Page 4 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

05 May 2012, 3:26 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
For now, I am glad that we at least have something. We can wait and see how it works, and then tweek it later.


Well I hate to be the contrarian, but I'm not glad in the slightest. The PPACA breaks more things than it fixes, and falls short of putting proper healthcare within the reach of those who genuinely cannot afford it for reasons which I have already explained. It was a half-assed attempt at its absolute best and a sweetheart deal for insurance companies at the absolute worst.

For example, did you know that administrative costs in the context of health insurance sometimes cover beneficial services like "telephone-a-nurse"? Not all "administrative costs" are bad and should be weighed individually. However, thanks to penny wise and pound foolish ideas like the Medical Loss Ratio provision, the PPACA could result in the slashing of administrative expenses that benefit subscribers for the sake of compliance with the 80% loss ratio mandates.

Want to impress me? Let's see both sides agree on a single payer system that doesn't compromise the quality of care and works to everyone's benefit. I'd happily pay for it in the form of increased taxes.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,200

05 May 2012, 4:03 pm

A single player system was not possible politically. If PPACA fails, it will become the next crusade. Democrats will have evidence that mandates can't stand.

PPACA is not perfect but would easily get more people covered. The medicaid expansion alone does that. The only questions come down to if they included enough revenue to cover the costs. That's difficult to know until it's all running. Which may not happen.



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

05 May 2012, 4:16 pm

CoMF wrote:
simon_says wrote:
If the SC strikes down the entire law due to, as they suggested, the inability of the dysfunctional Congress to be able to realistically cope with the loss of the mandate, then a lot of people are suddenly going to be dropped from their insurance.


Why throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of simply removing the offending passages while preserving the ones that genuinely do fix some problems? It's certainly within Congress' ability to do so.

Oh, wait... This is Congress we're talking about... Never mind.
Sad but true. It's the very reason there's no public option. There was supposed to be.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 May 2012, 4:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

That is actually very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Good sense? The argumentum ad bacculum. Buy insurance or we will loot your bank account.;

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

05 May 2012, 4:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That is actually very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Good sense? The argumentum ad bacculum. Buy insurance or we will loot your bank account.;

ruveyn


Argumentum ad bacculum is not necessarily fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,371
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 May 2012, 7:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

That is actually very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Good sense? The argumentum ad bacculum. Buy insurance or we will loot your bank account.;

ruveyn


Being that this money would be taken out by the IRS in your taxes, it's not like the army is going to go door to door, robbing people at gun point. No more than your taxes for the upkeep of roads, police and fire protection, and national defense is collected literally by force.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

05 May 2012, 7:41 pm

Like Mitt Romney, you do have the right to give up Medicare. However, unless the Supreme Court acts, then you will be required to sign up for something else. Or pay a tax.

So, you had probably better just keep your Medicare.

Was that a decent argumentum ad baculum?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 May 2012, 9:22 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Being that this money would be taken out by the IRS in your taxes, it's not like the army is going to go door to door, robbing people at gun point. No more than your taxes for the upkeep of roads, police and fire protection, and national defense is collected literally by force.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then it should be levied as a tax, not disguised as a purchase.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 May 2012, 10:07 pm

You no what is very true in ancient civilizations the economy was good. Leaders could be civilize on how to handle peoples money an taxes now a days we fight and bicker instead of making tough choices. We are only hurting the nation when we can not come to terms on what works best the Independents like myslef should be a third party or a least America should have more then just two Political Parties.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,371
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2012, 12:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

Being that this money would be taken out by the IRS in your taxes, it's not like the army is going to go door to door, robbing people at gun point. No more than your taxes for the upkeep of roads, police and fire protection, and national defense is collected literally by force.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then it should be levied as a tax, not disguised as a purchase.

ruveyn


You would think so, but conservatives would have a shitfit over anything that smacked of a tax. And that's regardless of the fact that Obama's healthcare reform is actually based on a Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,497

06 May 2012, 10:17 am

The religious right loves to turn health care into a market place.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

06 May 2012, 11:16 am

androbot2084 wrote:
The religious right loves to turn health care into a market place.



We are more dependent on food than on medical care and you do not complain that our food supply which is absolutely essential to living until next month, is in private hands. Can you at least be consistent?

Why not put the government in charge of growing our food and feeding us? Then we can stand in line half a day at a time and wait for meager rations.


ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 11:45 am

androbot2084 wrote:
The religious right loves to turn health care into a market place.


Pleas give me a link which religion are you talking about their are more then one type of religious right.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 11:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The religious right loves to turn health care into a market place.



We are more dependent on food than on medical care and you do not complain that our food supply which is absolutely essential to living until next month, is in private hands. Can you at least be consistent?

Why not put the government in charge of growing our food and feeding us? Then we can stand in line half a day at a time and wait for meager rations.


ruveyn


The only good thing goverment is for is protecting the nation other then that they are useless.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,371
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2012, 5:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The religious right loves to turn health care into a market place.



We are more dependent on food than on medical care and you do not complain that our food supply which is absolutely essential to living until next month, is in private hands. Can you at least be consistent?

Why not put the government in charge of growing our food and feeding us? Then we can stand in line half a day at a time and wait for meager rations.


ruveyn


But no one is keeping food out of financial reach of the masses. The same can hardly be said about medical care.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer