Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Fire the government
(06-10-2013 04:51 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(06-10-2013 04:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But you are making the case for Government regulation

Yes, although I hate government regulation, I concede that _IF_ the government is going to force you to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation with no way out, _THEN_ there must be government regulation. My biggest issue then is that _IF_ the government get involved, it honors the rule of law (the Constitution) and does it at the state or local level, so that we have lots of competing systems (even if they are state governments), and a relief-valve if the government implements a bad system (people will move out of the state). The only thing I'm 100% against, is breaking the rule of law and having everything done at the Federal level because, then no matter how fucked up it is, we're going to be stuck with it for a very, very long time, if not forever. 90% of private companies fail because they have a bad model. But with government agencies, even ones that have a terrible model, you just can't get rid of them. They just grow and grow like cancer. Even something like HUD, where even left-wing liberals admit it's destroyed opportunities for inner-city kids and the housing projects are breeding grounds for a vicious cycle of crime and drug addition, even these agencies never go away, but just get bigger each year.

Switzerland does it that way. The private insurers are heavily regulated and everyone has to buy insurance.
And the healthcare law is federal.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Fire the government
(06-10-2013 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Switzerland does it that way. The private insurers are heavily regulated and everyone has to buy insurance.
And the healthcare law is federal.

I agree the Swiss system is better than Obamacare because the Swiss figure that if everyone is going to be forced to buy something, it must be delivered without a profit and with oversight. However, the Swiss system actually IS implemented at the canton/state level (only the prices are averaged nationwide) AND there is no physical force (ie jail time) used to enforce compliance (unlike fines from the IRS). The Swiss Federal laws only say that all Swiss must have basic needs met (a place to live, food, health care), but the Federal government doesn't say how to do it. In fact for general welfare, the canton/states don't even get involved--it's pushed to the local community. And it works very, very well. They have a stronger safety net than Sweden, and lower taxes than the US. Nobody is hungry, nobody is poor, nobody is destitute, and they have good upward mobility. Plus, it's a model that could work in the US because (a) it originated in the US, and (b) it works even when the populace is deeply divided and polarized, like both the Swiss and the US are.

External source:

The Swiss health insurance mandate is enforced by the individual Swiss cantons using a comprehensive system of reporting combined with substantial penalties. Cantons are required to establish a mechanism for forcibly insuring those who do not voluntarily obtain coverage within three months of being born in or moving to Switzerland. Enforcement operates through a data match, combining information from unemployment insurance agencies, old-age insurance providers, and health insurance carriers. The match is facilitated by the existence of a single annual open enrollment period.7 This means that at the end of that enrollment period, people’s coverage is fixed for the coming year. Cantons may impose penalties of 30–50 percent above the premium on those who remain uninsured. Misrepresenting health insurance coverage is punishable by fines and prison terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2013, 06:58 PM
RE: Fire the government
[Image: 4B9145355-130924-Reagan-Medicare-Cover-2...medium.jpg]

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/obamacar...4B11241122

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-10-2013, 12:49 AM
RE: Fire the government
(06-10-2013 01:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think it's a false analogy, Frank. Everyone will not need car care. My mom don't have a car but she did need an aortic valve replacement. Virtually everyone will need health care at some point and the uninsured showing up at the ER is not only inefficient, the rest of us end up paying for it. The private sector is still providing the insurance and health care under the ACA, the Government is just regulating it and ensuring that everyone has access to the same coverage. Except for the exceptional cases like yours. The law does fuck you. I think if they opened up the catastrophic coverage option to everyone, not just those under 30 or who can't afford anything else, you could still stick with your current strategy. You could also elect to pay the penalty but given your posts, 2.5% of your income would probably leave an awfully nasty taste in your mouth. I know it would mine.

Virtually everyone needs a hair cut too.....not really. You can go thru life without a hair cut and your can go thru life without healthcare.

The difference is between health care and hair cuts is this. The rest of us don't care if you go thru life without getting a professional hair cut....even if you need one really bad. However we won't allow you to go without professional health care if you need it really bad.

But Obamacare doesn't really address this issue because people can still choose not to purchase healthcare....they can pay the fine instead. They can get in a car wreck, be in a coma for 3 weeks uninsured....you will still be footing the bill for many emergency visits.

This law is a complete joke. It is one thing to be in favor of universal healthcare and another thing to be in favor of a piece of shit law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 08:56 AM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2013 09:02 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Fire the government
(07-10-2013 12:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The difference is between health care and hair cuts is this. The rest of us don't care if you go thru life without getting a professional hair cut....even if you need one really bad. However we won't allow you to go without professional health care if you need it really bad.

First, as I mentioned in the prior post, 'emergency-only' insurance, which eliminates any threat to society by covering unexpected emergencies (but not routine care), used to be very affordable. Around $50/month. Now those policies are illegal, and the only policies insurance companies can offer are 'full health management' which cost about 5x more. So regarding the moral hazard to society by a patient being able to get care and not pay for it, Obamacare is making the problem much, much worse by eliminating any practical, affordable way to eliminate the moral hazard. If the Democrats were concerned about society bearing the burden for the uninsured, then they should have mandated everyone get that $50/month 'emergency-only' insurance--not made the insurance illegal!

Second, if (for whatever reason) I decide I do NOT want professional health care, I do not see why someone else has the right to force me to get professional health care against my will. It is my body, right? I agree there's a moral hazard because hospitals have to provide care regardless of my ability to pay. So, imo, I should be allowed to waive that provision, putting myself on a 'no health care' list, and then opt-out of the system.

On abortion, how can Democrats possibly say they "support a woman's right to choose", and say "it's her body, it's her right to pick what medical procedures she wants"... But then if the woman says "Ok, my choice is to go au natural and forego all professional health care", the Democrats respond "Sorry, that's not an acceptable choice. We need to prevent you from making a bad decision." Isn't that the same justification pro-lifers use? The 'pro-choice' people are a fraud, imo, because they do NOT support a woman's right to choose. They, like the conservatives, limit us to picking from one of their 'approved choices'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
08-10-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 10:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The ACA cost us a lot of our liberty.

That could be true. People who buy into the crazy of theism don't have much liberty. Even though the ACA probably cost you nothing, it might have taken away a tiny fraction of what tiny fraction of liberty you do actually have.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: Fire the government
(08-10-2013 03:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Even though the ACA probably cost you nothing, it might have taken away a tiny fraction of what tiny fraction of liberty you do actually have.

@Bucky Ball, I already gave my personal example. The ACA forces me to (a) give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care, (b) give up the $1 million that I would have been able to pass on to my kids when I'm hold because my current health plan is so affordable and the difference is invested into a HSA, © give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US, and (d) make it harder to live in another country, like Canada, because if I do, I will have to pay for BOTH the Canadian health system AND Obama's health system even though I will never use the latter.

You seriously consider those "tiny fraction of liberties"??? If in the future I have a child that needs a life-saving procedure in, say, Germany, or any procedure that Obama's health insurance companies won't cover (which is A LOT), it may cost my child's life. This is a "tiny" issue in your opinion?

Also, I challenge to come up with ONE instance in this country's history where people have been ordered to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation that they may not want, need or use, with no way to get out of it because you're forced to do it merely because you exist, not because of anything you do (like drive)? If you can't come up with one other example, then will you concede Obamacare really is unprecedented?

P.S. Obamacare is nothing like social security or medicaid, since those are government programs and voters decide how they're implemented. Very different then sending money to a for-profit corporation that may use the money to pay for their CEO's private jet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 05:41 PM
RE: Fire the government
You bring up some reasonable objections Frank but:

(08-10-2013 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  (a) give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care,
Nope. Nothing stopping you from going to Mexico to the Doctors you pay for out of pocket now anyway.

(08-10-2013 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  (b) give up the $1 million that I would have been able to pass on to my kids when I'm hold because my current health plan is so affordable and the difference is invested into a HSA,
Not according to Forbes.

(08-10-2013 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  © give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US,
Nope. Like a) nothing stopping you from going to India to get your treatment.

(08-10-2013 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  (d) make it harder to live in another country, like Canada, because if I do, I will have to pay for BOTH the Canadian health system AND Obama's health system even though I will never use the latter.
Don't think so. Pretty sure if you renounce your citizenship and live and work outside the US you ain't subject to the ACA.

(08-10-2013 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you can't come up with one other example, then will you concede Obamacare really is unprecedented?
The Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate a tax. Plenty of precedence for taxes.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-10-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Fire the government
@Girlyman,

Please clarify.

Quote:Nope. Nothing stopping you from going to Mexico to the Doctors you pay for out of pocket now anyway.

You're assuming I have an unlimited stash of money. I don't have a printing press to just print money. Right now I set aside $1k/month for 'health care' that goes into an investment account (HSA) and is used to pay for my family's medical expenses in Mexico. If I have to give that $1k/month to Blue Cross, how am I ALSO going to spend it at my clinic in Mexico?

Further, to appease the drug lobbyists, Obama also tightened the rules on bringing prescription medicine over the border, so that even with a prescription from a Mexican doctor, it's still illegal to transport it. So please explain how I get passed this.

Quote:Not according to Forbes

The $1 million in my HSA grows because I put the $1k/month for 'health care' into it. If I am forced to give it to Blue Cross instead, how am I ALSO going to invest it in an HSA? I can't afford to spend $1k/month on Blue Cross _AND_ another $1k/month on the HSA.

Quote:Nope. Like a) nothing stopping you from going to India to get your treatment.

See first item.

Quote:Don't think so. Pretty sure if you renounce your citizenship and live and work outside the US you ain't subject to the ACA.

If I get a residence permit to live and work in Canada, it will take many years before Canada makes me a citizen (up to 10 years). How am I going to renounce my US citizenship if I don't yet have Canadian citizenship? That would leave me stateless, as a refugee, and (a) the US probably wouldn't allow it, and (b) Canada probably wouldn't let me stay as a refugee either. And during those 10 years or so it takes to get Canadian citizenship, how am I supposed to handle paying for taxes and health care to BOTH the US and Canada?

All your answers assume I can just print an unlimited quantity of money.

Quote:The Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate a tax. Plenty of precedence for taxes

The tax only applies _IF_ you fail to send money to a private, for-profit corporation to buy a service you may not want or need. When have you ever seen a tax like this before? What if the Republicans got a law passed that every American had to buy telephone service from AT&T, or else pay a tax? Would you still be defending the law and saying it's nothing new and there's plenty of precedence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 06:39 PM
RE: Fire the government
@Bucky Ball,

I keep hearing the argument that Obamacare is not taking away our liberty because most people have health insurance anyway (70%), so it's just mandating that people do what most of them do already.

But if that logic is valid, how about we apply it to religion? About the same percent of people who have health insurance also identify as Christian. So a law that mandates everyone must be Christian is not denying our liberty because it's just mandating that people do what most of them do already. Do you agree?

To me, Obamacare strips everyone of their liberty, INCLUDING those people who already buy health insurance, because it removes their choice, it deprives them of their exercise of free will. In the same way, a law that mandates everyone be Christian also strips everyone of their liberty, including Christians, because then they have no choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: