MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__
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.
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?
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.
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
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.
Yeah, because single payer has been such a failure in the rest of the first world.
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.
Edit:
Just because you're a sociopath doesn't mean everyone else is.
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?
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
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.
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.
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
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.
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'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.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
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
Annnnnnd once again, you're wrong! Shocker...
The IPAB has no real power. They submit recommendations to Congress. They don't deny healthcare.
Perhaps you should do some more reading of the actual bill....
- - - Updated - - -
I'm assuming I can find that in the fiction section?
No, the Private Sector caused the economic meltdown because without the regulations in place they ran absolutely crazy and crashed the entire system. Glass-Steagall was the reason we had such a long period of economic growth and stability. Once that was removed the private sector--as usual--started playing to the extremes and running their businesses dangerously to maximize profits. The downside was that they were essentially gambling and all lost at the same time.
You can sound the drum of de-regulation but don't mislead. While what you said was correct you cannot pretend the banks were not at fault. If anything Glass-Steagall stands as proof that regulations are at times necessary. It seems painfully true that people only complain about "Big Government" when problems occur, but we've had Social Security for decades with no problems and it's one of the most beloved programs the government offers. When laws and regulations benefit people they had no problems with them, but when they benefit other people or run poorly all of a sudden the entire system is broken...