Author Topic: ACA  (Read 30796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5378
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #140 on: November 11, 2013, 12:45:19 PM »
The sooner everyone realizes that and realizes that some authoritarian methodology isn't going to fix our already government-infested health care system, the better we'll be.

The sooner everyone realizes that it's not that simple of an issue, the better we'll be. The sooner everyone stops thinking that the US is some magical land that can't learn anything from how the rest of the world works, the better we'll be. The sooner everyone realizes that "government mandated" healthcare isn't going to destroy the country, the better we'll be.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #141 on: November 11, 2013, 01:09:16 PM »
The sooner everyone realizes that and realizes that some authoritarian methodology isn't going to fix our already government-infested health care system, the better we'll be.

The sooner everyone realizes that it's not that simple of an issue, the better we'll be. The sooner everyone stops thinking that the US is some magical land that can't learn anything from how the rest of the world works, the better we'll be. The sooner everyone realizes that "government mandated" healthcare isn't going to destroy the country, the better we'll be.


Look no further than MA, where we've had "government mandated" health insurance (conceived, proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney) since 2006. 


1. The economy in MA has not collapsed
2. Insurance premiums haven't really changed much at all
3. There has been no measurable impact on jobs here
4. We now have about a 97% insured rate in this state










Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #142 on: November 11, 2013, 01:50:11 PM »
Hey Prog Snob, how about you stop shoving your fucking beliefs down mine and everybody else's throats?
No call for that.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4505
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: ACA
« Reply #143 on: November 11, 2013, 04:51:19 PM »
So then everyone here is against the government telling us what to do? Because it seems to me if someone supports government mandates, then they are FOR the governments interference in health care. The government is the problem here. The sooner everyone realizes that and realizes that some authoritarian methodology isn't going to fix our already government-infested health care system, the better we'll be.

What about the people who listen to the government being aware of the fact that deception could be there? There are gray areas. Just because someone supports something dealing with the government doesn't mean they support EVERYTHING that deals with the government.

In my opinion, should people be forced to buy insurance? No.
In my opinion, should the government increase in size? No.
Do I think the current state of the government is authoritarian? No.
Is all government interference bad? No.

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #144 on: November 11, 2013, 04:53:36 PM »
Interesting article:  http://gawker.com/psychotherapist-is-unable-to-understand-what-medical-in-1462401830

Quote
Gottlieb describes this as "a serious burden on my family's well-being," and she is taken aback that when she complained about it on Facebook, only one person gave it a "like." Many people—the "smug insured," she calls them, a la Bridget Jones—expressed a complete lack of sympathy for her plight.

Maybe the reason that Gottlieb's Facebook friends are not sympathetic toward her is that she is thoroughly unsympathetic. Under her new, intrusively excessive policy, she writes, "now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I'd be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions."

Yes, that's right: the oppressive, thoughtless Obamacare rules require everyone to be covered even if they have such weirdo unlikely conditions as ... cancer? As if! 

 :|
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #145 on: November 11, 2013, 05:23:05 PM »
Oh..."legitimate media"?  You mean like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN?   :
As opposed to economiccollapseblog and watchdog.org?

I think you're misreading what's going on here. I mentioned that the reason I'm always at odds with Libertarians is because they take such a binary view of things, and you're doing just that. I suspect that everybody here would agree with a few very simple premises: Too much government is a very bad thing. Governmental oversight can be a good or bad thing depending on how it's handled. No government would be a very bad thing. Pretty straight forward.

Where the disconnect comes in is when people aren't able to acknowledge all of these things, and Libertarians often struggle with a few of them. Not only do you seem to have a real problem with the second premise, but you're ascribing your own inflexibility in the matter to everybody else when you suggest that people here who disagree with you do so because they love big government.

Are you trying to tell me Fox and MSNBC are less biased?  Because as far as I'm concerned, a media outlet being biased (which both Fox and MSNBC are) doesn't hold much legitimacy.  You can basically predict more often than not what they are going to say and what their stance on things will be. 

I fail to see my binary view on things.  I have an open mind towards every aspect of politics and some of my views are probably not even Libertarian.  You're taking one instance where we have conflicting viewpoints and making a broad assumption.  As for the last sentence, I am probably a bit harsh in that instance.  But the logic is very simple. Health care was fine in this country until the government got their greedy paws involved. It still blows my mind how people can't understand how the astronomical regulations the government inflicted on the medical industry is what caused the detrimental break down of the health care system.  It actually makes me laugh when people say there aren't enough regulations. 


Hey Prog Snob, how about you stop shoving your fucking beliefs down mine and everybody else's throats?

No one is making you look.



Look no further than MA, where we've had "government mandated" health insurance (conceived, proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney) since 2006. 

1. The economy in MA has not collapsed
2. Insurance premiums haven't really changed much at all
3. There has been no measurable impact on jobs here
4. We now have about a 97% insured rate in this state


Point 1.  That is irrelevant.  The country's system is already in a state of shambles, not to mention the deficit.  Romneycare would not work in California because of their financial issues, nor could I see it working well in NY.  MA were not in the financial straits our country is currently in nor a state like California.
Point 2.  I have sources that say otherwise.
Point 3.  I'll agree with you on this since I can't find information saying otherwise.
Point 4.  Source for that, because I can't find it. 

After reading the Romney website, I don't see Romneycare being that extreme as compared to ACA even though ACA was based on it.  ACA seems to have taken Romneycare off the beaten path and made it more authoritarian.

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #146 on: November 11, 2013, 05:40:09 PM »
Which prior government regulations do you think has led to the breakdown of the healthcare system?

Personally, I think a law (government) requiring insurance to accept someone regardless of pre-conditions is a very good and merciful one.

BTW -- I don't think healthcare has *ever* been "fine" in this country.  If you were fortunate to have a job...and one that offered good health insurance, you would be fine-ish (depending on any pre-conditions).  But get laid off (COBRA has always been prohibitive for me), or be out of work for an extended period of time and you would be in great healthcare trouble.    The most one can get per week for unemployment (if one is eligble) in my state is $524/wk.  Regardless of the rent or any other bills that will not disappear simply because your job did.

It would be good to live under a system where a person wouldn't have to worry about healthcare, regardless of their employment situation.  Just like they don't have to worry about fire/police protection, road repair...other things that taxes and other contributions support.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2013, 05:45:43 PM by sueño »
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18228
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #147 on: November 11, 2013, 06:29:20 PM »
I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #148 on: November 11, 2013, 06:42:24 PM »
I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.

Ah.  Well...the New Deal was well before my time...even though I'm older than Prog Snob  :yarr  Quite honestly, I question the "fine-ness" of healthcare before the 1930s.  Was it truly available and of equal quality for all?
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #149 on: November 11, 2013, 06:48:15 PM »
I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.

Bureaucrats?  Corporations?   Obnoxious malpractice suits?  The list goes on.  But STILL my point is not sinking in, which is that government is still PART and probably a significant part of the reason why it started the downward spiral.  So to introduce more government is foolish at best.  I wonder if anyone questioned why the pharmaceutical companies had very little to say against ACA.  Someone is getting greased big time and people can pose all of the possible positives about Obamacare, it still won't change the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8953
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: ACA
« Reply #150 on: November 11, 2013, 06:52:18 PM »
Dark castle, your response was way across the line and will not be tolerated here
Prog snob, your response, after hef already called him out was also across the line.
You can both count this as a warning
This is already a volatile discussion and doesn't need anything extra


Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3922
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #151 on: November 11, 2013, 07:13:11 PM »
But STILL my point is not sinking in,
No, we just disagree with it.

I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.

Ah.  Well...the New Deal was well before my time...even though I'm older than Prog Snob  :yarr  Quite honestly, I question the "fine-ness" of healthcare before the 1930s.  Was it truly available and of equal quality for all?
Healthcare was at its best when you could just buy a bottle of Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm), carefully fermented in the back of a rickety wagon with a lead spoon and an asbestos-lined cannister! Cures all your pesky ailments including the jitters, typoid, malaria, the flux, crabs, penicillin withdrawals, dwarfism, gigantism and cannabis cravings. Available for a limited time only... or until I'm run out of town!

Unfortunately, persnickety government regulations have led to Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) being removed from the market. Fortunately, I've found another use for my secret blend of whiskey, herbs and crude oil and Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) is being rebranded under a new name... Agent Orange (tm)!

Agent Orange (tm), good for clearing those pesky commies out of their dirty, freedom-hating hidey holes and is also great for polishing the treads on your tank! If you can only have one orange, make it an agent!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2013, 07:26:39 PM by The King in Crimson »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #152 on: November 11, 2013, 08:01:06 PM »
Health care was fine in this country until the government got their greedy paws involved.
When was this, exactly?

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #153 on: November 11, 2013, 08:16:57 PM »
But STILL my point is not sinking in,
No, we just disagree with it.

I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.

Ah.  Well...the New Deal was well before my time...even though I'm older than Prog Snob  :yarr  Quite honestly, I question the "fine-ness" of healthcare before the 1930s.  Was it truly available and of equal quality for all?
Healthcare was at its best when you could just buy a bottle of Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm), carefully fermented in the back of a rickety wagon with a lead spoon and an asbestos-lined cannister! Cures all your pesky ailments including the jitters, typoid, malaria, the flux, crabs, penicillin withdrawals, dwarfism, gigantism and cannabis cravings. Available for a limited time only... or until I'm run out of town!

Unfortunately, persnickety government regulations have led to Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) being removed from the market. Fortunately, I've found another use for my secret blend of whiskey, herbs and crude oil and Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) is being rebranded under a new name... Agent Orange (tm)!

Agent Orange (tm), good for clearing those pesky commies out of their dirty, freedom-hating hidey holes and is also great for polishing the treads on your tank! If you can only have one orange, make it an agent!


I'll have two bottles of that there liniment.  Especially if it works on my gol darned lumbago!  ;)
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3922
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #154 on: November 11, 2013, 08:24:05 PM »
But STILL my point is not sinking in,
No, we just disagree with it.

I suspect PS was referring to a time much, much earlier when he said that healthcare was fine. Some of the government intrusion he's referring to probably goes back to the New Deal. If I'm reading him right, then there's probably some truth to what he's saying. However, we're talking about apples and oranges, and I think there were a lot of reasons that healthcare in this country became such a disaster. Ignoring all of the factors to blame the government is simplistic at best.

Ah.  Well...the New Deal was well before my time...even though I'm older than Prog Snob  :yarr  Quite honestly, I question the "fine-ness" of healthcare before the 1930s.  Was it truly available and of equal quality for all?
Healthcare was at its best when you could just buy a bottle of Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm), carefully fermented in the back of a rickety wagon with a lead spoon and an asbestos-lined cannister! Cures all your pesky ailments including the jitters, typoid, malaria, the flux, crabs, penicillin withdrawals, dwarfism, gigantism and cannabis cravings. Available for a limited time only... or until I'm run out of town!

Unfortunately, persnickety government regulations have led to Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) being removed from the market. Fortunately, I've found another use for my secret blend of whiskey, herbs and crude oil and Dr. Hoopenscoth's Cure-All Ointment, Tonic and Horse Tranquilizer (tm) is being rebranded under a new name... Agent Orange (tm)!

Agent Orange (tm), good for clearing those pesky commies out of their dirty, freedom-hating hidey holes and is also great for polishing the treads on your tank! If you can only have one orange, make it an agent!


I'll have two bottles of that there liniment.  Especially if it works on my gol darned lumbago!  ;)
Lumbago... right next to lesions and leprosy in the small print!

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #155 on: November 11, 2013, 10:03:20 PM »
Gots ta be better than them dang blasted leeches I been usin'...
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #156 on: November 12, 2013, 07:24:41 AM »
"More government is not the solution"

yet throughout this history the expansion of government is precisely what solved or helped solved the ailments of society or halted disasters.   Anti-trust laws?  Labor equality laws?  Anti-discrimination laws?  Taking the nation to civil war over slavery? Policing forces aiding settlers in the wild west?  EPA? FDA?  CPB? FTC? FAA?  All of these were direct results of the markets failing the people. 

I agree with right-leaning worries that government entities can become obsolete or unnecessary; but to claim that government is the problem is highly simplistic and ignorant of history.  From DAY-1 the founders (particularly Jefferson) correctly saw that without a strong Federal Government the states would soon end up at each others throats.

Do you object the government forcing people to buy car insurance, so the person who caused the accident has sufficient coverage to pay for damages?

Further, and this one REALLY gets to me: is the Lib's blatant disregard for ideas and policies that work elsewhere.  Europe's socialized medicine is far more effective and far more cheaper, yet this is somehow irrelevant to the discussion?  Especially when we are descendants of Europe? 


Health care was fine in this country until the government got their greedy paws involved.

Case in point of stupendous disregard for data & reality.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #157 on: November 12, 2013, 10:30:00 AM »





Quote from: Prog Snob
Point 1.  That is irrelevant.  The country's system is already in a state of shambles, not to mention the deficit.  Romneycare would not work in California because of their financial issues, nor could I see it working well in NY.  MA were not in the financial straits our country is currently in nor a state like California.


Right well, I was being sarcastically hyperbolic, I think maybe you're too frustrated for that kind of thing right now, my bad.


Quote from: Prog Snob
Point 2.  I have sources that say otherwise.
See my answer to #4


Quote from: Prog Snob
Point 3.  I'll agree with you on this since I can't find information saying otherwise.
See my answer to #4


Quote from: Prog Snob
Point 4.  Source for that, because I can't find it. 


Ok, I was wrong.  Coverage is actually closer to 98% here.




Quote from: Prog Snob
After reading the Romney website, I don't see Romneycare being that extreme as compared to ACA even though ACA was based on it.  ACA seems to have taken Romneycare off the beaten path and made it more authoritarian.


How long did that take?
http://www.mittromney.com/


 :corn

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #158 on: November 12, 2013, 10:33:04 AM »

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #159 on: November 12, 2013, 11:29:56 AM »
 :rollin




That's not Mitt Romney's domain name.

Quote from: Whois Lookup



Domain Name: MITTROMNEYCENTRAL.COM
Creation Date: 2009-06-05 19:17:36Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2014-06-05 19:17:36Z
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Reseller: NAMECHEAP.COM
Registrant Name: NATE GUNDERSON
Registrant Organization: CASTLE ROCK
Registrant Street: 644 S 1325 W
Registrant City: OREM
Registrant State/Province: S
Registrant Postal Code: 84058
Registrant Country: US
Admin Name: GUNDERSON
Admin Organization: CASTLE ROCK
Admin Street: 644 S 1325 W
Admin City: OREM
Admin State/Province: S
Admin Postal Code: 84058
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.8014370440
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.5555555555
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: NATE@GOCASTLEROCK.COM
Tech Name: NATE GUNDERSON
Tech Organization: CASTLE ROCK
Tech Street: 644 S 1325 W
Tech City: OREM
Tech State/Province: S
Tech Postal Code: 84058
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.8014370440
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.5555555555
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: NATE@GOCASTLEROCK.COM
Name Server: DNS1.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
Name Server: DNS2.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
Name Server: DNS3.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
Name Server: DNS4.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM
Name Server: DNS5.REGISTRAR-SERVERS.COM

The SOA being "Namecheap.com" was the first giveaway :lol
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 11:34:57 AM by kirksnosehair »

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #160 on: November 12, 2013, 12:02:07 PM »
:rollin

The SOA being "Namecheap.com" was the first giveaway :lol

Yeah that's great. I can do a Whois look up too.  You're hysterical.  However, I am not sure what that has to do with anything other than the fact that you are wasting my time pointing out irrelevant details.  The website posts the details regarding Romneycare and it's blatantly obvious there are differences between it and ACA.  I'd like to see you refute that.


Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #161 on: November 12, 2013, 12:09:24 PM »
I'm more interested to hear how American healthcare was "fine" before/without government oversight.
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."


Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: ACA
« Reply #163 on: November 12, 2013, 12:51:27 PM »
Our healthcare was fine because we all got healed from cannabis, cocaine, and opium ;)

I just feel the govt thinks "If they want freedom,  they are responsible enough to be healthy by eating right, excersizing, and not messing up your body." That makes sense to me. The only assistance is if its a lifelong disease or medical problem that's out of your control.

Honestly, eating vegan has its benefits. My dad has diabetes and got tired of shooting up with insulin, making his life run around his condition. He found out you can control it just by eating natural foods, no meat, dairy products, and sweet drinks. Well, he is off insulin and just needs to take a couple supplements but he is glad to be off insulin. You can have meat, but not all the time.

Easy solution that those big companies don't want since they'd go out of business.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #164 on: November 12, 2013, 01:14:27 PM »
Our healthcare was fine because we all got healed from cannabis, cocaine, and opium ;)

I just feel the govt thinks "If they want freedom,  they are responsible enough to be healthy by eating right, excersizing, and not messing up your body." That makes sense to me. The only assistance is if its a lifelong disease or medical problem that's out of your control.

Honestly, eating vegan has its benefits. My dad has diabetes and got tired of shooting up with insulin, making his life run around his condition. He found out you can control it just by eating natural foods, no meat, dairy products, and sweet drinks. Well, he is off insulin and just needs to take a couple supplements but he is glad to be off insulin. You can have meat, but not all the time.

Easy solution that those big companies don't want since they'd go out of business.

Here's to opium and cannabis again!   :hat



Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #165 on: November 12, 2013, 01:25:04 PM »
One thing I do know -- my retired, aged parents would be in desperate straits if not for Medicare.  My mother has ongoing skin cancer issues -- not really appropriate for emergency room care.  But she'd never be able to afford treatment if not for Medicare.

Since none of us know when/if we'd get cancer, have a child affected by diabetes (where dietary changes don't help) or other chronic illness, develop kidney issues, even pregnancy/labor complications (the list goes on), it's difficult for me to understand how having on-going or preventative healthcare that's accessible to everyone (regardless of income or job status) is met with such outrage.  :(  And if someone is in a terrible accident that requires on-going care??

Is it better to let such unfortunates simply die rather than look to a solution where everyone can benefit?  If they haven't eaten right or exercised for whatever reasons and become ill -- that's just too bad for them?  Not everyone has family or friends to look after them.  Or set up "please contribute" websites like the JRundquist thread or other situations (one who was gravely injured during the Aurora shooting comes to mind).  Such a thing feels so humiliating, as well -- soliciting contributions to pay for one's medical needs.  :(
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 01:32:13 PM by sueño »
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline jasc15

  • Posts: 4828
  • Gender: Male
  • TTAL: Yeti welcome
Re: ACA
« Reply #166 on: November 12, 2013, 01:29:40 PM »
I tend to not get involved with the details of discussions like this as much as I make general observations.  One such thought that comes to mind:

If there were no public education system today, can you imagine the outrage if there were politicians proposing a model by which everyone pays a tax based on a percentage of their property value to fund the construction, maintenance, staffing and equipping of schools throughout the entire country?

I wonder what the popular attitude was as the time this was first proposed and implemented.  Something we consider necessary and beneficial today: an obvious function of our government to provide socialized education to everyone.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: ACA
« Reply #167 on: November 12, 2013, 01:30:20 PM »
Of course,  that's sympathy. They won't be denied, just given a paddlin...Maybe give like rewards or deductions to those that do eat healthy and excersize.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: ACA
« Reply #168 on: November 12, 2013, 01:49:02 PM »
:rollin

The SOA being "Namecheap.com" was the first giveaway :lol

Yeah that's great. I can do a Whois look up too.  You're hysterical.  However, I am not sure what that has to do with anything other than the fact that you are wasting my time pointing out irrelevant details. 




Quote from: Prog Snob
The website posts the details regarding Romneycare and it's blatantly obvious there are differences between it and ACA.  I'd like to see you refute that.
I've never once said there are no differences between the ACA and the MA law.  Please stop creating straw men to argue against. 

Again, the details are not irrelevant just because you find them inconvenient.

The fact is, there are enough similarities between the ACA and the law in MA to make comparing them a worthwhile effort.  To whit:

  • Both have an individual mandate.
  • Both impose a penalty for not buying insurance.
  • Both contain an employer mandate.
  • Both have penalties for employers who do not comply.
  • Both provide subsidies for the poor.
  • Both allow young adults to stay on parents plan to age 26.
  • Both forbid the retroactive discontinuance of benefits
  • Both require that preexisting conditions be covered
  • Both reduce preventative care costs.


Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5378
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #169 on: November 12, 2013, 04:01:42 PM »
While I do agree with one side of this argument, this is futile. Neither side is accepting any of the ideas or sources of the other. There's no point anymore.

Offline sueño

  • Posts: 1511
  • How Dare I Be So Beautiful?
Re: ACA
« Reply #170 on: November 12, 2013, 05:07:24 PM »
While I do agree with one side of this argument, this is futile. Neither side is accepting any of the ideas or sources of the other. There's no point anymore.

True.  I've just not heard or read any alternatives to ACA other than, "no, it's bad".

No consideration to those who are poor, or who work jobs with no insurance offered, or unemployed and chronically ill.  Or elderly.  No options other than - go to the emergency room...where people who are insured will pay your tab. 

Why people like that, I don't know...but there it is.  :(
"We spend most of our lives convinced we’re the protagonist of the story, but we rarely realize that we’re just supporting characters in everybody else’s story. Nobody thinks about you as much as you do."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #171 on: November 13, 2013, 11:36:40 AM »
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-government-interference-got-started.html


http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Resources/post/A_Brief_History_of_the_Result_of_Government_Intervention_in_Healthcare/


Just to get you started.

Some stuff worth considering in the 2nd one, the first one though is nothing but a bunch of theory and unrealistic proposals.

The 2nd one, though, makes a lot of ad hoc fallacies, as you are when using said information. Saying that costs have risen since the inception of Medicare is nice and all, but correlation does not equal causation, and there are countless other factors to be considered there. One is just technology in general. So much of what we get and expect today when we visit an ER wasn't around 50 years ago.

And neither deals with the problem of the uninsured causing price increases for the insured. It sorta goes into how insurance could be a problem in and of itself, but it only sorta hints at that, because of course a free-market ideology couldn't say health insurance is the problem, seeing as insurance underpins a lot of libertarian thoughts on governance.

"more" and "less" government is a reduction of the complexity of the problem into a one-dimensional analysis. Some areas of government need to go, some governmental health policies need to go. That statement does not come close to implying that less government is the solution. Or that "more" government wouldn't work better.


Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #172 on: November 13, 2013, 12:50:20 PM »
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-government-interference-got-started.html


http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Resources/post/A_Brief_History_of_the_Result_of_Government_Intervention_in_Healthcare/


Just to get you started.

Some stuff worth considering in the 2nd one, the first one though is nothing but a bunch of theory and unrealistic proposals.

The 2nd one, though, makes a lot of ad hoc fallacies, as you are when using said information. Saying that costs have risen since the inception of Medicare is nice and all, but correlation does not equal causation, and there are countless other factors to be considered there. One is just technology in general. So much of what we get and expect today when we visit an ER wasn't around 50 years ago.

And neither deals with the problem of the uninsured causing price increases for the insured. It sorta goes into how insurance could be a problem in and of itself, but it only sorta hints at that, because of course a free-market ideology couldn't say health insurance is the problem, seeing as insurance underpins a lot of libertarian thoughts on governance.

"more" and "less" government is a reduction of the complexity of the problem into a one-dimensional analysis. Some areas of government need to go, some governmental health policies need to go. That statement does not come close to implying that less government is the solution. Or that "more" government wouldn't work better.

Ugh... I could throw every piece of evidence at you but it wouldn't matter. Your mind is already made up and you have no interest in actually learning some facts and I can understand that.  I'm stubborn too sometimes.  However, I can play your game take every little bit of psychobabble you just sent in my direction and reverse it on you and claim every bit of evidence you sent MY way proves nothing either. 

And as far as the first one goes, yes they are proposals.  However if you actually took the time to research the proposals you might actually be enlightened.  That's asking too much though, I get it.  Keep believing more government is good.  It's your downfall, not mine.   :smiley:

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8953
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: ACA
« Reply #173 on: November 13, 2013, 12:55:21 PM »
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-government-interference-got-started.html


http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Resources/post/A_Brief_History_of_the_Result_of_Government_Intervention_in_Healthcare/


Just to get you started.

Some stuff worth considering in the 2nd one, the first one though is nothing but a bunch of theory and unrealistic proposals.

The 2nd one, though, makes a lot of ad hoc fallacies, as you are when using said information. Saying that costs have risen since the inception of Medicare is nice and all, but correlation does not equal causation, and there are countless other factors to be considered there. One is just technology in general. So much of what we get and expect today when we visit an ER wasn't around 50 years ago.

And neither deals with the problem of the uninsured causing price increases for the insured. It sorta goes into how insurance could be a problem in and of itself, but it only sorta hints at that, because of course a free-market ideology couldn't say health insurance is the problem, seeing as insurance underpins a lot of libertarian thoughts on governance.

"more" and "less" government is a reduction of the complexity of the problem into a one-dimensional analysis. Some areas of government need to go, some governmental health policies need to go. That statement does not come close to implying that less government is the solution. Or that "more" government wouldn't work better.

Ugh... I could throw every piece of evidence at you but it wouldn't matter. Your mind is already made up and you have no interest in actually learning some facts and I can understand that.  I'm stubborn too sometimes.  However, I can play your game take every little bit of psychobabble you just sent in my direction and reverse it on you and claim every bit of evidence you sent MY way proves nothing either. 

And as far as the first one goes, yes they are proposals.  However if you actually took the time to research the proposals you might actually be enlightened.  That's asking too much though, I get it.  Keep believing more government is good.  It's your downfall, not mine.   :smiley:

Prog Snob, I did not read anything in Sheavo's post that opened him for accusations of being closed-minded, stubborn, playing games, psychobabble, failure to research, unenlightened, heading for a fall.

that type of response does not lend to the discussion and only heats it up.
keep posts on the subject rather than on the individual

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16514
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #174 on: November 13, 2013, 01:12:41 PM »
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-government-interference-got-started.html


http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Resources/post/A_Brief_History_of_the_Result_of_Government_Intervention_in_Healthcare/


Just to get you started.

Some stuff worth considering in the 2nd one, the first one though is nothing but a bunch of theory and unrealistic proposals.

The 2nd one, though, makes a lot of ad hoc fallacies, as you are when using said information. Saying that costs have risen since the inception of Medicare is nice and all, but correlation does not equal causation, and there are countless other factors to be considered there. One is just technology in general. So much of what we get and expect today when we visit an ER wasn't around 50 years ago.

And neither deals with the problem of the uninsured causing price increases for the insured. It sorta goes into how insurance could be a problem in and of itself, but it only sorta hints at that, because of course a free-market ideology couldn't say health insurance is the problem, seeing as insurance underpins a lot of libertarian thoughts on governance.

"more" and "less" government is a reduction of the complexity of the problem into a one-dimensional analysis. Some areas of government need to go, some governmental health policies need to go. That statement does not come close to implying that less government is the solution. Or that "more" government wouldn't work better.

Ugh... I could throw every piece of evidence at you but it wouldn't matter. Your mind is already made up and you have no interest in actually learning some facts and I can understand that.  I'm stubborn too sometimes.  However, I can play your game take every little bit of psychobabble you just sent in my direction and reverse it on you and claim every bit of evidence you sent MY way proves nothing either. 

And as far as the first one goes, yes they are proposals.  However if you actually took the time to research the proposals you might actually be enlightened.  That's asking too much though, I get it.  Keep believing more government is good.  It's your downfall, not mine.   :smiley:

Prog Snob, I did not read anything in Sheavo's post that opened him for accusations of being closed-minded, stubborn, playing games, psychobabble, failure to research, unenlightened, heading for a fall.

that type of response does not lend to the discussion and only heats it up.
keep posts on the subject rather than on the individual

Considering I've thrown a few pieces of evidence at him regarding the negative aspects of government involvement in health care starting about a hundred years ago and could probably find plenty more, yet he explains it away as if it's utter nonsense, I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I've kept far more of an open mind here by looking for research, making sure I wasn't just spewing nonsense with nothing to back it up, and even playfully admitted that I hope ACA works because if it fails the burden will be on the taxpayer as always. Yet I should sit here and pretend like the curiosity swings both ways?  Like I said, his mind was made up before he even entered the discussion.  I actually LEARNED that the health care issues with government went further back than I originally suspected just to show that I don't know every last detail.  If he doesn't choose to believe it, he can research the information himself instead of just wishing it away because it doesn't meet his standards. It's not my job to help him understand where his misconceptions are.