1. #2101
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,636
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    What other aspects of your life do you need the government to regulate?
    Well water quality would be nice. Building codes, power grids, anti-trust, all sorts of things.

  2. #2102
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    If you wish to make another thread about that, go ahead. Not going to derail this one. I believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the life and health of the people.
    Our government has to protect us from foreign enemies, criminals, and natural disasters if it can. That alone says they are here to take care of us. What else are they here for? WE THE PEOPLE are SUPPOSED to make up the government! So naturally we should take care of ourselves. If it were not for the people the government would not exist.

  3. #2103
    Legendary! Reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    6,396
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    Our government has to protect us from foreign enemies, criminals, and natural disasters if it can. That alone says they are here to take care of us. What else are they here for? WE THE PEOPLE are SUPPOSED to make up the government! So naturally we should take care of ourselves. If it were not for the people the government would not exist.
    So you want a government to fight the enemies on foreign soil by not the diseases that affect people at home? I am damn glad I don't live under your ideal government. And you're right, the government is supposed to be FOR the people, and I believe that includes the health of the people. You can't govern dead people.

  4. #2104
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    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.
    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.

    We could be getting more for our money. If the ACA starts getting us there? Good. At least something is finally getting done.
    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.


    Why we passed the law is pretty clear.
    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.

    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.
    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.

  5. #2105
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11
    I didn't tell anyone to shut up. I politely asked him to stick to the topic at hand. I'm not interested in seeing people twist their way through meaningless comparisons.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    And if I only payed for the road that I drove on, my taxes would be a lot lower.
    Oh, that was gold
    MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__

  6. #2106
    Legendary! Reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    6,396
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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.
    We agree on that lol The problem is single payer has been proposed but has never garnered more than a 20% backing in Congress. It would directly increase taxes and no politician will ever run with a slogan of raising taxes, even if it directly gives health care.

  7. #2107
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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.
    In Ontario the government has a monopoly on alcohol which I'm sure sounds awful and calls for the most strident of objections. But riddle me this, would you rather pay

    a) costs + taxes

    or

    b) costs + taxes + markup

    Now tell me again, why government in industry is a bad thing.

  8. #2108
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,636
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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.
    Too late. It is the law now and its individual mandate even survived scrutiny by the supreme court. Again, Social Security, Food Stamps, and a whole host of other programs had slow starts too. They evolved and changed over time. So will the ACA. Nor would I consider it "deliberately obfuscated." At least not any more than every administration, Democrat and Republican, has done whenever they felt the slightest need too.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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 controls the entire economy through one thing or another, department, regulation, etc... That would be another battle that's been lost since at least "The Great Regulator," Teddy Roosevelt, at the beginnings of the twentieth century. Not to mention that I'll take government regulations any day of the week over another financial meltdown.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2013-11-01 at 09:49 PM.

  9. #2109
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    riddle me this, would you rather pay
    Answer: I'd rather pay C: costs + markup and no taxes.

    Social Security, Food Stamps, and a whole host of other programs had slow starts too.
    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.

    I'll take government regulations any day of the week over another financial meltdown.
    Except the government was the CAUSE of the financial meltdown by repealing Glass-Stegall.
    Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-11-01 at 09:52 PM.

  10. #2110
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    So you want a government to fight the enemies on foreign soil by not the diseases that affect people at home?

    No one cares about peoples health they care about how much money can be made on it.
    People lived before the federal government told them how they should live.

  11. #2111
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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.
    Yeah, because single payer has been such a failure in the rest of the first world.

    And telling the government it can do nothing is no vice.
    It is when there is a severe problem that the private sector hasn't fixed (either by inability or unwillingness) for half a century*.

    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.
    Yes, by the conservatives who lied about things like death panels and rationing.

    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.
    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.

    *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.

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    No one cares about peoples health they care about how much money can be made on it.
    Just because you're a sociopath doesn't mean everyone else is.

    People lived before the federal government told them how they should live.
    Not well.
    Last edited by Zython; 2013-11-01 at 09:51 PM.

  12. #2112
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,636
    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?

  13. #2113
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    Answer: I'd rather pay C: costs + markup and no taxes.
    There really isn't much difference between being cheap and being poor. It's best not to let your national philosophy reflect that.

  14. #2114
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,390
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    No one cares about peoples health they care about how much money can be made on it.
    1> Not true. Not even a little.

    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.

    People lived before the federal government told them how they should live.
    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.

    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.

  15. #2115
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    Yeah, because single payer has been such a failure in the rest of the first world.
    Yes. Yes it has.

    It is when there is a severe problem that the private sector hasn't fixed (either by inability or unwillingness) for half a century*.
    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.

    Yes, by the conservatives who lied about things like death panels and rationing.
    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.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...from-democrats
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...-fail-n1651742
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/vul...ng-board-ipab/
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/1...y-another-name

    That is absolutely insane. A laissez-faire style economy
    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.

    There really isn't much difference between being cheap and being poor. It's best not to let your national philosophy reflect that.
    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.
    Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-11-01 at 10:20 PM.

  16. #2116
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,390
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    Yes. Yes it has.
    Tell me again how much of a failure the Canadian health care system is. That never gets old, from Americans who've never experienced it.

    There are death panels, and there is rationing.
    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.

    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.

  17. #2117
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    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.
    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

  18. #2118
    Pandaren Monk PRE 9-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    1,766
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    There are death panels, and there is rationing.
    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.

  19. #2119
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    Our government has to protect us from foreign enemies, criminals, and natural disasters if it can. That alone says they are here to take care of us. What else are they here for? WE THE PEOPLE are SUPPOSED to make up the government! So naturally we should take care of ourselves. If it were not for the people the government would not exist.
    Criminals is extremely broad. But, the healthcare system you are suggesting isn't an option. It's either ACA or the system we had before it. I'd rather have a public option, but there is no such choice.
    Go Hawks!!!!

  20. #2120
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    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 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.

    This process gives you the opportunity to appeal a denied claim
    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).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •