was clearly addressed.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:51 AM
So you're admitting this will do nothing for your bottom line right? Your costs will continue to increase, then who will you blame?

Its not about controlling costs. You want to try tort reform? Cool. Want to try to encourage hospitals to stop requiring unnecessary treatment? Great. Wanna fire up the death panels? We can talk.

But you CAN NOT AVOID this obvious problem: REGARDLESS of insurance costs, the status quo REWARDS USELESS, WORTHLESS FREELOADERS.

Regardless of insurance costs, regardless of if they go up or not, you apparently are willing to allow useless, worthless freeloaders to economically win.

And you are morally wrong. Its not conservative.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:52 AM
So you will feel better paying more knowing that there aren't any freeloaders and health care costs continue to rise even though the root of the problem was clearly addressed.

I will pay a lower increase if I dont have to pay for useless, worthless freeloaders.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:53 AM
Its not about controlling costs. You want to try tort reform? Cool. Want to try to encourage hospitals to stop requiring unnecessary treatment? Great. Wanna fire up the death panels? We can talk.

But you CAN NOT AVOID this obvious problem: REGARDLESS of insurance costs, the status quo REWARDS USELESS, WORTHLESS FREELOADERS.

Regardless of insurance costs, regardless of if they go up or not, you apparently are willing to allow useless, worthless freeloaders to economically win.

And you are morally wrong. Its not conservative.

I'm saying this will not solve the problem, I'm all for solutions and not creating more problems. Surely we could have waited a little longer for a real solution. This should help out small businesses real well.....

I've also never heard this was about getting the useless freeloaders to pay, this was about helping those without insurance and helping out the healthcare industry or at least that was how it was presented.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:57 AM
I'm saying this will not solve the problem, I'm all for solutions and not creating more problems. Surely we could have waited a little longer for a real solution. This should help out small businesses real well.....

It might not solve the problem you are focused on, but it will solve a different problem, to some extent, of sharing the costs.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Want to build on the individual mandate? Fine, but throwing out the individual mandate is not an option unless you are willing to let uninsured people bleed out in the ditch. (hint: regardless of what you want, society wont allow that, so we may as well prevent worthless, useless freeloaders from skipping out on their bill)

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 01:59 AM
It might not solve the problem you are focused on, but it will solve a different problem, to some extent, of sharing the costs.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Want to build on the individual mandate? Fine, but throwing out the individual mandate is not an option unless you are willing to let uninsured people bleed out in the ditch. (hint: regardless of what you want, society wont allow that, so we may as well prevent worthless, useless freeloaders from skipping out on their bill)

If you want to talk about useless freeloaders we should start with the politicians. They seem to be the most useless of all.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 11:10 AM
That was a decent debate.

Think I'm done with that issue for a while. A couple times a year or so, I get liquored up enough to tear into this very puzzling, maddening opposition by the right to the individual mandate, an idea that was originally conservative (dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation of all people), naturally makes sense under right-wing ideology, and is now arbitrarily "a bad thing" for really no good reason except because Obama did it and the right must oppose Obama.

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 11:16 AM
That was a decent debate.

Think I'm done with that issue for a while. A couple times a year or so, I get liquored up enough to tear into this very puzzling, maddening opposition by the right to the individual mandate, an idea that was originally conservative (dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation of all people), naturally makes sense under right-wing ideology, and is now arbitrarily "a bad thing" for really no good reason except because Obama did it and the right must oppose Obama.I know you'll find this hard to believe but the Heritage Foundation doesn't think for me.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 11:25 AM
I know you'll find this hard to believe but the Heritage Foundation doesn't think for me.

Regarding the individual mandate, a lot of people on the right aren't thinking the issue through these days, period.

Obama proposed it, so it is bad. That is as far as the analysis goes. We'll just forget about the right's support for it in the 90's, the merits of the individual mandate, and how the status quo by default supports worthless useless freeloaders at your expense.

Its in Obamacare, so it is bad.

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 11:28 AM
Regarding the individual mandate, a lot of people on the right aren't thinking the issue through these days, period.

Obama proposed it, so it is bad. That is as far as the analysis goes. We'll just forget about the right's support for it in the 90's, the merits of the individual mandate, and how the status quo by default supports worthless useless freeloaders at your expense.

Its in Obamacare, so it is bad.Was I for it in the 90's?

stevieray
01-31-2012, 11:35 AM
That was a decent debate.

Think I'm done with that issue for a while. A couple times a year or so, I get liquored up enough to tear into this very puzzling, maddening opposition by the right to the individual mandate, an idea that was originally conservative (dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation of all people), naturally makes sense under right-wing ideology, and is now arbitrarily "a bad thing" for really no good reason except because Obama did it and the right must oppose Obama.

yes we know..bad things only have validity when the right is involved.

meanwhile, defend every move, because Obama is and always will be completely blameless...you poor, poor opressed defender.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 11:37 AM
Regarding this issue, there are 4 very different positions one can generally take. Whether they realize it or not, everyone is taking one of these four positions by default, and they are all mutually exclusive. (Maybe there's more than 4, but this is all I can think of)

1) You want health insurance companies to cease to exist. The government should cover all health care costs, perhaps with some controls on what coverage you should get, limitations on end of life care, and possibly some Canadian-style waiting lines. This is funded by high taxes. This is the left-wing answer. The public-option is related to this option, but that is basically just single-payer light.

2) You want insurance companies to stop denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is possible only if you impose the individual mandate, which is fine because everyone should have insurance anyway. Bankruptcy court becomes a much-less-viable option to shift costs from those who could have bought insurance but chose not to, onto me instead.

3) You like the status quo. Specifically, you are fine with people choosing not to buy insurance. The consequence of that is when many of these folks inevitably need emergency treatment that no one can save up for, the hospital has to write that off and pass the costs on to you, eventually resulting in higher insurance premiums, or higher taxes. People who are uninsured aren't really uninsured. YOU are covering their ass. Apparently many on the right, blinded by Obama-hatred, enjoy paying for both their health care and for other people's health care without asking them to kick in a nickle.

4) You believe people who are uninsured should not receive emergency treatment. We'll need to keep lists of people who have no insurance. That way, when the ambulance rolls up to the car wreck, a couple guys start working on him while the 3rd quickly looks him up. If he's on the list, they need to stop treating and let him die on the road. Even if you agree with this option, it will obviously not happen.

Any ideas to control health care costs are a separate issue that can be attached to any one of these 4 options. The question is not "what does this do for health care costs", that is a separate issue that can be debated and decided regardless of how we pay for coverage. The question here is, shouldn't healthy people with good income but no significant assets be asked to pay for their own damned health care? If not, why do you want me to indirectly pay for them?

alnorth
01-31-2012, 11:38 AM
yes we know..bad things only have validity when the right is involved.

meanwhile, defend every move, because Obama is and always will be completely blameless...you poor, poor opressed defender.

I didn't vote for the man. I voted for McCain because I thought Obama was going to be a far-left liberal.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 11:39 AM
Was I for it in the 90's?

apparently you are in favor of forcing me to indirectly pay for worthless useless freeloaders. I don't want to, but you believe I should be forced to.

That seems to be a very liberal position you have taken.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 11:41 AM
apparently you are in favor of forcing me to indirectly pay for worthless useless freeloaders. I don't want to, but you believe I should be forced to.

That seems to be a very liberal position you have taken.That's sorta ridiculous since those at the bottom will not be able to afford the "mandated" health care anyway so you will be paying for it just like you are now. And, to your earlier post, people are not bleeding out in ditches because there is no mandate

Taco John
01-31-2012, 11:41 AM
That was a decent debate.

Think I'm done with that issue for a while. A couple times a year or so, I get liquored up enough to tear into this very puzzling, maddening opposition by the right to the individual mandate, an idea that was originally conservative (dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation of all people), naturally makes sense under right-wing ideology, and is now arbitrarily "a bad thing" for really no good reason except because Obama did it and the right must oppose Obama.

I personally find nothing conservative about mandates, even if a few conservatives went astray of constitutional principle and endorsed them.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 11:46 AM
Regarding the individual mandate, a lot of people on the right aren't thinking the issue through these days, period.

Obama proposed it, so it is bad. That is as far as the analysis goes. We'll just forget about the right's support for it in the 90's, the merits of the individual mandate, and how the status quo by default supports worthless useless freeloaders at your expense.

Its in Obamacare, so it is bad.


My opposition to the individual mandate has nothing to do with Obama, and more to do with the fact that it's unconstitutional. The fact that the "right" ever supported the idea only shows how far "left" the "right" has slid over the years, and validates my opposition to the Republican establishment.

I understand that the opposition to mandates is a roadblock to "solving" a problem - but I don't believe that the problem is "solved" by instituting the mandate. I think it exacerbates the problem and makes it much, much worse.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 11:47 AM
Regarding this issue, there are 4 very different positions one can generally take. Whether they realize it or not, everyone is taking one of these four positions by default, and they are all mutually exclusive. (Maybe there's more than 4, but this is all I can think of)

1) You want health insurance companies to cease to exist. The government should cover all health care costs, perhaps with some controls on what coverage you should get, limitations on end of life care, and possibly some Canadian-style waiting lines. This is funded by high taxes. This is the left-wing answer. The public-option is related to this option, but that is basically just single-payer light.

2) You want insurance companies to stop denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is possible only if you impose the individual mandate, which is fine because everyone should have insurance anyway. Bankruptcy court becomes a much-less-viable option to shift costs from those who could have bought insurance but chose not to, onto me instead.

3) You like the status quo. Specifically, you are fine with people choosing not to buy insurance. The consequence of that is when many of these folks inevitably need emergency treatment that no one can save up for, the hospital has to write that off and pass the costs on to you, eventually resulting in higher insurance premiums, or higher taxes. People who are uninsured aren't really uninsured. YOU are covering their ass. Apparently many on the right, blinded by Obama-hatred, enjoy paying for both their health care and for other people's health care without asking them to kick in a nickle.

4) You believe people who are uninsured should not receive emergency treatment. We'll need to keep lists of people who have no insurance. That way, when the ambulance rolls up to the car wreck, a couple guys start working on him while the 3rd quickly looks him up. If he's on the list, they need to stop treating and let him die on the road. Even if you agree with this option, it will obviously not happen.

Any ideas to control health care costs are a separate issue that can be attached to any one of these 4 options. The question is not "what does this do for health care costs", that is a separate issue that can be debated and decided regardless of how we pay for coverage. The question here is, shouldn't healthy people with good income but no significant assets be asked to pay for their own damned health care? If not, why do you want me to indirectly pay for them?

I don't agree with any of these 4 positions. I want government out of medicine and let healthcare return to being a market driven industry where costs naturally fall as technology advances like every other tech-driven industry.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 12:10 PM
That's sorta ridiculous since those at the bottom will not be able to afford the "mandated" health care anyway so you will be paying for it just like you are now. And, to your earlier post, people are not bleeding out in ditches because there is no mandate

Its not ridiculous at all because I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about young people or small business owners who think they dont need insurance but could have afforded to buy it.

They aren't really uninsured, you and I are covering their ass.

I'd rather not cover them, and our society wont let them bleed out, so they should be asked to buy their own damned insurance.

FD
01-31-2012, 12:12 PM
This reminds me of a blog post by Jonathan Berstein, about how Romney can take a position that essentially supports the Affordable Care Act but opposes "Obamacare":

Obamacare vs the ACA

Republican voters strongly oppose Obamacare, but they don't care very much about the ACA. They strongly oppose the health care plan that Barack Obama and Nancy Peloci and Harry Reid crammed through Congress against the will of the American people, and they think it's an unconstitutional power grab that amounts to a government takeover that's going to bankrupt the nation by cutting Medicare and death panels and all. But they don't know or care anything about the exchanges, or the cost-cutting efforts, or most of the rest of itů.

[A]s an attack from other candidates without the support of other leading conservatives, I've never thought that it's a very strong charge, because Romney can always respond with just as much disdain as the other candidates that he strongly opposes Obamacare and would repeal it as soon as possible.

Because, after all, Mitt Romney does hate Obamacare. He just doesn't really hate the ACA, but Republicans don't much care about that.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 12:14 PM
I don't agree with any of these 4 positions. I want government out of medicine and let healthcare return to being a market driven industry where costs naturally fall as technology advances like every other tech-driven industry.

So, I'll chalk you up as basically #4. Not really surprising, since that is basically Ron Paul's view (parodied by SNL)

Hey, at least it is intellectually consistent. So-called "conservatives" who don't want the ER to bar people at the door for lack of ability to pay somehow need to explain to me why it is conservative to force me to pay for bankrupt freeloaders who could afford insurance but chose not to buy it.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 12:23 PM
Its not ridiculous at all because I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about young people or small business owners who think they dont need insurance but could have afforded to buy it.

They aren't really uninsured, you and I are covering their ass.

I'd rather not cover them, and our society wont let them bleed out, so they should be asked to buy their own damned insurance.The amount of $$$ doled out for their emergency care is not the driver of exploding health care costs to the taxpayer. It is the poor elderly and those that shouldn't receive medicare because they can afford their own care but don't have to because of medicare. Means testing should be the #1 priority IMO.

go bowe
01-31-2012, 12:49 PM
I know you'll find this hard to believe but the Heritage Foundation doesn't think for me.

nope, it's pat sajak who thinks for you...

alnorth
01-31-2012, 12:49 PM
The amount of $$$ doled out for their emergency care is not the driver of exploding health care costs to the taxpayer. It is the poor elderly and those that shouldn't receive medicare because they can afford their own care but don't have to because of medicare. Means testing should be the #1 priority IMO.

Cost of health care is irrelevant for this particular issue.

That is a separate issue that can be debated and tacked onto how we end up paying for it. Want to do tort reform, limit end of life care or figure out a way to keep hospitals from ordering up unnecessary tests? Fine. We can tack whatever cost-savings you come up with onto the solution of how we pay for it.

This is a common dodge when people are confronted with the fact that they are essentially asking us to cover worthless useless freeloaders who could buy insurance but choose not to. "but, but...well, what about the health care costs, this does nothing for health care costs!" Well yeah, this isn't about health care costs, it is about asking people who could afford health insurance to stop relying on bankruptcy court.

It is not conservative to force me to indirectly pay the health care costs for people who could afford insurance but chose not to.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 12:52 PM
Lets say we implement whatever cost-savings ideas you have, and it works wonderfully. We are now living in a paradise where health care costs are far lower than it is today, premiums come down, etc.

Great. Wonderful. I still don't want to pay for useless worthless freeloaders, even if the cost of covering their ass is now less. The reasons for an individual mandate does not conflict or have much to do with health care costs.

stevieray
01-31-2012, 12:54 PM
pay for worthless useless freeloaders.


very telling statement...which goes hand in hand with mandated healthcare. it can't help but be relegated to this viewpoint.

then, when the GOVERNMENT decides someone isn't "worth" the care, your scenario of letting "them' bleed out will become a reality.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:01 PM
very telling statement...which goes hand in hand with mandated healthcare. it can't help but be relegated to this viewpoint.

then, when the GOVERNMENT decides someone isn't "worth" the care, your scenario of letting "them' bleed out will become a reality.

I know you are uncomfortable with my blunt language on this issue, but that doesn't make the GOP right on the issue, nor does it make your interpretation of what kind of a person I am anything other than a dodge.

Poor people who cant afford coverage are paid for now. There's nothing we can do about it, under an individual mandate, we have to subsidize their insurance.

Worthless, useless freeloaders, in the context I'm using, are people who have the money to afford health insurance, but they think "nah, I'll risk it. I have no assets, and if I get sick, that sucker stevieray, that other sucker alnorth, and others like them who paid for their insurance will cover my ass. I get bad credit for a few years, which I don't care about, and boom, I'm clear!"

I want people, who have the money to buy insurance, to pay for their own damned health care. That is not a wild-eyed leftist statement.

If the individual mandate is offensive, your only other option to remain intellectually consistent as a conservative, is to take the Ron Paul approach of barring the ER, telling them "sorry, you decided not to buy insurance, now you die."

go bowe
01-31-2012, 01:01 PM
The amount of $$$ doled out for their emergency care is not the driver of exploding health care costs to the taxpayer. It is the poor elderly and those that shouldn't receive medicare because they can afford their own care but don't have to because of medicare. Means testing should be the #1 priority IMO.

means testing should be applied both to medicare and social security...

the retirement age for ss should be increased and the eligible age for medicare should be increased to match the ss retirement age...

and social security/medicare should be off budget...

oh, and remove the cap on payroll tax for wealthier folks...

that ought to do it without cutting benefits for those already on ss/medicaid...

all of these things make sense, but the polarized environment of washington won't permit such changes...

maybe if somebody would compromise on taxes somebody else would compromise and agree to these changes to ss/medicare...

but sadly, we will never know...

alnorth
01-31-2012, 01:22 PM
A pretty clear parallel can be drawn to those interesting firefighter controversy stories that make the news every now and then, where a few rural counties here and there have implemented the libertarian dream of basically a private fire department. Everyone has a fire protection tax to pay, and if you don't pay, the fire department watches your house burn down. They are there only to make sure other houses don't burn. Every time it happens, people get outraged and ask if we really should be allowing people to make the mistake of going without fire department protection, etc.

We don't have that.

What we have a system where everyone (except the poor) is asked to pay a fire protection tax. If you pay the tax, maybe you get some service where someone comes by every year to make sure your house is reasonably fire-resistant, but if your house is on fire, the fire department will come regardless of if you pay the tax. If you didn't pay the tax and had a fire, the city seizes all of your assets except your house, some clothes, one non-luxury car, etc. Those assets are usually not enough to pay for the call.

I point out "hey wait a sec, my neighbor doesn't really have any assets and he hasn't paid his fire tax for years. He thinks his house is reasonably fire-resistant as it is, but he's got basically free fire protection even though he's got plenty of money for the tax!"

One response is "well... so what, whether we make him pay or not, the poor still get free or heavily subsidized fire protection" OK, so what. I'm not talking about the poor, I'm talking about my cheapskate neighbor who wont pay his tax.

Another response is "well... fire protection has gotten so expensive lately, making your neighbor pay his tax wont do anything to reduce the cost of fire-fighting". OK, great, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you have an idea to reduce the cost of fire protection, we can do that too, I still want my neighbor to pay his damned tax.

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 02:08 PM
apparently you are in favor of forcing me to indirectly pay for worthless useless freeloaders. I don't want to, but you believe I should be forced to.

That seems to be a very liberal position you have taken.This stupid ass law the dems came up with will not force freeloaders to buy insurance. Instead, it will raise the cost of both your and my insurance.

The penalty side of the mandate is laughable. Freeloaders will pay the miniscule penalty when they don't need insurance. Then if they get sick, because this new law eliminates pre-existing condition restrictions the freeloader will be able to buy insurance. Then dump it again when he's well.

The costs for this nonsense will be paid by you and me and in the end I'd bet you'll pay more than if you were just paying for freeloaders in the emergency room.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 03:17 PM
So, I'll chalk you up as basically #4. Not really surprising, since that is basically Ron Paul's view (parodied by SNL)

Hey, at least it is intellectually consistent. So-called "conservatives" who don't want the ER to bar people at the door for lack of ability to pay somehow need to explain to me why it is conservative to force me to pay for bankrupt freeloaders who could afford insurance but chose not to buy it.

You can chalk me up how you wish, but it's not accurate to what I believe. Health care is a local issue, not a federal one. If a hospital is burdened by too many free-loaders in the area, then the local people need to solve that problem through their local governments. Getting the feds involved is the absolute worst approach - and you know it (at least you should). Using mandates is a TERRIBLE solution.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 03:22 PM
A pretty clear parallel can be drawn to those interesting firefighter controversy stories that make the news every now and then, where a few rural counties here and there have implemented the libertarian dream of basically a private fire department. Everyone has a fire protection tax to pay, and if you don't pay, the fire department watches your house burn down. They are there only to make sure other houses don't burn. Every time it happens, people get outraged and ask if we really should be allowing people to make the mistake of going without fire department protection, etc.

If a city wants to mandate that everyone pay for local fire protection, I have no problem with that. If the federal government wants to mandate that everyone pay for local fire protection, I have a problem with that - the federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate such a thing.

If you want health care to be included in the bill of rights, then amend the bill of rights to include health care. But to bypass the constitution and just grant the authority to the federal government to force mandates on people because you don't have any better ideas on how to solve this local issue is the wrong approach and one that will ALWAYS find popular resistance in the United States of America.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 03:28 PM
One other thing - bypassing the constitution and allowing the federal government powers that it isn't granted in the constitution will destroy the right, not the left. Your approach empowers the "left" to do what they want while tearing the "right" into shreds. People like me will hold our ground, while the establishment runs away with the left to expand the government. That's why the Republican party is in shambles right now and hopeless to beat the Jimmy Carter of our time.

KC Dan
01-31-2012, 03:39 PM
means testing should be applied both to medicare and social security...

the retirement age for ss should be increased and the eligible age for medicare should be increased to match the ss retirement age...

and social security/medicare should be off budget...

oh, and remove the cap on payroll tax for wealthier folks...

that ought to do it without cutting benefits for those already on ss/medicaid...

all of these things make sense, but the polarized environment of washington won't permit such changes...

maybe if somebody would compromise on taxes somebody else would compromise and agree to these changes to ss/medicare...

but sadly, we will never know...agreed

Calcountry
01-31-2012, 03:45 PM
Three. Except that Obamacare somehow doesn't make Obama himself unelectable.Look, the country just isn't fuc*ed up enough for my liking. 4 more years! Yeah, Obama reelect, gimme more free shit.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 05:39 PM
This stupid ass law the dems came up with will not force freeloaders to buy insurance. Instead, it will raise the cost of both your and my insurance.

The penalty side of the mandate is laughable. Freeloaders will pay the miniscule penalty when they don't need insurance. Then if they get sick, because this new law eliminates pre-existing condition restrictions the freeloader will be able to buy insurance. Then dump it again when he's well.

The costs for this nonsense will be paid by you and me and in the end I'd bet you'll pay more than if you were just paying for freeloaders in the emergency room.

I'm glad you agree with me that the penalty is not high enough. We can fix that next year. We'll quickly see if the penalty is not high enough to avoid moral hazard and adjust accordingly.

As for the cost of insurance, it always goes up due to inflation. Some of the coverage increases mandated by the law have been needed for a long time, a 1 or 2 million dollar lifetime cap is not insurance when cancer can easily blow through that.

Raise the penalty for freeloaders and these issues you bring up are pretty well solved. (aside from the open issue of cost of care. At which point, we talk tort reform, end of life care, unnecessary tests, etc)

alnorth
01-31-2012, 05:41 PM
You can chalk me up how you wish, but it's not accurate to what I believe. Health care is a local issue, not a federal one. If a hospital is burdened by too many free-loaders in the area, then the local people need to solve that problem through their local governments. Getting the feds involved is the absolute worst approach - and you know it (at least you should). Using mandates is a TERRIBLE solution.

Either the ER should be free to deny service for lack of ability to pay, or they should not. Its not complicated. If you believe the ER should be free to deny service, then #4. If not, #3.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 05:43 PM
Either the ER should be free to deny service for lack of ability to pay, or they should not. Its not complicated. If you believe the ER should be free to deny service, then #4. If not, #3.

What does the constitution say about this? Is there a right to federally protected healthcare services, or isn't there?

alnorth
01-31-2012, 05:44 PM
If a city wants to mandate that everyone pay for local fire protection, I have no problem with that. If the federal government wants to mandate that everyone pay for local fire protection, I have a problem with that - the federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate such a thing.

If you want health care to be included in the bill of rights, then amend the bill of rights to include health care. But to bypass the constitution and just grant the authority to the federal government to force mandates on people because you don't have any better ideas on how to solve this local issue is the wrong approach and one that will ALWAYS find popular resistance in the United States of America.

Realistically, it is an absolute given in our society that emergency rooms must give emergency treatment to all who need it regardless of ability to pay. Our society will enforce that requirement with the might of the federal government.

You might not like that, but its reality. So, GIVEN that everyone has access to the ER, and given that the ER cant be assured of being paid for their service (and so will pass on unpaid costs to me), I want the freeloaders with money to pay for their own damned insurance.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 05:46 PM
One other thing - bypassing the constitution and allowing the federal government powers that it isn't granted in the constitution will destroy the right, not the left. Your approach empowers the "left" to do what they want while tearing the "right" into shreds. People like me will hold our ground, while the establishment runs away with the left to expand the government. That's why the Republican party is in shambles right now and hopeless to beat the Jimmy Carter of our time.

You wanna support politicians who will remove the requirement that ER's must treat everyone who comes in needing emergency care, fine. Good luck with that. If it is proven that is a viable option in our country, then you may have a point.

If it is clear (and I think it is) that we will never, ever refuse emergency care to anyone who cant pay, then we have to accept that as a fact and move on to making sure no one with good income takes advantage of the system.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 05:48 PM
I want (and do) support politicians who understand the difference between federal issues and local issues. Emergency room services are not federal issues.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 05:54 PM
What does the constitution say about this? Is there a right to federally protected healthcare services, or isn't there?

Our congress has imposed a requirement, backed by our courts, that virtually all ER's must treat anyone needing emergency care regardless of ability to pay. (technically a hospital could opt out if they don't want to accept medicare/medicaid and don't want to accept any money from HHS. Virtually none can afford to do that.)

mlyonsd
01-31-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm glad you agree with me that the penalty is not high enough. We can fix that next year. We'll quickly see if the penalty is not high enough to avoid moral hazard and adjust accordingly. Then you better just start admitting a mandate will fail. The whole mandate issue was just a ruse by democrats to pass the bill.

As for the cost of insurance, it always goes up due to inflation. Some of the coverage increases mandated by the law have been needed for a long time, a 1 or 2 million dollar lifetime cap is not insurance when cancer can easily blow through that.

Raise the penalty for freeloaders and these issues you bring up are pretty well solved. (aside from the open issue of cost of care. At which point, we talk tort reform, end of life care, unnecessary tests, etc)Inflation aside, the cost of insurance will go up based soley on Obamacare. That's a fact. You can't get around it.

In any event the original post from you I quoted isn't accurate. I don't like Obamacare just because it's his legacy.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 07:34 PM
Our congress has imposed a requirement, backed by our courts, that virtually all ER's must treat anyone needing emergency care regardless of ability to pay. (technically a hospital could opt out if they don't want to accept medicare/medicaid and don't want to accept any money from HHS. Virtually none can afford to do that.)

That does not change the fact that the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate where medical services are concerned. Medical services are local issues, not federal issues. You can point to every detail in the world, but what you can't point to is a constitutional power that gives the federal government a role in healthcare.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 03:35 PM
That does not change the fact that the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate where medical services are concerned. Medical services are local issues, not federal issues. You can point to every detail in the world, but what you can't point to is a constitutional power that gives the federal government a role in healthcare.

The commerce clause; Article 1, Sec. 8, clause 3.

stevieray
02-01-2012, 07:43 PM
I know you are uncomfortable with my blunt language on this issue, but that doesn't make the GOP right on the issue, nor does it make your interpretation of what kind of a person I am anything other than a dodge.

Poor people who cant afford coverage are paid for now. There's nothing we can do about it, under an individual mandate, we have to subsidize their insurance.

Worthless, useless freeloaders, in the context I'm using, are people who have the money to afford health insurance, but they think "nah, I'll risk it. I have no assets, and if I get sick, that sucker stevieray, that other sucker alnorth, and others like them who paid for their insurance will cover my ass. I get bad credit for a few years, which I don't care about, and boom, I'm clear!"

I want people, who have the money to buy insurance, to pay for their own damned health care. That is not a wild-eyed leftist statement.

If the individual mandate is offensive, your only other option to remain intellectually consistent as a conservative, is to take the Ron Paul approach of barring the ER, telling them "sorry, you decided not to buy insurance, now you die."
you don't know if I'm uncomfortable, but thanks anyway. this isn't about party, or you assigning 1-4 to others, or remaining 'conservative'.

it's about humanity, and the value of life. pretty sure if a couple of suckers named steve and al drove up on an accident, or someone who had just been stabbed or shot, the first thing to do before deciding to call nine one one isn't ascertaining whether they have health care or deserve to bleed out.

c'mon, man.