Printable View
You give me whatever context you want. The rates will increase at a faster rate because of this law than they did before it. That's likely the only meaningful short-term metric we'll have. Longer term, you're betting on the federal government controlling costs? I should and wish I did have the option not to, because that's a sucker's bet.
At least you're up front about your selfism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
In the long run, would that be a bad thing? If that really did happen it would eventually break the current system. More and more people would see how horrible the system is. More and more would know that hospitals set prices like the mad hatter and medicare/medicade/aca pull payment prices out their asses and otherwise scam care givers. And if the middle class and middle aged see it and feel it and not just the elderly and poor, maybe something will get done.
oh. Right. Youll be put out while it breaks and something better is put in its place.
I'm generally not a fan of "heightening the contradictions", so I don't want people to suffer short-to-medium term in the hopes that a good system emerges from the rubble. That said, it is true that the existing health insurance system has given middle class white people (the people who vote, in other words) a fairly decent and predictable system while everything collapsed around them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Working age adults should be expected to take care of themselves. I support government sponsored health insurance as part of a comprehensive and very temporary unemployment solution run by each state, and that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Health should not be a for profit industry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
They were also apparently paying 63% more than a comparable plan elsewhere. These people are have bolts for brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Everything is a for profit industry, including and arguably especially the federal government.
That is not remotely true.
Fuck them if they don't take care of themselves, I shouldn't have to pay for their poor choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's not an "I" issue; it's a no one issue. If their families or a charitable organization chooses to, great. That money is infinitely better invested in kids, veterans, etc. if the level of spending is needed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
What I mean is that I don't expect anyone else to pay an additional cent either. I'm not passing the buck to "the rich" or any other hypocritical bullshit.
edit: Or maybe you are talking about entitlements for the kids and veterans? Those already exist and should be continued, along with the elderly and the severely handicapped. They aren't incremental.
You have to understand that this is a tough pill to swallow when you lead in with a line like that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If you count tax then I guess he has a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Forgive: rather than edit my response and include I'm double-posting since it came up separately. (Ah, good, there was a post after my response.)
To me, the word, "entitlement," is a direct and admitted dismissal of concern for societal responsibility. To me, it seems to stem from some sort of refusal to think any further than a single point.
Joe Average didn't finish high school and has a crappy job so he has to get food stamps.
Well, he obviously made poor decisions so we shouldn't have to take care of him.
I just don't get how that answer is good enough in today's world. I understand that it seems like we're pushing an unfair load onto the rich (or the perceived rich) but I can't imagine having the means to help hundreds of poor people eat and instead spending that on something for myself because, you know, I worked hard and I feel that I deserve it. To me, those people deserve to eat. Hunger/poverty/etc. can't be the consequence, in my mind.
Then donate to charities. I choose to donate exclusively to children and animal charities, because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. The federal government was never intended to be a mechanism to redistribute wealth. Federal taxes should solely fund programs that cross state lines and benefit everyone, e.g. defense (including the aforementioned veteran's benefits), infrastructure, disaster recovery, etc.
I often wonder how many people talk a good game about the kind of things you bring up but don't donate a cent to charity. I suspect it's a sickeningly high level of hypocrisy and buck passing. I also trust that you are not part of it.
edit: To quantify this in context, I donate more to charity than I pay for my entire family's health insurance each and every month, so unless the rate increases are even more insane than I think they'll be, I'm already paying forward far more voluntarily to those I feel are indeed entitled.
The Federal government was set up in an environment drastically different than ours. Yet they had the foresight to see that things change.
I love how a certain party is all "forefathers intent" until you get to their greatest intent, malleability.
It's not 1776 anymore. The creators of the Constitution were smart enough to acknowledge society's evolution and the needs of the people, why aren't we?
It's been a long time since we've had a Constitutional amendment. As far as I'm concerned, it's strict construction until you get the necessary 2/3 for that. There's a world of difference between malleability and bastardization.
That's dumber than just about anything Yoshi has said in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
No one is going to go through the hassle involved in health care out of the kindness of their hearts.
It should be for profit, but, like everything that has grown out of control, it obviously needs to be regulated.
Ummmm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
"History". Show me one besides 'supposedly' this one that was wasn't.
Is it because no changes are necessary or because we are caught in a two party system that favors their own political needs over those of the people to such a disgusting degree that damn near everything is split directly down party lines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
"strict construction" is, of course, open to interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'd prefer it if we could throw the constitution out and start over, but then again I don't think the original was handed down by God.
After WWII we should have asked ourselves why we are setting up all these parliamentary governments without having one ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
I don't believe we have EVER set up a government identical to our own, come to think of it. Wonder why that is.
No, we never have.
If you want to know why, it's because our system is worse than other ones. Presidential systems are notoriously unstable. Ours has not been, of course - we have the most stable government in the world by a long shot. But that's because we had parties with diffuse positions and broad bases of support - in effect both Republicans and Democrats were "big tent parties."
Not so much the case anymore, and we are starting to see what happens.
You are aware that there are plenty of companies not for profit that still pay employees right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Bbobb probably meant something along the lines of "the bottom line should not be the primary goal when it comes to the health of the people", which would put it in the realm of the government. (Where I believe it should be)
(And government has taken on the role of redistribution of wealth long ago.)
I have the frame of mind to be able to say I do, in a sense - food banks, homeless shelters, cancer research, and I recently added elderly care: some of it is monetary, some of it is volunteer work. But I suspect you're also probably right that most people talk the game but don't play it. It's a terrible feeling, thinking that the majority of people with the means to help the hungry, the sick, the poor, or anyone else in need don't do so. I hope that's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Also - and I don't know if you were present in the last thread I brought this up in - there's a staggering number of corrupt charities and it's very difficult to make sure you're giving to a place that is going to make a difference. (CNN did the research with a supposed bipartisan group so I guess belief of that depends on whether you think the series about it was biased or not.)
Yes, but how many individuals do you know who want to start a business with the sole goal of paying the bills? Like money, there is nothing inherently evil with making a profit. It is just the lengths one goes towards the accumulation of either that has a morality attached to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
You are aware that there are plenty of not for profit companies that are full of grift right?
Your strawman's a little skinny there.
I am all for it being socialized, so I'm not sure if we are debating the same things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
It's not about doctors being paid less, it's about cutting the Gordon Geckos out of the equation.
Yes, cut the people with the seed money to actually open hospitals and invest in R&D out. Good call.
I do recall, and I'll give the same response now I did then. There fraction of crooked charities absolutely can't exceed the fraction of crooked politicians in Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Except crooked politicians aren't the ones actually implementing and running these programs.
Charity is great. Nobody is talking bad about charities. But if your goal is, for example, to get hungry people some food, SNAP is a very efficient program that does its job pretty well. You can't replace it with handing out bags of food at local churches and expect to feed nearly the same amount of people for the same price. You only do that if you have some ulterior ideological motive.
No, those are crooked IRS agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
You mean the IRS agents that followed the law and inspected a bunch of obviously political tax dodges to see if they were political.
Which is, of course, why their bosses were taking the 5th, taking leaves of absence, and then retiring instead of answering questions about all of this completely benign and legitimate activity.
Also, the first Syrian weapons inspection date was missed today. What a shocker.
Obama admin has a long and sorry history of folding like a cheap suit at some obviously ridiculous and phony "scandal" that emerges from the far right swamp. Shirly Sherrod and ACORN are two other examples.
I'd rather have the government doing it, so that to some degree the incentives actually line up with health as a primary rather than health as a bi-product of profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You mean bureaucracy as the primary, waste as a bi-product, and health as a possible long shot.
Even inefficient spending towards the correct goals would likely lead better results than more efficient spending (if the modern system even has that) towards other goals.
The most common example is treatment versus cure. As long as it is considerably more profitable to make treatments instead of cures, treatments with be targeted under a profit system. A government backed system could instead use the same funding towards cures, which have a net benefit many times greater than simple treatment.
Edit: Doesn't it strike you as a bit worrysome that we are pretty much the only industrialized country that hasn't switched over? It's not like a few crazy radical countries are trying out some new system that may or may not work. EVERY country that matters (in before no other country matters) has jumped on board.
Its not apples to apples though. We have a very diverse population. Its much harder to fix all of our culturally related problems.
Just look at the problems the eu is having. Germany leads but if they all act like Germany the eu will collapse. Germany is a major exporter. If the entire eu relied on exports, who would buy it all?
Its not as simple as copying the successful.
The entire industrialized world is a fairly diverse population, and yet every one of them but us has universal health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
But the United States has never had a history of caring for it's fellow man: Trail of Tears, slavery, railroad workers, coal miners, Mexican War (though they were equally dickheads)... We also are a nation built on greed: gold, silver, cotton, oil, marijuana, cocaine, meth, easy money business... Healthcare would be a hell of a change and very unAmerican.
No, it fills me with pride that we are least socialist country in the industrialized world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I vehemently defend my fellow man's right and duty to take care of himself.
Look at our most celebrated moment in history. It took the Japs laying sass before we did something about Hitler. And when it came time we were tired of the war, rather than fight it out we dropped a big eraser.
I'm curious if Yoshi would support individual states having their own government funded health care systems. That's pretty much how it works in Canada, each province runs its own health care separate from the others.
Yes, I would. I would just move quickly out of any that actually did.
The federal government has absolutely no business playing in this space. The states have every right, but I still wouldn't want or support it in my state.
Aba will eventually be like that. Like medicare/cade, it will eventually be state funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
which will suck for poorer states
If this actually included a public option, I think I would be in general more in favor of that than what we currently have.
Although I would prefer we just buckle down and make the federal public option.
How is one supposed to obtain, or afford insurance in a 30 hour work week world? Especially with a pre-existing condition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
He defends your right to do what you need to do to take care of yourself! In this case, you can take care of yourself by voting in favor of socialized medical care!Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
30 hour work week?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
That's only hourly workers. If you're salaried then you can double it.
Thirty hour work weeks are, sadly, very common. Gone are the days where almost everyone that wanted to work only needed to work one job. Nowadays it's an ala carte menu and you're probably out of work 20% of the time.
And you probably will!Quote:
Originally Posted by Timber
Well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So which 3rd world hell hole will you move to when America finally catches up to every one else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-fcc-chairman/
Corruption in broad daylight with a giant, flashing sign reading "YOU CAN'T STOP US."
Hello, telecom deregulation. Goodbye, Aereo.
I checked the url for the onion as I was reading that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoofNee
When the end game of your strategy is Detroit, the bar is pretty low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
So is Obama now the most Lobby friendly president, despite a campaign against such?
After the flip flops on sticking to public campaign funding, transparency, etc. does this surprise anyone? I'm assuming those were flip flops and not just flat out lies like the Obamacare sales job.
Washington is Washington. Anyone who thinks there is a significant difference in the parties there is extremely naive. This is why the power of the federal government needs to be limited at every opportunity.
You mean ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
edit: had to rush this; heading off to work.
The ACA is such a clusterfuck. Its a mish-mash of policies. You can plainly tell that the Dems compromised with the Republicans and included some of their ideas. Problem is that the law was written to have a public option.
Baring the website issues. The ACA needs to be reformed. It's really an either or situation, either we keep ACA and put in a public option; thus socialized healthcare, or repeal it and never bring it up again. Thus, instead reform the healthcare SYSTEM; regulate cost.
Which is what I mean about a mish-mosh ... the ACA DOES actually regulates the cost, PLUS adds in the pre-existing conditions. But it then adds in the rule that you MUST have healthcare insurance by March of next year. That part didn't have to be in it. I should have the right to not get healthcare at all; as an aside I DO need it though. The bigger issue is the expansion of medicaid and medicare. If you can't afford healthcare on your own. You can sign up for Medicaid (If under 65). Problem is they expanded the maximum age and minimum annual income. Now in general that's not a problem. The big issue as we all know is that Medicaid and Medicare are having finanicla issues at the moment. So, now we just allowed more people on a system that's already broken.
Welcome to 'Murica.
There shouldn't even BE health insurance. At least, not in the way we know it.
No. He meant ABBA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0
That's how they fund the damn thing. People who don't need or want insurance are forced to buy it in order to subsidize the high risk people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
wordQuote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
yupQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
There are so, so many reasons you need socialized healthcare. This is just one of them. One of the many many many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As for Washington, I dislike Obama almost as much as Bush at this point. It's all pretty much the same shit. Thanks to how they hounded Edward Snowden, I realized just how shitty our government is.
Edit:@Yoshi: Would you rather have completely socialized healthcare at this point, or Obamacare under the assumption that it won't be repealed?
That's an interesting question, because I don't think we know all of the surprises Obamacare has in store for us. It would also depend on how socialized health care would be funded. If it were a redirection of existing spending, that's a whole lot different than further growth of an already way too large government.
I can't get insurance right now. Companies won't touch me with a stick - or the cost is laughable. Psychological problems, epilepsy, nerve damage, etc..
I should be able to get a policy now.
Even if it's going to take some time to get alright, I'm pleased with that.
Let's assume for the sake of this question (being realistic here) it is primarily not funded through redirection of existing spending, much like Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I have a feeling we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. The rollout problems are embarassing and I wasn't aware that people who already had insurance would have their existing policies cancelled because they didn't meet the ACA requirements. Add to that the fact that this was shoved down Americans' throats, I can only imagine that there will be more surprises in store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If by "shoved down Americans' throats", you mean passed by both houses of a duly-elected Congress and signed by a duly-elected President, sure.
Come on, Diff. You know what I mean. Not all the facts were laid out, especially to the American public who was supposed to benefit from this Act. It was rushed through Congress and I think most would agree that's a fair assessment.
No, I don't know what you mean. It wasn't rushed through Congress at all. It was getting hashed out in Congress in early 2009, and passed the House in September of 2009 - after the summer recess. It passed the Senate in December and was signed by the President in March 2010.
Did you ever look into a pre-existing condition plan? I got mine a couple of years ago and all I needed to qualify was to be denied by 3 insurers. That was a program run by the state but in June it switched over to a federally run PCIP plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Giving Congress a little over a year to create/review the country's most ambitious healthcare plan does not seem like enough time to have a thorough review. Especially when you consider the countless breaks Congress takes throughout the year - in addition to the summer break - which means they had less time to actually work on it. And my opinion is magnified when I'm seeing how many mistakes were made with the rollout. Careful, thoughtful planning makes things run smoothly. Rushing shit just to get it out leads to the mistakes we're seeing. I only wonder where we would be if Ted Kennedy hadn't died. His death seemed like the battle cry to GET IT DONE NOW!Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Well, they probably pushed it in 2 years because that's how long it takes for control of the house to possibly change?
According to Diff's timeline, things were pushed through in about a year, maybe a little over. To me, that seems like a rush job for legislation as large as the ACA.
Careful, thoughtful planning makes things run smoothly.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
GOP gonna GOP
Maybe I live in a parallel universe where there's no time spent planning and all the time spent on driving everything off course and then making the mistake of criticizing the website (note: people will look mighty dumb when the website works, then what?)
The website is the absolute least of the problems. It's more like when no one signs up but those looking for something for nothing, then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
But that's what I am constantly hearing. If you make that your talking point, then you're going to lose.
But that's the thing people see, so it's an easy target. Not saying it's good, but I wouldn't be using that as my platform
FYI, I'm a registered independant, but thanks for playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Do you have another explantion for the debacle that is the Obamcare rollout? To me, it seems that careful, thoughtful planning would have made things much smoother. But what do I know? I didn't get my degree in business or help launch/manage successful programs throughout my professinal career which have generated millions of dollars.
That was not directed at you. My point was that these assclowns had a hissy fit and shut the largest government in the world down, and you expect them to PLAN? Plan to what?
They planned to stop Obamacare by acting like dumbasses and costing the country tens of billions of dollars. They suck at planning; they're idiots.
Gotcha. Taking it one step further: The Tea Party are idiots. Those are the ones who basically forced the shutdown.
But yeah, our dsyfunctional government makes me yearn for George Washington or someone like him. So sick of the political system we have. It's beyond broken.
It was more than enough time to have a thorough review and have a public debate (which is, partly, why I mentioned the summer recess - Congresspeople went home and talked to constituents before voting). Besides the fact that Congresspeople aren't up at 11pm researching stuff on Lexis-Nexis and writing drafts (they have staff for that), the bill was based on a Heritage Foundation plan from the early 1990s and the Massachusetts law and there have been mountains of research done and proposals made in the interim. What was in the PPACA was not a surprise in the least and was passed by a duly-elected Congress, just like Schoolhouse Rock says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
You may not like the law but the idea that it was "shoved down our throats" is just flat-out wrong.
I wish they had shoved it down our throats with a public option.
George Washington? Fucking hell.
The ones in SC are absurd and involve a long wait time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timber
WTF does this even mean? That you'll move to Detroit when America finally socializes health care like every one else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
To the tea party is was shoved down their throats, they didn't vote for this shit. That's why those empty cans are making the most noise right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
yeah, ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
One thing often missed about Medicare and Medicaid is that they are state ran and funded. It isn't a coincidence that the states that fight socialized medicine are also the poorest and the ones that love it, are some of the richest. Rural poor states have had a bad experience with care/cade and that is where they are coming from on a public option. They see it as a train wreck because what they already have is a train wreck. And the inverse is true. Wealthier states have pretty good caid/care so they have no idea why everyone else doesn't want more of it.
The best thing that could be done for medicare and Medicaid is take it out of the hands of the states and let the government fully fund it and work the bullshit out of it. No more dumb poorly paid women in the middle of Ohio filing important claims, but a fully developed well trained center force.
But we won't see that for the same reason we won't see education decoupled from property tax: The rich do not want to help the poor. And they damn well do not want to see their own care be at risk so a poorer area will do better. They'd rather build up self fulfilling nightmares that cause the poor to hate the very thing that would help them.
As long as health and education are coupled to the economic success of an area, things will stay the same. The poor and stupid will remain poor and stupid and the rich will remain rich. And the poor and stupid will see all efforts to help them as a failure because of the plan, and never consider that maybe it isn't the plan, but the implementation and funding.
Medicaid is state run, but funding is split between the federal and state government. It's why every state has different eligibility requirements, coverage, etc. They just need to offer a federally-mandated level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Medicare is not state funded. It is run by the HHS; everyone has the same coverage and eligibility requirements.
Interesting article about political implications of climate change
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt
I wonder how long it will be before people start blowing up power plants and other polluters? Or worse, a major nation takes a stand on this issue and violently bullies the rest?
Stuff like this worries me. It isn't the first time something like this has happened. People want to chock WW2 germany up to the Versailles treaty, but that is only one small part of the equation. We currently think of Germany as a leader of science and production. We've thought of them like that for at least 70-100 years. But that wasn't always the case. Germany used to be another cheap shit country. There was a time when it was the US and UK if you wanted well made things and scientific discovery. The english speaking world was where it was at. Germany eventually decided to change things and they did so in a furious hurry. Their ability to produce skilled craftsmanship and science was some of the best in the world when they were done. But they grew faster than the mind's of their politicians and average people. The average German still thought like primitive village folk. They couldn't really understand things like evolution yet. Their backward and old outlook mutated it into racism and social Darwinism.
They grew too fast, and well, you know how it ended.
We, the industrialized world, are probably in the same place right now. We grew too fast. We've gained too much, too quick. We approach these new problems with our old mindset and can't fully see the problem at hand because most of us don't really understand the science of the world we live in.
And before anyone argues otherwise, here is an easy to watch documentary that backs up my claim that Germany used to make cheap shit.
go to 4:10 for the exact segment. The whole thing is worth watching though. Very very interesting stuff.
Why do you never hear about this? Maybe because war historians tend to ignore the financial and scientific reasons for wars? Or maybe because no one in power wants you to? No one wants you to know that Nazi Germany was partly caused by industry. The pessimistic narrative is that Coca Cola/etc and politicians learned branding and politics from the Nazis. This is untrue. The Nazi's learned it from Peter Behrens when he reinvented AEG in 1907 (the same year the Deutscher Werkbund was established).
The Nazi's didn't taint politics and industry with branding/propaganda. Industry gave it to them.