I understand there are those who have that position. However, that is definitely NOT how Obamacare was 'sold' to the public. And that's important, because Obamacare would have never seen so much as one vote had it been described as "My plan is to replace the system with a single payer system". Obama and his bad plan would have been ridden out of town on a rail if they'd been truthful.I believe the country should be single payer, so not a big deal. My only big problem with the ACA is it didn't go far enough.
Doing something incredibly stupid simply for the sake of it is not a virtue. And telling the government it can do nothing is no vice.We could be getting more for our money. If the ACA starts getting us there? Good. At least something is finally getting done.
I would say that the reason why people wanted health care REFORM is clear. However, why we got stuck with OBAMACARE specifically was deliberately obfuscated. Let us not forget, "we have to pass the law to find out what's in it". The public had no idea of the full ramifications & extent of this law either before or after it was passed. That was on purpose. It is not until now that even the very first hints of what it will do are becoming apparent. And the more people learn, the less they like it.Why we passed the law is pretty clear.
The government must be fought bitterly over amounts far less than that. Government taking control of even 0.001% of the economy is reason for the most strident of objections.The government, through anti-trust laws, regulations, etc, etc... is in control of 100% of the economy already. So an extra 15% doesn't make a big difference.
MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__
a) costs + taxes
b) costs + taxes + markup
Now tell me again, why government in industry is a bad thing.
I recall Kissinger back in '75. "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Yet the ACA is legal and constitutional. If some folks feel like they just got out of a used car dealership? Well then, welcome to the real world. Where have you been hiding?
Last edited by SirRobin; 2013-11-01 at 09:49 PM.
Answer: I'd rather pay C: costs + markup and no taxes.riddle me this, would you rather pay
Well, that's why Cruz & others have been fighting it so strongly, and were willing to shut down the government to give people a break from the mandate. They knew stopping the law before it goes into the public is important. Because eventually those programs become bigger, more wasteful, and far less stable than ever originally envisioned. Obamacare will be no different. It will fail. And with as much as the government takes out of the economy already, another huge failure is going to break the economy. They're well on track for it.Social Security, Food Stamps, and a whole host of other programs had slow starts too.
Except the government was the CAUSE of the financial meltdown by repealing Glass-Stegall.I'll take government regulations any day of the week over another financial meltdown.
Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-11-01 at 09:52 PM.
It is when there is a severe problem that the private sector hasn't fixed (either by inability or unwillingness) for half a century*.And telling the government it can do nothing is no vice.
Yes, by the conservatives who lied about things like death panels and rationing.I would say that the reason why people wanted health care REFORM is clear. However, why we got stuck with OBAMACARE specifically was deliberately obfuscated. The public had no idea of the full ramifications & extent of this law either before or after it was passed. That was on purpose.
That is absolutely insane. A laissez-faire style economy, even will fully rational actors, goes against current economic theory, psychology, game theory, and historical precedent. We had a "hands-off" policy on the economy and the private sector in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It sucked.The government must be fought bitterly over amounts far less than that. Government taking control of even 0.001% of the economy is reason for the most strident of objections.
*This is no exaggeration. Many of the same arguments against the ACA were trotted out in opposition of Harry Truman's plan for health care reform.
Not well.People lived before the federal government told them how they should live.
Last edited by Zython; 2013-11-01 at 09:51 PM.
Good lord it would be nice to get a new Teddy or Franklin. Could you imagine Teddy stomping around with the Sherman Antitrust Act nowadays?
2> I don't think wanting to profit off the suffering of others is something you should be promoting as a good thing. Because that's how you make money, off people's health, in the US. By selling them insurance, and then finding any reason you can not to pay out when they need treatment. Any payout is lost profit. It's in the insurance provider's best interests to deny coverage at any opportunity they can find to do so.
Yes. The era when people had to work 16 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, while unable to make enough money to feed their children, meaning their children had to work.People lived before the federal government told them how they should live.
An era so profitable and strong that it resulted in the Great Depression.
There's a reason the entire Western world shifted to mixed economies in the aftermath; because it became pretty brutally clear, on every level, that that system does not work. Whether from a view to humane working conditions, or for welfare of the economy.
Yes. Yes it has.Yeah, because single payer has been such a failure in the rest of the first world.
Because of government involvement. In the 70s, Kennedy Kare created the whole insurance industry out of whole cloth. Worked out real well, eh? How do we fix that massive failure of government? Why - with an even BIGGER government failure. What else? Oh - yeah - you could get government out of the picture entirely. What a concept.It is when there is a severe problem that the private sector hasn't fixed (either by inability or unwillingness) for half a century*.
There are death panels, and there is rationing. You can't call them lies when its the truth. Neolibs may not like the monikers, but that doesn't change what is in the law.Yes, by the conservatives who lied about things like death panels and rationing.
You can stop there. Shed this false premise you are locked into. Simply because you want to limit government power does not mean what remains is laissez-faire. Returning the federal government to its properly enumerated Constitutionally prescribed role is not laissez-faire.That is absolutely insane. A laissez-faire style economy
Whose being cheap? I'm wanting to give my money to the people that actually deserve it. There is a big difference between giving the government a big wad of undeserved, poorly managed money for doing very little and "helping the nation". It's best to let your national philosophy reflect that.There really isn't much difference between being cheap and being poor. It's best not to let your national philosophy reflect that.
Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-11-01 at 10:20 PM.
There's no such thing as "death panels". And the only "rationing" there is, is the concept called triage. Which is pretty integral to proper care distribution.There are death panels, and there is rationing.
The ACA protects people far better than the prior system. Any decisions being made under the ACA will be made based on the efficacy of treatment, rather than profit. Which is what the system was, before. If "death panels" exist in the ACA, they've always existed, but their principles are far improved under the ACA.
The PPACA forces insurance companies to implement an internal claims appeals process.
This process gives you the opportunity to appeal a denied claim -- something that didn't exist before the law. This is quite literally the opposite of a death panel.
I know reading the bill might be hard for conservatives, but you guys should really give it a try before you continue the whole "death panels" mantra.
And there are consequences for over-paying for stuff you DON'T need - particularly when you hand that money over to a proven liar and cheat like the government. The CBO has already said that America's sky-high health care costs are only going to get worse under Obamacare - and no one knows what the heck Obamacare will do to the deficit. Some projections say it'll help the deficit - while others say it'll make things worse. As I said though, doing something really stupid simply because you think you have to so "something!" isn't smart. It is - in fact - just stupid.Cheapness is reflected in your health care costs and your deficit. Don't be fooled into thinking their aren't consequences to not paying what needs to be paid
And instead give the public a brand new bureaucratic board of appointed, unelected political hacks who will be in charge of denying health care instead. What a bargain (not).This process gives you the opportunity to appeal a denied claim