#251 · Feb 06, 2011 00:02 UTC
If you didn't need the gift would you be fine with not getting compensated for it in some other way?
#252 · Feb 06, 2011 01:42 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 05, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/225#239 date=1296942082][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/225#238 date=1296942003]This particular case of healthcare, is different.
Why do you think courts are ruling it unconstitutional? It's because of this force you to purchase a product thing and the penalties your forced to pay if you don't make the purchase.
Have all the courts ruled it unconstitutional?
So far, 26 states have filed suit against the federal government to stop Obamacare.
I wonder what states they are - I am sure it would be a real random collection. ;D
It is politics - they can't derail the law as there is no basis to the argument constitutionally to it's uniqueness.
If they lost the argument in a constitutional court so many other areas would unravel
And car insurance is only one of the obvious ones.
#253 · Feb 06, 2011 02:48 UTC
BINGEWOOD — Feb 06, 2011If you didn't need the gift would you be fine with not getting compensated for it in some other way?
It's not a gift. And yes I would. We negotiated my salary without consideration of healthcare. It's a benefit, just like 2 weeks vacation. They don't have to do it. I got a very good raise at the end of my first year. They didn't have to do that either. It's a separate issue that your trying to tie in with healthcare for some reason. Doing a poor job of it too, by the way.
#254 · Feb 06, 2011 02:54 UTC
Well, if you haven't seen yourself as directly paying in to the healthcare ins system I can see where none of the issues the law addresses would be high on your priority list...just don't cry about your rates going up as "free" has no inflation.
And yer boss has a damn fine employee.
And yer boss has a damn fine employee.
#255 · Feb 06, 2011 03:12 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/225#242 date=1296942825][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/225#239 date=1296942082][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/225#238 date=1296942003]This particular case of healthcare, is different.
Why do you think courts are ruling it unconstitutional? It's because of this force you to purchase a product thing and the penalties your forced to pay if you don't make the purchase.
Have all the courts ruled it unconstitutional?
So far, 26 states have filed suit against the federal government to stop Obamacare.
I wonder what states they are - I am sure it would be a real random collection. ;D
It is politics - they can't derail the law as there is no basis to the argument constitutionally to it's uniqueness.
If they lost the argument in a constitutional court so many other areas would unravel
And car insurance is only one of the obvious ones.
Look Fingers. The car insurance argument just doesn't fly. Here's why.
First, you don't have to drive, period. You could take a cab, a bus, subway, etc. Longer trip, take a train, bus, or fly. Some people in new york don't even own a car. The government, or states, don't force you to have car insurance if you don't need it, or want it.
Second. If I go buy a car and finance it, I haven't actually bought it yet. I'm paying monthly payments on it. If I wreck the car and have no insurance, the car company loses money. They have to have a way to protect themselves, the car company, from loses. Otherwise you'd have to pay in full at the time of purchase. That's collision insurance. Now, if the cars paid for, it's completely different. then your required to carry liability insurance on the car. Liability insurance isn't for you, it's to cover the damages to others if you have a wreck. So that requirement really is for someone else. If you total your car and only have liability insurance, your out a car and your insurance will fix the car you hit. The other persons car. So part of car insurance isn't forced, it's optional depending on whether you own the car or not. And medical expenses are included within the car insurance.
So the healthcare thing is way different than car insurance. Get it?
#256 · Feb 06, 2011 03:14 UTC
BINGEWOOD — Feb 06, 2011Well, if you haven't seen yourself as directly paying in to the healthcare ins system I can see where none of the issues the law addresses would be high on your priority list...just don't cry about your rates going up as "free" has no inflation.
And yer boss has a damn fine employee.
Thanks.
#257 · Feb 06, 2011 03:34 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#251 date=1296956527][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/225#242 date=1296942825][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/225#239 date=1296942082][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/225#238 date=1296942003]This particular case of healthcare, is different.
Why do you think courts are ruling it unconstitutional? It's because of this force you to purchase a product thing and the penalties your forced to pay if you don't make the purchase.
Have all the courts ruled it unconstitutional?
So far, 26 states have filed suit against the federal government to stop Obamacare.
I wonder what states they are - I am sure it would be a real random collection. ;D
It is politics - they can't derail the law as there is no basis to the argument constitutionally to it's uniqueness.
If they lost the argument in a constitutional court so many other areas would unravel
And car insurance is only one of the obvious ones.
Look Fingers. The car insurance argument just doesn't fly. Here's why.
First, you don't have to drive, period. You could take a cab, a bus, subway, etc. Longer trip, take a train, bus, or fly. Some people in new york don't even own a car. The government, or states, don't force you to have car insurance if you don't need it, or want it.
Second. If I go buy a car and finance it, I haven't actually bought it yet. I'm paying monthly payments on it. If I wreck the car and have no insurance, the car company loses money. They have to have a way to protect themselves, the car company, from loses. Otherwise you'd have to pay in full at the time of purchase. That's collision insurance. Now, if the cars paid for, it's completely different. then your required to carry liability insurance on the car. Liability insurance isn't for you, it's to cover the damages to others if you have a wreck. So that requirement really is for someone else. If you total your car and only have liability insurance, your out a car and your insurance will fix the car you hit. The other persons car. So part of car insurance isn't forced, it's optional depending on whether you own the car or not. And medical expenses are included within the car insurance.
So the healthcare thing is way different than car insurance. Get it?
You are required to carry insurance
Under what constitutional principle?
Seeing as you are now acting as an expert witness you could elaborate please ;D
#258 · Feb 06, 2011 03:48 UTC
Btw that car you bought the dealer gave you insurance as part of the deal and you paid for it as you payed it off - if you paid cash you would knock that off the price - if you had any savvy.
It's exactly the same as your deal with your employer - just a deal.
It's exactly the same as your deal with your employer - just a deal.
#259 · Feb 06, 2011 08:29 UTC
Hmm... With the Government in charge of healthcare, you'll get something like what happened to this traffic light...
As the Clash would say, "Should I stay or should I go now???" ;)
As the Clash would say, "Should I stay or should I go now???" ;)
#260 · Feb 06, 2011 14:24 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011Btw that car you bought the dealer gave you insurance as part of the deal and you paid for it as you payed it off - if you paid cash you would knock that off the price - if you had any savvy.
It's exactly the same as your deal with your employer - just a deal.
::)
Amazing how logic just fly's out the window sometimes. Isn't it?
#261 · Feb 06, 2011 17:11 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 05, 2011This particular case of healthcare, is different.
Why do you think courts are ruling it unconstitutional? It's because of this force you to purchase a product thing and the penalties your forced to pay if you don't make the purchase.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/01/31/182792.htm
And why are all the judges who've ruled it unconstitutional Republicans?
#262 · Feb 06, 2011 19:56 UTC
Even Obama, when he was a senator, objected to the mandate. Now he's for it. Is he good friends of Kerrys? Mr. Flip flop jr.? Here's a little piece of the ruling from the florida judge.
"One of Vinsons key findings was that while the individual mandate was clearly necessary and essential to the law as drafted, it was not necessary and essential to health care reform in general. And he used then-Senator Obamas own words in his explanation. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at the time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody by a house, Vinson wrote."
Now way more time is gonna be wasted on healthcare. That's the concern. All the problems we have and we're spending shit loads of time fighting about a half ass healthcare law. Why can't they eliminate the mandate and move the fuck on? We can address that later. We have more important issues on the table right now.
"One of Vinsons key findings was that while the individual mandate was clearly necessary and essential to the law as drafted, it was not necessary and essential to health care reform in general. And he used then-Senator Obamas own words in his explanation. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at the time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody by a house, Vinson wrote."
Now way more time is gonna be wasted on healthcare. That's the concern. All the problems we have and we're spending shit loads of time fighting about a half ass healthcare law. Why can't they eliminate the mandate and move the fuck on? We can address that later. We have more important issues on the table right now.
#263 · Feb 06, 2011 20:19 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#257 date=1296964094]Btw that car you bought the dealer gave you insurance as part of the deal and you paid for it as you payed it off - if you paid cash you would knock that off the price - if you had any savvy.
It's exactly the same as your deal with your employer - just a deal.
::)
Amazing how logic just fly's out the window sometimes. Isn't it?
It is with you and it isn't sometimes with you either.
US laws stipulate that you must be covered a minimum level of insurance when driving a car.
The fact that some people don't drive
or some people drive without insurance illegally and get fined when caught,
or it varies by state,
or it is bought for you by someone else as part of a deal
or you are driving a UPS van and covered by a UPS bond
Is irrelevant to the principle - The government already has the power to force you to have insurance by law - whether you buy it yourself personally or have it bought for you.
This is a power you challenged as being unconstitutional.
Should teh government have this power you say.
Well dumbo - it already has. ::) :P
#264 · Feb 06, 2011 20:41 UTC
But there is a choice with car insurance. You can choose public transportation and not have to purchase car insurance. Your not afforded that option with healthcare. You have no choice in the matter. The government is acting like a communist dictator.
I understand your argument, but your not considering the fact that choices can be made to avoid paying for car insurance. Especially if you can't afford it. And the minimum insurance requirement is to protect other people in the case of an accident, not necessarily yourself. I'm speaking of liability insurance. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. States own the roads. They make the rules. To avoid following the rules, or avoid the rules altogether, simply don't drive. Take public transportation.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Mandatory_health_insurance_not_analogous_to_car_insurance
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=13007&posts=1
I understand your argument, but your not considering the fact that choices can be made to avoid paying for car insurance. Especially if you can't afford it. And the minimum insurance requirement is to protect other people in the case of an accident, not necessarily yourself. I'm speaking of liability insurance. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. States own the roads. They make the rules. To avoid following the rules, or avoid the rules altogether, simply don't drive. Take public transportation.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Mandatory_health_insurance_not_analogous_to_car_insurance
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=13007&posts=1
#265 · Feb 06, 2011 21:10 UTC
Do you not think that health care insurance has an element of liability insurance to it ?
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
#266 · Feb 06, 2011 21:51 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011Do you not think that health care insurance has an element of liability insurance to it ?
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
Governments pick up 85% of the uninsured tab, not tax payers. The arguments in the articles are very good ones, regardless of who made them. And the uninsured pay 25% of their healthcare cost. And when you get down to it, this mandate is kinda useless in the big scope of things.
#267 · Feb 06, 2011 22:12 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011Do you not think that health care insurance has an element of liability insurance to it ?
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
There is a unique feature to it. It's forced by federal government and penalized through taxation by the federal government. Nothing else is handled this way, not car insurance or anything else.
#268 · Feb 06, 2011 22:15 UTC
BINGEWOOD — Feb 05, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/225#241 date=1296942502]
Would the gov force you to buy anything under the mandate?
#269 · Feb 06, 2011 22:16 UTC
BINGEWOOD — Feb 03, 2011Why do you think the mandate is in there?
#270 · Feb 06, 2011 22:24 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 06, 2011Governments pick up 85% of the uninsured tab, not tax payers.
You're joking right ?
#271 · Feb 06, 2011 22:25 UTC
I hope so.
#272 · Feb 06, 2011 22:26 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#264 date=1297026645]Do you not think that health care insurance has an element of liability insurance to it ?
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
There is a unique feature to it. It's forced by federal government and penalized through taxation by the federal government. Nothing else is handled this way, not car insurance or anything else.
Not even taxation ?
#273 · Feb 07, 2011 00:09 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/250#265 date=1297029094]Governments pick up 85% of the uninsured tab, not tax payers.
You're joking right ?
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf
#274 · Feb 07, 2011 00:09 UTC
fingers — Feb 06, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/250#266 date=1297030345][quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#264 date=1297026645]Do you not think that health care insurance has an element of liability insurance to it ?
Who picks up the bill in the event someone doesn't have it and can't afford to pay for treatment when they get sick ?
Someone else - the tax payer.
Sure it is inescapable, but the govenment also has other powers that are inescapable legally - like taxation.
For it to be unconstitutional there would have to be some unique feature to it and there isn't.
Those links are extreme right wing bullshit - even uses the fucking death panels argument in the second one.
totally ignorant of other systems around the world.
The only developed world system based based on death panels is in the US -
you only get what you or your insurers will pay up on - not what you need.
There is a unique feature to it. It's forced by federal government and penalized through taxation by the federal government. Nothing else is handled this way, not car insurance or anything else.
Not even taxation ?
Nope
#275 · Feb 07, 2011 01:06 UTC
Ladies n gentlemen
Logic has left the building - can you all go home now.
;D
Logic has left the building - can you all go home now.
;D
#276 · Feb 07, 2011 01:26 UTC
LONG LIVE LOGISTICS!!!!!!!!
#277 · Feb 07, 2011 03:15 UTC
;D ;D ;D
I thought Fingers would really like those charts. Even appreciate them a tad. ;D ;D
Guess not.
I thought Fingers would really like those charts. Even appreciate them a tad. ;D ;D
Guess not.
#278 · Feb 07, 2011 08:18 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 07, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#269 date=1297031063][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/250#265 date=1297029094]Governments pick up 85% of the uninsured tab, not tax payers.
You're joking right ?
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf
Yeah, and the cool thing is that 85% that the government pays DOESN'T COME FROM TAXPAYERS. It comes from the magical pot at the end of the rainbow that the government stores magical, self-refreshing money in.
If you haven't realized the fallacy of your logic yet, I assume you will soon.
#279 · Feb 07, 2011 08:21 UTC
Okay, here's what we should do.
Eliminate the mandate.
Then, since sick people and people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance, but overall the pool of money doesn't get any bigger, insurance becomes much more expensive. Then, all of us who have insurance and aren't sick can just drop out, and stop paying for it. And then, when we get sick, in Hook's alternate universe, we can all just go get free care that's waiting out there for us. Since there's no health insurance problem or crisis for the uninsured.
Sounds super easy. I wonder what the catch is?
Eliminate the mandate.
Then, since sick people and people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance, but overall the pool of money doesn't get any bigger, insurance becomes much more expensive. Then, all of us who have insurance and aren't sick can just drop out, and stop paying for it. And then, when we get sick, in Hook's alternate universe, we can all just go get free care that's waiting out there for us. Since there's no health insurance problem or crisis for the uninsured.
Sounds super easy. I wonder what the catch is?
#280 · Feb 08, 2011 00:53 UTC
charger — Feb 07, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/250#272 date=1297037343][quote author=fingers link=1293587654/250#269 date=1297031063][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/250#265 date=1297029094]Governments pick up 85% of the uninsured tab, not tax payers.
You're joking right ?
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf
Yeah, and the cool thing is that 85% that the government pays DOESN'T COME FROM TAXPAYERS. It comes from the magical pot at the end of the rainbow that the government stores magical, self-refreshing money in.
If you haven't realized the fallacy of your logic yet, I assume you will soon.
You really can't take humor well.
#281 · Feb 08, 2011 01:03 UTC
charger — Feb 07, 2011Okay, here's what we should do.
Eliminate the mandate.
Then, since sick people and people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance, but overall the pool of money doesn't get any bigger, insurance becomes much more expensive. Then, all of us who have insurance and aren't sick can just drop out, and stop paying for it. And then, when we get sick, in Hook's alternate universe, we can all just go get free care that's waiting out there for us. Since there's no health insurance problem or crisis for the uninsured.
Sounds super easy. I wonder what the catch is?
Or hey, we could do as Charger wants and just force everyone in the world to pay in to the U.S. healthcare plan. Yep, fucking Russia too. Then we can just watch the cash flow in and hell, it will be way cheaper....trust me. I'm the government. When have I ever mislead you? And to get even more money, for those of you who can't afford insurance, well fuck you. I'll penalize you. I'll take your damn tax returns for some extra spending money. That'll teach you. And to take it a another step, I don't like people being homeless. It's not their fault. So, everyone will now be forced to buy a home. If you don't, I'll penalize your ass. And all children deserve parents. So all couples who have their own children before adopting a child, guess what, they'll get their ass penalized as well. Government can fix stuff by God. And we will.
#282 · Feb 08, 2011 21:29 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 08, 2011[quote author=charger link=1293587654/275#278 date=1297066883]Okay, here's what we should do.
Eliminate the mandate.
Then, since sick people and people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance, but overall the pool of money doesn't get any bigger, insurance becomes much more expensive. Then, all of us who have insurance and aren't sick can just drop out, and stop paying for it. And then, when we get sick, in Hook's alternate universe, we can all just go get free care that's waiting out there for us. Since there's no health insurance problem or crisis for the uninsured.
Sounds super easy. I wonder what the catch is?
Or hey, we could do as Charger wants and just force everyone in the world to pay in to the U.S. healthcare plan. Yep, fucking Russia too. Then we can just watch the cash flow in and hell, it will be way cheaper....trust me. I'm the government. When have I ever mislead you? And to get even more money, for those of you who can't afford insurance, well fuck you. I'll penalize you. I'll take your damn tax returns for some extra spending money. That'll teach you. And to take it a another step, I don't like people being homeless. It's not their fault. So, everyone will now be forced to buy a home. If you don't, I'll penalize your ass. And all children deserve parents. So all couples who have their own children before adopting a child, guess what, they'll get their ass penalized as well. Government can fix stuff by God. And we will.
You have no solution, do you? You think that the healthcare system was working fine.
Thanks for playing.
#283 · Feb 09, 2011 00:02 UTC
If the healthcare bill is rejected as being unconstitutional it would be interesting.
The implications of that ruling could affect many things that are taken for granted.
If the constitution rejects health insurance on principle.
but can tax you,
Force insurance on your other activities.
Draught you in to the military
Make you subject to a legal system where they are allowed to legally kill you.
You could be black and be a slave without a vote.
I will be interested in where the "constitutional" line is drawn on it and under what principle that makes it unique and tidy to call.
For that reason I say (as I originally said) that the constitution argument is null and void.
The only ones interested in interpreting this way are republicans - but being conservative they wil shy away from the implications.
The right to not have gov tell you to have health insurance is the same as the right not to report to a draught.
Maybe it is right to reject all these powers of gov.
But you can't select the situation of application in constitutional calls.
So I predict that it won't be found unconstitutional and the whole thing is a red herring
Republicans plan on reversing it at the firts opportunity - they are just hoping that people don't get to like and support it before they get their chance
The implications of that ruling could affect many things that are taken for granted.
If the constitution rejects health insurance on principle.
but can tax you,
Force insurance on your other activities.
Draught you in to the military
Make you subject to a legal system where they are allowed to legally kill you.
You could be black and be a slave without a vote.
I will be interested in where the "constitutional" line is drawn on it and under what principle that makes it unique and tidy to call.
For that reason I say (as I originally said) that the constitution argument is null and void.
The only ones interested in interpreting this way are republicans - but being conservative they wil shy away from the implications.
The right to not have gov tell you to have health insurance is the same as the right not to report to a draught.
Maybe it is right to reject all these powers of gov.
But you can't select the situation of application in constitutional calls.
So I predict that it won't be found unconstitutional and the whole thing is a red herring
Republicans plan on reversing it at the firts opportunity - they are just hoping that people don't get to like and support it before they get their chance
#284 · Feb 09, 2011 00:56 UTC
Yeah Charger I do have a solution. Leave it alone until it can be fixed with a sensible solution.
Even Obama didn't want the mandate in the bill to start with. Your own personal Jesus doesn't have a solution.
Even Obama didn't want the mandate in the bill to start with. Your own personal Jesus doesn't have a solution.
#285 · Feb 09, 2011 01:02 UTC
The problem is the governments powers and the size of government is increasing. That's not what this country is about.
#286 · Feb 09, 2011 01:23 UTC
LONG LIVE (empty) TALKING POINT REGURGITATION!!!!!
#287 · Feb 09, 2011 02:08 UTC
and your solution is what? Weird sayings and strange spelling?
It's pitiful that you can take the first half ass idea that comes along and just because it's a democratic idea attempt to defend it to the end no matter what. Call a spade a spade man. This healthcare thing was done at the worst time it could have been done, took way to long, and is still a half baked scheme at best. Yeah, it's got one or two good things in it. But those few things that are clearly good about the healthcare law could have been done in a week without any controversy at all.
It's pitiful that you can take the first half ass idea that comes along and just because it's a democratic idea attempt to defend it to the end no matter what. Call a spade a spade man. This healthcare thing was done at the worst time it could have been done, took way to long, and is still a half baked scheme at best. Yeah, it's got one or two good things in it. But those few things that are clearly good about the healthcare law could have been done in a week without any controversy at all.
#288 · Feb 09, 2011 06:58 UTC
Which parts do you think are good and which do you think are bad?
#289 · Feb 09, 2011 13:43 UTC
Hook wants them to leave in the part where the government
pays for the uninsured not the tax payer.
pays for the uninsured not the tax payer.
#290 · Feb 09, 2011 19:36 UTC
You have a problem requiring people to get insurance, but you don't have a problem requiring hospitals to treat people who don't have insurance. I see it as a choice between one or the other, if we are truly trying to reduce the deficit. Either we make people have the means to cover their care, or we tell hospitals that they need not treat people without the means.
You call this the first half-assed idea that comes along, I can only assume you never took a US Government class in high school.
Presidents have been trying to pass health reform legislation in ANY form since 1912. National health insurance was a key campaign issue for Teddy Roosevelt. This is not new, or the first, or half-assed. This is the best of all the compromises available. No, it's not a public option, or single-payer, or national health insurance. But it does solve the problem of sick people not getting care, and it does solve the problem of you and me paying for the people who don't get health insurance and then do go get expensive care when they get sick.
You call this the first half-assed idea that comes along, I can only assume you never took a US Government class in high school.
Presidents have been trying to pass health reform legislation in ANY form since 1912. National health insurance was a key campaign issue for Teddy Roosevelt. This is not new, or the first, or half-assed. This is the best of all the compromises available. No, it's not a public option, or single-payer, or national health insurance. But it does solve the problem of sick people not getting care, and it does solve the problem of you and me paying for the people who don't get health insurance and then do go get expensive care when they get sick.
#291 · Feb 09, 2011 23:50 UTC
Widening this debate beyond the parochial borders of the US and this bill.
There is a big problem with healthcare building up on all countries with aging populations - i.e the west and japan.
The hope is that technology develops over time to compensate for it.
Which it will.
But it also means sorting out the economics of it all.
how it was paid for as the past will no longer work in 20 years as the system will get flooded with uninsured dying elders.
Who are by far the most expensive patients of them all.
Sorting this stuff out now is not something that could be done later - it should have been done years ago - there is always a reason why it never gets done.
Avoiding it just means setting things up for a huge financial crisis that will make the last one seem small fry, down the road in 15 - 20 years.
Obama will likely be both hailed in 20 years time for breaking the dam and pushing reform through
and also criticised for the limited ambition of the reform as seen from the 20/20 perspective of the future.
As by then, further reforms with have come in a regular basis from both parties to deal with a real unfolding crisis arond healthcare - both in terms of health and economics.
Some bitter choices will have to be made about costs.
There is a big problem with healthcare building up on all countries with aging populations - i.e the west and japan.
The hope is that technology develops over time to compensate for it.
Which it will.
But it also means sorting out the economics of it all.
how it was paid for as the past will no longer work in 20 years as the system will get flooded with uninsured dying elders.
Who are by far the most expensive patients of them all.
Sorting this stuff out now is not something that could be done later - it should have been done years ago - there is always a reason why it never gets done.
Avoiding it just means setting things up for a huge financial crisis that will make the last one seem small fry, down the road in 15 - 20 years.
Obama will likely be both hailed in 20 years time for breaking the dam and pushing reform through
and also criticised for the limited ambition of the reform as seen from the 20/20 perspective of the future.
As by then, further reforms with have come in a regular basis from both parties to deal with a real unfolding crisis arond healthcare - both in terms of health and economics.
Some bitter choices will have to be made about costs.
#292 · Feb 10, 2011 02:57 UTC
True 'dat. Hopefully, for us, this a first step where people are at least looking at the problems a lil more.
#293 · Feb 10, 2011 12:45 UTC
charger — Feb 09, 2011You have a problem requiring people to get insurance, but you don't have a problem requiring hospitals to treat people who don't have insurance. I see it as a choice between one or the other, if we are truly trying to reduce the deficit. Either we make people have the means to cover their care, or we tell hospitals that they need not treat people without the means.
You call this the first half-assed idea that comes along, I can only assume you never took a US Government class in high school.
Presidents have been trying to pass health reform legislation in ANY form since 1912. National health insurance was a key campaign issue for Teddy Roosevelt. This is not new, or the first, or half-assed. This is the best of all the compromises available. No, it's not a public option, or single-payer, or national health insurance. But it does solve the problem of sick people not getting care, and it does solve the problem of you and me paying for the people who don't get health insurance and then do go get expensive care when they get sick.
You don't know if I have a problem or not with hospitals being required to treat the uninsured because I've never said anything about that.
You have a problem with speculation and assumptions which have no place in our discussions.
I don't care what other Presidents talked about. I care that this is a half ass rushed through bunch of shit that only has a few decent ideas in it. It still leaves a big number of people unhelped and uninsured. It's not a complete package, which is what we needed.
#294 · Feb 10, 2011 12:47 UTC
fingers — Feb 09, 2011Hook wants them to leave in the part where the government
pays for the uninsured not the tax payer.
That bothers you doesn't it. ;D ;D
#295 · Feb 10, 2011 18:42 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 10, 2011[quote author=charger link=1293587654/275#289 date=1297280170]You have a problem requiring people to get insurance, but you don't have a problem requiring hospitals to treat people who don't have insurance. I see it as a choice between one or the other, if we are truly trying to reduce the deficit. Either we make people have the means to cover their care, or we tell hospitals that they need not treat people without the means.
You call this the first half-assed idea that comes along, I can only assume you never took a US Government class in high school.
Presidents have been trying to pass health reform legislation in ANY form since 1912. National health insurance was a key campaign issue for Teddy Roosevelt. This is not new, or the first, or half-assed. This is the best of all the compromises available. No, it's not a public option, or single-payer, or national health insurance. But it does solve the problem of sick people not getting care, and it does solve the problem of you and me paying for the people who don't get health insurance and then do go get expensive care when they get sick.
You don't know if I have a problem or not with hospitals being required to treat the uninsured because I've never said anything about that.
You have a problem with speculation and assumptions which have no place in our discussions.
I don't care what other Presidents talked about. I care that this is a half ass rushed through bunch of shit that only has a few decent ideas in it. It still leaves a big number of people unhelped and uninsured. It's not a complete package, which is what we needed.
You said, in an earlier post, that the uninsured already get healthcare. That implies that you are okay with the way it worked.
#296 · Feb 10, 2011 18:45 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 10, 2011 It's not a complete package, which is what we needed.
Yep. Thanks, conservatives! The public option was removed to get Republican, and conservative Democrat votes. Didn't work.
However, you look at it in such an odd way. As if passing something that is not perfect is a huge loss for the country.
There has never been, and will never be, a perfect bill passed. Everything is fixable, tweakable, and subject to the courts. Everything. Remember when 55 MPH was the speed limit? Cars got better and safer at higher speeds, seat belt and safety technology improved, now the speed limit in some places is 75.
#297 · Feb 11, 2011 00:26 UTC
Hookbender — Feb 09, 2011and your solution is what? Weird sayings and strange spelling?
It's pitiful that you can take the first half ass idea that comes along and just because it's a democratic idea attempt to defend it to the end no matter what. Call a spade a spade man. This healthcare thing was done at the worst time it could have been done, took way to long, and is still a half baked scheme at best. Yeah, it's got one or two good things in it. But those few things that are clearly good about the healthcare law could have been done in a week without any controversy at all.
Man that was forensic, you have me convinced.
When I read this
But those few things that are clearly good about the healthcare law could have been done in a week without any controversy at all.
It just blew my mind, never had I seen such a statement of incisive and accurate critique.
The good stuff could have been done in a few weeks, Obama has a lot to answer for putting in all the bad stuff.
I am with you Hook - we have to stand for good stuff being done - there is too much of the other.
Too much focus on detail as well - what do you need to know -
good stuff > bad stuff.
It is simple even math says so.
I like the joke of playing the thicko as well - all these libertards squirming trying to explain things in complex ways that just don't matter.
It's funny - Just stay thick and politically engaged.
#298 · Feb 11, 2011 02:00 UTC
charger — Feb 10, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/275#292 date=1297341953][quote author=charger link=1293587654/275#289 date=1297280170]You have a problem requiring people to get insurance, but you don't have a problem requiring hospitals to treat people who don't have insurance. I see it as a choice between one or the other, if we are truly trying to reduce the deficit. Either we make people have the means to cover their care, or we tell hospitals that they need not treat people without the means.
You call this the first half-assed idea that comes along, I can only assume you never took a US Government class in high school.
Presidents have been trying to pass health reform legislation in ANY form since 1912. National health insurance was a key campaign issue for Teddy Roosevelt. This is not new, or the first, or half-assed. This is the best of all the compromises available. No, it's not a public option, or single-payer, or national health insurance. But it does solve the problem of sick people not getting care, and it does solve the problem of you and me paying for the people who don't get health insurance and then do go get expensive care when they get sick.
You don't know if I have a problem or not with hospitals being required to treat the uninsured because I've never said anything about that.
You have a problem with speculation and assumptions which have no place in our discussions.
I don't care what other Presidents talked about. I care that this is a half ass rushed through bunch of shit that only has a few decent ideas in it. It still leaves a big number of people unhelped and uninsured. It's not a complete package, which is what we needed.
You said, in an earlier post, that the uninsured already get healthcare. That implies that you are okay with the way it worked.
Uninsured do get healthcare. But that says nothing about my opinion of that method of healthcare. That doesn't imply anything remotely close to your assumption. It's a fact, not an opinion.
#299 · Feb 11, 2011 02:03 UTC
charger — Feb 10, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/275#292 date=1297341953] It's not a complete package, which is what we needed.
Yep. Thanks, conservatives! The public option was removed to get Republican, and conservative Democrat votes. Didn't work.
However, you look at it in such an odd way. As if passing something that is not perfect is a huge loss for the country.
There has never been, and will never be, a perfect bill passed. Everything is fixable, tweakable, and subject to the courts. Everything. Remember when 55 MPH was the speed limit? Cars got better and safer at higher speeds, seat belt and safety technology improved, now the speed limit in some places is 75.
The healthcare law's goal was to insure everyone. It fell short of that. Obama's goal was not to have a mandate that forced people to pay and impose penalties if they didn't. Failure again.
#300 · Feb 11, 2011 02:05 UTC
Fingers. Do you still feel your just like me? :D