Author Topic: ACA  (Read 29462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2013, 09:12:29 AM »
But how many of these millions are parasitic freeloaders? My aunt and uncle are two of them and I have zero sympathy.

well I'm adamantly against people like those you mentioned.  But I won't make any kind of assumptions about how many there are.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #71 on: November 09, 2013, 10:08:01 AM »
The bottom line is that this guy flat out lied and now there are millions of people who have to absorb the effects of it.  Where there is one lie, many will follow.  Don't fool yourself into believing that there was just ONE lie about ACA.  No one can predict what will happen over the coming months regarding this bill, but the signs so far are not good. In the end it comes down to what people believe is good for this country, regardless of facts and deceptions.  More government interference is NOT what we need.

Exactly, so stop trying to pretend that you can. All the negativity and pure pessimism can only make it more likely to fail, not less. And here's a thought: offer up an alternative. Most of us "supporters" of the ACA do it because we see it as an improvement over the old system, not becuase we actually think the merits of how it works are the best way to go about it.

And "do nothing" is not an alternative. We know our health care system works worse than like every other modernized country, we know we have some horrible health statistics, we know we pay more than any other country for the system we do have. Repealing the ACA does nothing to help the situation, and not offering up an alternative is simple criticism at it's worse.

I'd say more government involvement is exactly what we need in a case like this. It is precisely the kind of role the government is made to take on. Does it not matter at all to you that: a) not only have other countries done this, and to great success but b) this country already does it, and to great success?


Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #72 on: November 09, 2013, 10:18:08 AM »
More government interference is NOT what we need.
In the case of health care, I disagree. Private 'free market' insurance and health care hasn't done a very good job at all in this country.

The absolute worst thing the ACA could do is fail so miserably that it kills the chance at real healthcare reform and a hopeful single payer system somewhere down the line. Will that happen? I don't know. I hope it doesn't but the abysmal rollout of healthcare.gov doesn't exactly paint a very bright future for it.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #73 on: November 09, 2013, 10:27:15 AM »
I'm not pretending like I can. The problem here is that everyone thinks this is the greatest thing and anything in the way of a slight criticism seems to set people off. I'm the one keeping the open mind here. And stop comparing one country to the next. Just because it worked elsewhere doesn't mean it will work here. No one is suggesting to do nothing either.  No one is saying the system we have is great but to go from one extreme to the next is ludicrous. There are complications already and you want me to remain positive.  Stop trying to avoid the fact that this president flat out lied and know that there are probably other lies too that will unfold. You tell me me why I should trust this system and remain hopeful.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 24854
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #74 on: November 09, 2013, 10:32:39 AM »
Most partisan people tend to overlook it or shrug it off when "their guy" lies.  It's just the way it is.  I tend to take the more realistic "all politicians lie" approach. :lol

And despite what some think, I want the ACA to be a success!  This country needs things to start going in the right direction again, and the ACA being a success would be a good start, but it is more than understandable to be skeptical given what a disaster the start of it has been.  Granted, even the best laid plans often have hiccups, but skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when there hasn't been much good so far.  But it's early, so time will tell... :)

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2013, 11:01:08 AM »
I'm not pretending like I can. The problem here is that everyone thinks this is the greatest thing and anything in the way of a slight criticism seems to set people off.
No one is saying that here. But if not immediately hating it and thinking it will destroy America is thinking 'that it's the greatest thing ever' then, well, you're right.

Quote
I'm the one keeping the open mind here.
It really doesn't seem like it. While the rollout of the exchanges has largely been disastrously awful, it's only been open for a month and with how poorly healthcare.gov has been handled

Quote
And stop comparing one country to the next. Just because it worked elsewhere doesn't mean it will work here.
But healthcare reform, regulations and full out single payer systems have worked in many other countries. The only reason it won't work is if people don't want it to work.

Quote
No one is suggesting to do nothing either.
What's your suggestion then?

Quote
No one is saying the system we have is great but to go from one extreme to the next is ludicrous.
The ACA is hardly an extreme change. For better or worse, it's largely a Republican free market lovefest.

Quote
There are complications already and you want me to remain positive.
No, we want you to keep an open mind.

Quote
Stop trying to avoid the fact that this president flat out lied and know that there are probably other lies too that will unfold.
And the people spending the last 4 years lying about how bad the ACA was going to be are any better?

Quote
You tell me me why I should trust this system and remain hopeful.
Because snidely deriding everything as bad and wanting to burn down the whole barn is so helpful?

Saying the ACA sucks and offering up a legitimate alternative is one thing.  Saying it sucks sucks sucks and doing nothing helps no one.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2013, 11:08:06 AM »
Most partisan people tend to overlook it or shrug it off when "their guy" lies.  It's just the way it is.  I tend to take the more realistic "all politicians lie" approach. :lol
Because that is so helpful.

Quote
And despite what some think, I want the ACA to be a success!  This country needs things to start going in the right direction again, and the ACA being a success would be a good start, but it is more than understandable to be skeptical given what a disaster the start of it has been.  Granted, even the best laid plans often have hiccups, but skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when there hasn't been much good so far.  But it's early, so time will tell... :)
Okay, this is really what we need, actual nuance and dialogue.

And while the ACA is not exactly what I want, I'd rather have it succeed and hope for something better in the future than saying 'It sucks, it will always suck,' spend all my time working to make it suck and then act surprised when it sucks just because it's not exactly what I want.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2013, 11:38:29 AM »
I never said it sucks and will always suck. I said I am still failing to see an overwhelming amount of positives about this. When it becomes a great success and doesn't raise my taxes and co-pays then I will admit it worked. And no one here has still told me why it's right to force them to use this and fine them when they refuse.


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18081
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2013, 11:46:39 AM »
I never said it sucks and will always suck. I said I am still failing to see an overwhelming amount of positives about this. When it becomes a great success and doesn't raise my taxes and co-pays then I will admit it worked. And no one here has still told me why it's right to force them to use this and fine them when they refuse.
If your premiums and copays haven't been increasing already then you're one of the lucky minority. I can tell you that in my case, the company's group rates doubled every other year until my boss had to discontinue insuring us. That left me on the state's high risk pool paying $600/month for a policy so crappy that actually using it would cripple me financially.  The private market has been an abysmal failure by pretty much any standard. We pay more for healthcare than anybody, and we're getting a pretty mediocre return on our investment. Plus, we're already paying for those who can't afford or won't bother paying for their own.  Most people here don't much care for the ACA. It's just that they recognize that the status quo has been a genuine disaster for the majority of Americans.
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 The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2013, 12:01:58 PM »
I never said it sucks and will always suck. I said I am still failing to see an overwhelming amount of positives about this. When it becomes a great success and doesn't raise my taxes and co-pays then I will admit it worked. And no one here has still told me why it's right to force them to use this and fine them when they refuse.
Because otherwise, it doesn't work. The funding of the ACA is predicated upon getting as many people to sign up as possible. This allows for all the regulations to be put into place without bankrupting the insurance companies, mainly the fact that the companies can't be prejudiced against consumers with preexisting conditions. You can say that they're trying to offload the costs onto young, healthy consumers and that's true, to an extent, it's really the only way the law can work and stay funded.

The other options are (IMO):
A) Do nothing. Healthcare is fine as is (it's not), premiums continue to go up, people continue to get rejected, claims gets turned down and the bills for uninsured Americans gets passed onto the rest of us in said higher premiums.
B) A single payer system. I'm in favor of this one with some requisite price controls on Health Care. A lot of the problems with healthcare costs comes from how insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and providers constantly are trying to maneuver and get the most money they can out of each other and the consumer ends up stuck in middle, screwed by it all. The whole system is pretty screwed.
C) Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. I don't see this doing anything for pricing at all, as it doesn't account for the real problems with healthcare in this country. At best, maybe more people get really cheap, really shitty plans that don't cover anything.
D) Tort reform. This could impact health costs but I have yet to be convinced that it would do so in a meaningful way without being a giant handout to our corporate plutocrat overlords.
E) Something else

As for whether it's 'right,' I honestly don't care as long as it results in fixing a broken system.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2013, 12:10:20 PM »
Mine already have gone up. I pressed send too soon. I don't agree with footing the bill for people who won't pay for their own. I fervently disagree with forcing someone to purchase something.  No one is going to change my mind on that.  I'm a limited government type of guy. I don't trust the government and their shady past has done a terrible job of convincing me otherwise.  It always surprises me how people are shocked that I am skeptical about this.

In the end I could be wrong and this will be a great success. As of now though, I'm not convinced yet.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2013, 12:23:52 PM »
Mine already have gone up. I pressed send too soon.
I think the number of people who see an increase in their insurance costs will be higher than what the pro-ACA folks said and much lower than what the anti-ACA folks estimated.

Quote
I don't agree with footing the bill for people who won't pay for their own.
So what do we do with them? Let them die?

Quote
I fervently disagree with forcing someone to purchase something.
You don't have to. You can pay the fine.

Quote
I don't trust the government and their shady past has done a terrible job of convincing me otherwise. 
Add 'and corporations' after the word government and I'd largely agree. Both have done and continue to do terrible things in the world so I'm not really inclined to trust one over the other 100% of the time.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18081
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2013, 01:09:11 PM »
I never said it sucks and will always suck. I said I am still failing to see an overwhelming amount of positives about this. When it becomes a great success and doesn't raise my taxes and co-pays then I will admit it worked. And no one here has still told me why it's right to force them to use this and fine them when they refuse.
Because otherwise, it doesn't work. The funding of the ACA is predicated upon getting as many people to sign up as possible. This allows for all the regulations to be put into place without bankrupting the insurance companies, mainly the fact that the companies can't be prejudiced against consumers with preexisting conditions. You can say that they're trying to offload the costs onto young, healthy consumers and that's true, to an extent, it's really the only way the law can work and stay funded.

The other options are (IMO):
A) Do nothing. Healthcare is fine as is (it's not), premiums continue to go up, people continue to get rejected, claims gets turned down and the bills for uninsured Americans gets passed onto the rest of us in said higher premiums.
B) A single payer system. I'm in favor of this one with some requisite price controls on Health Care. A lot of the problems with healthcare costs comes from how insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and providers constantly are trying to maneuver and get the most money they can out of each other and the consumer ends up stuck in middle, screwed by it all. The whole system is pretty screwed.
C) Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. I don't see this doing anything for pricing at all, as it doesn't account for the real problems with healthcare in this country. At best, maybe more people get really cheap, really shitty plans that don't cover anything.
D) Tort reform. This could impact health costs but I have yet to be convinced that it would do so in a meaningful way without being a giant handout to our corporate plutocrat overlords.
E) Something else

As for whether it's 'right,' I honestly don't care as long as it results in fixing a broken system.
Tort reform is more jerking off. It's a feel good fix, but doesn't really do much (as Texans have discovered). Like I said before they voted for it, if you remove one of the expenses for doctors and insurers, they're going to see greatly increased profits and we're going to see token decreases (which won't be enough to offset the annual increases).

And the bigger issue is that there were better ways to reform what was a fairly flawed system than setting caps on damages. Is there anybody here who thinks that a $250k cap was reasonable for the guy who had his dick wrongly amputated?
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 Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2013, 02:06:21 PM »


Quote
I don't agree with footing the bill for people who won't pay for their own.
So what do we do with them? Let them die?

Quote
I fervently disagree with forcing someone to purchase something.
You don't have to. You can pay the fine.

Quote
I don't trust the government and their shady past has done a terrible job of convincing me otherwise. 
Add 'and corporations' after the word government and I'd largely agree. Both have done and continue to do terrible things in the world so I'm not really inclined to trust one over the other 100% of the time.

So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I don't see the logic in that.  Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous. Let them keep their current insurance like the savior promised they would be able to do.  Stop picking on the little guy so the savior can be all buddy buddy with his backers.

And yes, I agree with the corporations addition to my statement. I think corporations are a part of the problem but not more than government is. This is why I think government mandated insurance is not the answer. Reducing the government restrictions on these corporations would help to regulate the costs. They're obviously milking the system and are probably a big cause of the failure of our current health care system.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 02:23:42 PM by Prog Snob »

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #84 on: November 09, 2013, 03:03:56 PM »
So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
No, I'm interested in getting quality healthcare that won't cause people to declare bankruptcy when they need it. It's immaterial to me how we get there.

Also, we already rob Peter to pay for Paul in our current system. Except Paul goes to the ER, gets his basic treatment and gets released back into the pool without the underlying issues cared for, all on Peter's dime. AND since Paul's issues for being in the ER are likely not cared for, he gets to dip back into Peter's pocketbook again and again to get the most basic treatment possible without solving those underlying issues. Another BIG cost of our healthcare is that people don't go in for preventative care, they wait for when they have an obvious problem and then go in to get that sorted out. Preventative care is far cheaper than critical care.

In the end, why does it matter what you call it? A fine, a tax, insurance you have to buy? Under every system, Peter is still paying for Paul, unless you just want to let poor Paul die out in the streets because he can't pay.

Quote
Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous.
Everybody needs healthcare eventually. That's the point of insurance. Paying for it now for when you need it later. Nobody plans to get cancer or have a heart attack or get into an automobile accident. It happens. Sometimes just because life is shitty

Quote
This is why I think government mandated insurance is not the answer. Reducing the government restrictions on these corporations would help to regulate the costs.
Except lack of regulations is one of the big reasons why we have such expensive healthcare in the first place. Other countries that have far stricter regulations on prices have far lower costs for the same quality. See Japan, Belgium, Canada, the UK.

Quote
They're obviously milking the system and are probably a big cause of the failure of our current health care system.
Well, yeah, like I said above, that's one issue. The reasons our healthcare is so pricey and so not worth that price are complex, but yes, corporations milking a system that only they can really take advantage of is one of those factors.

Reducing government restrictions won't do anything to reduce costs, because healthcare isn't a simple commodity like a car or a CD is.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #85 on: November 09, 2013, 03:30:00 PM »
So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
No, I'm interested in getting quality healthcare that won't cause people to declare bankruptcy when they need it. It's immaterial to me how we get there.

Also, we already rob Peter to pay for Paul in our current system. Except Paul goes to the ER, gets his basic treatment and gets released back into the pool without the underlying issues cared for, all on Peter's dime. AND since Paul's issues for being in the ER are likely not cared for, he gets to dip back into Peter's pocketbook again and again to get the most basic treatment possible without solving those underlying issues. Another BIG cost of our healthcare is that people don't go in for preventative care, they wait for when they have an obvious problem and then go in to get that sorted out. Preventative care is far cheaper than critical care.

In the end, why does it matter what you call it? A fine, a tax, insurance you have to buy? Under every system, Peter is still paying for Paul, unless you just want to let poor Paul die out in the streets because he can't pay.

Quote
Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous.
Everybody needs healthcare eventually. That's the point of insurance. Paying for it now for when you need it later. Nobody plans to get cancer or have a heart attack or get into an automobile accident. It happens. Sometimes just because life is shitty

Quote
This is why I think government mandated insurance is not the answer. Reducing the government restrictions on these corporations would help to regulate the costs.
Except lack of regulations is one of the big reasons why we have such expensive healthcare in the first place. Other countries that have far stricter regulations on prices have far lower costs for the same quality. See Japan, Belgium, Canada, the UK.

Quote
They're obviously milking the system and are probably a big cause of the failure of our current health care system.
Well, yeah, like I said above, that's one issue. The reasons our healthcare is so pricey and so not worth that price are complex, but yes, corporations milking a system that only they can really take advantage of is one of those factors.

Reducing government restrictions won't do anything to reduce costs, because healthcare isn't a simple commodity like a car or a CD is.

Well it's obvious you have no interest in logic and find it completely excusable to take from one person to pay for another. It's not just a matter of everyone needing healthcare later. You're going about this too simplistically. If people pay into a system then by all means use the insurance.  We are talking about people who won't pay a dime into the system and expect to freeload off someone else.  That is utter nonsense.  Maybe not every one of them is a freeloader so I won't assume the percentage, but another part of the reason the system is broken is too many people sticking their hands in the cookie jar who weren't part of the baking process.   I don't agree with you and you can pose all the "moral" lessons you want.  We'll never agree. You're political ideology seems to sway towards some utopian egalitarian system in this aspect where everyone deserves a piece of the pie regardless of who earned it.  This isn't even about facts for you. You're mind was already made up before you even entered the discussion.  Maybe I'm wrong though, but judging by your neglect for hardworking citizens to keep their piece of the pie and decide on their own what to do with it, I am guessing I'm right. All of the bleeding hearts who are concerned with the uninsured should make their own contributions instead of leeching off someone else.  They all seems to be pretty good at spending other people's money.  Let them reach a little deeper into their own pockets if they are as concerned as they claim to be.

Also, I disagree on your stand regarding regulations. I think there are too many government regulations.  End those strict regulations and you'll see more reasonable pricing. Both Dems and Republicans will never stop the regulations as long as they can earn their buck from it. Like so many other things, it all comes down to shady bureaucrats.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18081
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #86 on: November 09, 2013, 03:31:40 PM »
So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I don't see the logic in that.  Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous. Let them keep their current insurance like the savior promised they would be able to do.  Stop picking on the little guy so the savior can be all buddy buddy with his backers.
TKiC already addressed this, but I think I'll put it a little more simply since you seem to avoid this point. If Paul can't or won't pay for insurance, should we let him die?
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 Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #87 on: November 09, 2013, 03:46:48 PM »
So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I don't see the logic in that.  Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous. Let them keep their current insurance like the savior promised they would be able to do.  Stop picking on the little guy so the savior can be all buddy buddy with his backers.
TKiC already addressed this, but I think I'll put it a little more simply since you seem to avoid this point. If Paul can't or won't pay for insurance, should we let him die?

Won't pay?  Then isn't that his own problem if he really is just lazy?

Can't pay?  What are the circumstances?  Is he disabled? That's a different story.  Is he 90 years old?  That's a different story.   Is it a 35 year old man who has to go to the doctor because he has a runny nose?  Let him pay out of pocket like I used to.  I don't expect or never expected anyone to pay for me before I was able to get a job with health insurance.  You won't get sympathy from me by using the "what if he doesn't have insurance" routine.  I was there and I dealt with it. Maybe I come from different stock than everyone else does.

Again I say, if people are really that concerned, let THEM pay more out of their own pockets and stop telling people what to do with their money.  We never had this problem until the government got their fat hands involved.  This is why our government started to destabilize...by starting too many systems that needed government reliance.  This ACA might not be "government run", but to say the government (or actually the politicians) is not benefiting from this program is a complete distortion of the facts.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #88 on: November 09, 2013, 04:04:56 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.


Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #89 on: November 09, 2013, 04:09:31 PM »
Well it's obvious you have no interest in logic and find it completely excusable to take from one person to pay for another.
But it's already happening under this system. We just say that your premiums are going up instead of calling it a tax or a fine. It's still money out of your pocket.

Quote
It's not just a matter of everyone needing healthcare later.
Well, for some it is. I use mine all the time, but there are other healthy people out there who don't know when (not if) they will need healthcare. That's why they get insurance. If they want to take a gamble and not have insurance, the ACA offers that option in the fine and that fine will help cover for whatever catastrophic conditions might befall them in the future. Is it perfect? No, but at least it attempts to address the problems of critical ER care being used by the uninsured.

Quote
You're going about this too simplistically. If people pay into a system then by all means use the insurance.  We are talking about people who won't pay a dime into the system and expect to freeload off someone else.  That is utter nonsense.  Maybe not every one of them is a freeloader so I won't assume the percentage, but another part of the reason the system is broken is too many people sticking their hands in the cookie jar who weren't part of the baking process.
You're absolutely right, which is why we should have a single payer system where everybody contributes taxes to its funding via taxes. Ideally we would get the same quality healthcare, except everyone would have it and we'd get rid of that shady insurance company middleman. See, problem solved. ;)

Quote
I don't agree with you and you can pose all the "moral" lessons you want.  We'll never agree. You're political ideology seems to sway towards some utopian egalitarian system in this aspect where everyone deserves a piece of the pie regardless of who earned it.  This isn't even about facts for you.
Well, then give me some facts please. So far I haven't really seen a good argument for why

Quote
You're mind was already made up before you even entered the discussion. 
Well yeah, as a diabetic I kind of have a vested interest in this issue, but don't put this all on me. You're not as open-minded as you originally claimed to be?

Quote
Maybe I'm wrong though, but judging by your neglect for hardworking citizens to keep their piece of the pie and decide on their own what to do with it, I am guessing I'm right.
But if that hardworking citizen doesn't have insurance, he gets hurt, goes to the ER and I have to pay for his ass in increased premiums, is he suddenly a lazy leecher on the system?

Quote
All of the bleeding hearts who are concerned with the uninsured should make their own contributions instead of leeching off someone else.  They all seems to be pretty good at spending other people's money.  Let them reach a little deeper into their own pockets if they are as concerned as they claim to be.
That's a pretty bold claim. Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a 'leecher.' Not every employer offers insurance to their employees and it used to be that buying insurance for yourself without that employer mediator was very expensive and god forbid you have a pre-existing condition, then you're pretty much screwed and can't get insurance even if you do want it.

So yeah, clearly a bunch of fucking leeches.

Quote
Also, I disagree on your stand regarding regulations. I think there are too many government regulations.  End those strict regulations and you'll see more reasonable pricing.
What strict regulations are driving up healthcare prices? I have no doubt that regulations drive up the prices on commodities, but since we're talking about healthcare, would you kindly list some of them?

Quote
Both Dems and Republicans will never stop the regulations as long as they can earn their buck from it. Like so many other things, it all comes down to shady bureaucrats.
That's a simplistic response to a complex issue. Care to list how some of those regulations only line pockets and don't contribute anything more to our society?

So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I don't see the logic in that.  Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous. Let them keep their current insurance like the savior promised they would be able to do.  Stop picking on the little guy so the savior can be all buddy buddy with his backers.
TKiC already addressed this, but I think I'll put it a little more simply since you seem to avoid this point. If Paul can't or won't pay for insurance, should we let him die?

Won't pay?  Then isn't that his own problem if he really is just lazy?

Can't pay?  What are the circumstances?  Is he disabled? That's a different story.  Is he 90 years old?  That's a different story.   Is it a 35 year old man who has to go to the doctor because he has a runny nose?  Let him pay out of pocket like I used to.  I don't expect or never expected anyone to pay for me before I was able to get a job with health insurance.  You won't get sympathy from me by using the "what if he doesn't have insurance" routine.  I was there and I dealt with it. Maybe I come from different stock than everyone else does.
You missed the point. This isn't about going to the doctor for a runny nose, this is critical, ER care here, ie your body is convulsing and the EMT's have to load you up and take you to the nearest hospital. If he's uninsured, what do you do? Critical care is expensive. Do they swipe your credit card before you're loaded up into the ambulance and if it maxes out are you just left there? Would they evaluate your credit rating, take a pay stub beforehand to see if you're financially secure enough to treat? Because in this sort of scenario I'm really struggling to figure out how to care for someone in critical condition that is uninsured other than leaving them to die. If they can't pay, then who pays for it? The other insured Americans who get a nice increase in their premiums.

At least, that's how it is now.

Quote
We never had this problem until the government got their fat hands involved. 
This has been going on for a long time, hate to break it to you like that.

Quote
This is why our government started to destabilize...by starting too many systems that needed government reliance. 
Source?

Quote
This ACA might not be "government run", but to say the government (or actually the politicians) is not benefiting from this program is a complete distortion of the facts.
It is? How so?

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #90 on: November 09, 2013, 04:19:00 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.

Again I'll say... If people are so concerned about others not having health insurance, then let the bleeding hearts foot the bill. They seem so bent on taking care of everyone and think it's the altruistic thing to do, then let them spend their own money.  Let everyone else do what's best for themselves and cut the nanny state crap out.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #91 on: November 09, 2013, 04:32:13 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3921
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #92 on: November 09, 2013, 04:36:29 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.
Their bills are already your bills, namely your rising premiums. You keep missing that point.

The uninsured going for ER/critical care often can't pay for those exorbitant bills so the hospitals eat the costs and thus pass it onto insured folks like us. Premiums go up, more people can't afford their insurance and the cycle repeats.

Quote
Again I'll say... If people are so concerned about others not having health insurance, then let the bleeding hearts foot the bill. They seem so bent on taking care of everyone and think it's the altruistic thing to do, then let them spend their own money.  Let everyone else do what's best for themselves and cut the nanny state crap out.
So you'd rather keep an inefficient, shitty system because you'd rather pay more 'premiums' rather than pay a 'tax' or a 'fine' even though they're functionally the same in this case except the current inefficient and shitty system does nothing to fix these problems? Let me refer you to something I read earlier in this thread:

Quote
Well it's obvious you have no interest in logic and find it completely excusable to take from one person to pay for another.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #93 on: November 09, 2013, 04:42:14 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.

Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 


Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #94 on: November 09, 2013, 04:51:03 PM »

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.

Their bills are already your bills, namely your rising premiums. You keep missing that point.

The uninsured going for ER/critical care often can't pay for those exorbitant bills so the hospitals eat the costs and thus pass it onto insured folks like us. Premiums go up, more people can't afford their insurance and the cycle repeats.

Quote
Again I'll say... If people are so concerned about others not having health insurance, then let the bleeding hearts foot the bill. They seem so bent on taking care of everyone and think it's the altruistic thing to do, then let them spend their own money.  Let everyone else do what's best for themselves and cut the nanny state crap out.
So you'd rather keep an inefficient, shitty system because you'd rather pay more 'premiums' rather than pay a 'tax' or a 'fine' even though they're functionally the same in this case except the current inefficient and shitty system does nothing to fix these problems? Let me refer you to something I read earlier in this thread:

Quote
Well it's obvious you have no interest in logic and find it completely excusable to take from one person to pay for another.

Firstly, I haven't missed the point of my rising premiums.  That is something I already stated disagreeing with.

Secondly, I never said to keep the inefficient system.  Get rid of the insurance regulations, stop overburdening corporations with government restrictions, stop shelling out millions to these ludicrous malpractice suits, stop with the ridiculously high regulations on drugs, and you will see a better system. Everything from the drugs to the licensing to the actual doctors themselves are so overly burdened with regulations, it suffocates any kind of profitable market. 

THAT is logical and that is what will work.


Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #95 on: November 09, 2013, 04:51:37 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #96 on: November 09, 2013, 04:53:50 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18081
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #97 on: November 09, 2013, 04:56:01 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.
Their bills are already your bills, namely your rising premiums. You keep missing that point.

The uninsured going for ER/critical care often can't pay for those exorbitant bills so the hospitals eat the costs and thus pass it onto insured folks like us. Premiums go up, more people can't afford their insurance and the cycle repeats.
Not only this, there are plenty of instances where they will just let you die. To get a kidney I had to demonstrate proof of insurance or write a check for $125,000. There wasn't exactly and installment plan offered to me and I'm pretty sure if I'd gone to my banker to ask for a loan he would still be laughing at me 11 months later (and he actually liked me a lot). Same thing is going to happen with any other serious illness. In some instances the government actually will lend you a hand financially. I believe there's a subsidy program in place for cancer medications which only 1% of Americans can actually afford. We're all paying for that; including the raving and drooling libertarian crowd.

And PS, the point you're avoiding is having to say let the poor people die because you don't want to pay for them. If you were actually willing to cop to that I'd be cutting you a lot more slack.
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 Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #98 on: November 09, 2013, 05:07:50 PM »
It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

I guess. Maybe I just don't understand what people are talking about like I thought I did.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #99 on: November 09, 2013, 05:12:21 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.


The problem is you're espousing a free-market system  but seem to be completely ignorant of a how a business operates. I don't want to make their bills your bill, THE HOSPITAL DOES. As would any doctor becuase they take the Hippocratic Oath. Just because a hospital foots a poor person with a bill, doesn't mean that poor person can pay. Meanwhile the Hospital has to stay in business. In order for them to stay in business, and have the capital they need to operate so that they can provide health care to you, they recoup these losses by charging more for their product. This means you pay more for the health care you want. And I have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The only way you can say that I'm trying to make their bills your bills is if you stubbornly refuse to accept how the system works. Because, what I"m really doing, is trying to give you more money in your wallet at the end of the day. I'm trying to reduce the bills you have to pay.


Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #100 on: November 09, 2013, 05:15:49 PM »
You really are just intent on avoiding the question, aren't you.

Congratulations, you were lucky enough to get through just fine. But accidents happen, and just because you got through just fine doesn't mean everyone will. What would you have done if you had accidentally broken a leg, and ended up in the ER? Would you have been able to pay for it? Would your insurance - even if you have insurance and pay hundreds of dollars a month for it - cover enough of it? If you didn't have the money, couldn't afford to pay for the care, then what? Just let you suffer through the problem on your own? Maybe even just let you die? And what should hospitals and ER's do... when they get someone who is bleeding out in their room, from who knows what, a car accident, a gun shot wound, you name it, should they first try and verify who that person is and if they can pay for the cost saving their life before doing anything?

It's a red herring to say it's about guys going to the doctor for a runny nose. All you're doing is avoiding the real issue being brought forward.

I haven't avoided any question.  YOU just don't like the answer.  What was done in the past when someone didn't have health insurance?  Were they left there to bleed to death or did they probably have to assume a huge hospital bill?  So...what's the problem?  The problem is you want to make their bills, MY bills.
Their bills are already your bills, namely your rising premiums. You keep missing that point.

The uninsured going for ER/critical care often can't pay for those exorbitant bills so the hospitals eat the costs and thus pass it onto insured folks like us. Premiums go up, more people can't afford their insurance and the cycle repeats.
Not only this, there are plenty of instances where they will just let you die. To get a kidney I had to demonstrate proof of insurance or write a check for $125,000. There wasn't exactly and installment plan offered to me and I'm pretty sure if I'd gone to my banker to ask for a loan he would still be laughing at me 11 months later (and he actually liked me a lot). Same thing is going to happen with any other serious illness. In some instances the government actually will lend you a hand financially. I believe there's a subsidy program in place for cancer medications which only 1% of Americans can actually afford. We're all paying for that; including the raving and drooling libertarian crowd.

And PS, the point you're avoiding is having to say let the poor people die because you don't want to pay for them. If you were actually willing to cop to that I'd be cutting you a lot more slack.


Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out. 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #101 on: November 09, 2013, 05:20:22 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

Here ya go:

Fire's spread. It's what they do. WIthout proper containment, they can spread from one house to another. Say someones house catches on fire, and they don't have the money to put out the fire. Should the neighbors have to pay the bill for their 'irresponsible' neighbor? And if they don't have the money, should it just spread until someone does have the money to pay for it? Which gets increasingly hard, because the more the fire spreads, the harder it is to put out, the costlier it becomes. It starts to become everyones interest, within a locality, to ensure fires get put out,  because it is for their own benefit. It is cheaper to put out the fire when it is small at the persons house who cannot afford the fire service than to let it grow.

Which is directly comparable to health insurance. It is cheaper to give people preventive care than it is to not let them die in the hospital later.

The world is an interconnected system. I don't make it so, and you can't make it not so.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4576
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #102 on: November 09, 2013, 05:22:33 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #103 on: November 09, 2013, 05:27:27 PM »
I don't see why you should feel any differently about those ER cases than you do about the fire department.
Not even a good analogy. Now you are really reaching.  Though maybe we can just get rid of firefighters and let everyone carry around fire extinguishers.  Though those would probably eventually be subject to banning since the left will consider them a lethal firearm. 

It really is a stretch; you're right. But in the ways you dislike other people having to pay for fixing other peoples' problems...isn't that exactly how the fire department works?

It's not even the same thing though.  How can you even compare the two.  I'm trying to find a common link between them to argue a point, but there is just nothing there.

Here ya go:

Fire's spread. It's what they do. WIthout proper containment, they can spread from one house to another. Say someones house catches on fire, and they don't have the money to put out the fire. Should the neighbors have to pay the bill for their 'irresponsible' neighbor? And if they don't have the money, should it just spread until someone does have the money to pay for it? Which gets increasingly hard, because the more the fire spreads, the harder it is to put out, the costlier it becomes. It starts to become everyones interest, within a locality, to ensure fires get put out,  because it is for their own benefit. It is cheaper to put out the fire when it is small at the persons house who cannot afford the fire service than to let it grow.

Which is directly comparable to health insurance. It is cheaper to give people preventive care than it is to not let them die in the hospital later.

The world is an interconnected system. I don't make it so, and you can't make it not so.

It's not even close to the same thing, so try another way of convincing me that MORE government interference in the medical industry is a good thing.  You might like government mandates and socialized medicine and nanny state propaganda but it doesn't belong in a free republic.  These health care systems aren't as ubiquitously successful as everyone here is claiming they are either. 

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16266
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: ACA
« Reply #104 on: November 09, 2013, 05:33:49 PM »
Because it isn't about letting them die.  Let them pay for insurance out of pocket like I used to do.  Let them find a low paying job that offers some kind of benefit plan.  The problem is no one wants to work shitty jobs for shitty pay just to get health coverage.  Go work for UPS. Go work for FedEx.  Go drive an armored vehicle, I know for a fact they are always looking for drivers. There are opportunities out there, they may not be lucrative, but they are out there.  I always did what I had to do for my family regardless of the circumstances and I sure as hell wasn't going to rely on the government to help me out.

That's all well and good, but I feel like you're still avoiding the central question.

What if they don't pay their bill?  Sure, maybe they could go out and get a shitty job for shitty pay just to get health coverage, but what if they don't?  What's the hospital supposed to do then?

If they refuse to get a job?  why is that my problem if they choose to sit on their asses and do nothing?    Why should I work harder and get taxed more for someone who refuses to pay their fair share?   

It's amazing how soft people are in this country.  What happened to the backbone of people busting their asses for what's theirs?  Truly sad state we are in now.