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

CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

04 May 2012, 12:45 pm

abacacus wrote:
Actually it's more akin to an investors group. Instead of one person risking everything, a group of people band together to reduce risk. AKA, something that makes logical sense. Also, it's been shown that socialised healthcare is actually CHEAPER for people, the American system is one of the most expensive in the world :lol:


It's like I've said before, I have a world of respect for the state of Vermont who essentially said to Hell with the Federal Government and enacted their own single payer system.

ETA: Pity it's not even going to leave the ground until 2017. (THANKS Obamacare!)

And: As an aside, why the avatar of Rainbow Dash in a "come hither" pose? 8O



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

04 May 2012, 1:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
You are making a case for compulsion and force. The forced transfer of assets. Let those who are not insured suffer the consequences of their stupidity. You want to take from some and give to others at government gun point. If a private person did that he would be a thief. When the government does it, what do you call it? Compassion?


I have made a compelling argument. Merely offering disparaging adjectives doesn't counter the argument.


ruveyn wrote:
What is your opinion of the military draft. Compelling service reduces the risk to all. Is that a good excuse for slavery?

ruveyn

I am opposed to the military draft. For countries like Israel, it makes better sense.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

04 May 2012, 2:48 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is as abominable as the Repugs make it out to be, then it is hypocritical of them to enjoy it.

Especially given that they are okay with other people dying in the gutter.


Utter rubbish.

Their politics may be misguided and their attitudes rephrehensible. But they are neither exempt from law that they objected to, nor are they prohibited from enjoying the benefit of law they object to.


_________________
--James


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

04 May 2012, 2:49 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is as abominable as the Repugs make it out to be, then it is hypocritical of them to enjoy it.

Especially given that they are okay with other people dying in the gutter.


Utter rubbish.

Their politics may be misguided and their attitudes rephrehensible. But they are neither exempt from law that they objected to, nor are they prohibited from enjoying the benefit of law they object to.


Pleas explain what rubbish is :lol:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 94,874
Location: the island of defective toy santas

04 May 2012, 2:50 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is as abominable as the Repugs make it out to be, then it is hypocritical of them to enjoy it.

Especially given that they are okay with other people dying in the gutter.


Utter rubbish.

Their politics may be misguided and their attitudes rephrehensible. But they are neither exempt from law that they objected to, nor are they prohibited from enjoying the benefit of law they object to.
that is cold-blooded legalism. :(



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

04 May 2012, 3:07 pm

CoMF wrote:

Yeah, it's a "good deal" for the health insurance industry and their shareholders...


Insurance companies frequently use a lot of tricks to deny payment for your care. One is state that a treatment is "experimental", and they don't cover "experimental" treatments. The treatment could have been standard medical practice for 30 years, and fully approved by the FDA. The insurance company just uses the word "experimental" as a cover to mean that they are getting away with not paying for something.

Another common trick: drop your policy as soon as you become sick and need the coverage.

Another one: claiming that something must have been a "pre-existing condition" (no matter what it was), and they don't cover "pre-existing conditions."

The old Repugnican style, with no regulation, was the "best deal" for the health insurance industry and its shareholders.

The new system, where health insurance companies must pay for specified treatments, where they cannot drop people who become ill, where they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and where they must be fully transparent about what they will cover, will be better for consumers.

Insurance companies are certainly entitled to make a profit, but they shouldn't be permitted to get away with fraud. Hence, the need for regulations.

By the same token, if a person refuses health insurance until he becomes ill; then, while in the hospital, signs up for a plan that will cover his treatment; then, as soon as he recovers, cancels his policy: that would be very unfair not only to the insurance company, but also to the other people who hold policies with the company.

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



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

04 May 2012, 3:09 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is as abominable as the Repugs make it out to be, then it is hypocritical of them to enjoy it.

Especially given that they are okay with other people dying in the gutter.


Utter rubbish.

Their politics may be misguided and their attitudes rephrehensible. But they are neither exempt from law that they objected to, nor are they prohibited from enjoying the benefit of law they object to.


But, they are still being hypocritical. No law against that, either.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,093
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 May 2012, 12:33 am

abacacus wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

You are making a case for compulsion and force. The forced transfer of assets. Let those who are not insured suffer the consequences of their stupidity. You want to take from some and give to others at government gun point. If a private person did that he would be a thief. When the government does it, what do you call it? Compassion?

What is your opinion of the military draft. Compelling service reduces the risk to all. Is that a good excuse for slavery?

ruveyn


Actually it's more akin to an investors group. Instead of one person risking everything, a group of people band together to reduce risk. AKA, something that makes logical sense. Also, it's been shown that socialised healthcare is actually CHEAPER for people, the American system is one of the most expensive in the world :lol:


That is actually very well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 May 2012, 9:06 am

A lot of people consider taxpayer-funded public education to be an abomination, and either home-school their kids or send them to private schools. Such people are not guilty of hypocrisy.

Mitt Romney considers taxpayer-funded health care to be an abomination, and he refused to accept Medicare upon becoming eligible. At least in this one instance, Mr. Romney is not guilty of hypocrisy.

Mr. Brown repeats his party's evil propaganda that taxpayer-funded health care is an abomination, and that "Obamacare" is an evil "Obamanation", but still takes advantage of the new law to keep his daughter enrolled in his own taxpayer-funded health care plan beyond the age of 22 (at which age one's child was previously discarded from even his own taxpayer-funded health care plan). That is utter hypocrisy. To prove that he is not a hypocrite, and that he does sincerely believe his party's propaganda, he should officially withdraw his daughter from his taxpayer-funded health care plan, and let her either buy her own health insurance, or do without.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 May 2012, 11:56 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
A lot of people consider taxpayer-funded public education to be an abomination, and either home-school their kids or send them to private schools. Such people are not guilty of hypocrisy.

Mitt Romney considers taxpayer-funded health care to be an abomination, and he refused to accept Medicare upon becoming eligible. At least in this one instance, Mr. Romney is not guilty of hypocrisy.



Romney's health plan is law in Massachusetts. It is has a provision forcing people to buy a policy if they can afford it.

So who is and who is not a hypocrite. Mitt the Plastic Mormon is as bogus as a human being can get. He has exactly one virtue: he is not Barak Obama.

ruveyn



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 May 2012, 1:01 pm

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. Especially the 26 and under set. That's a very popular provision so it will be interesting to see what Congress and WH tries to do about it. Probably nothing.

So conservatives may not be taking advantage of it for long. Get those checkups now.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 May 2012, 2:34 pm

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. Especially the 26 and under set. That's a very popular provision so it will be interesting to see what Congress and WH tries to do about it. Probably nothing.

So conservatives may not be taking advantage of it for long. Get those checkups now.


I'm pretty sure that the coverage for people 26 and under won't be dropped for members of Congress and for federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management has oversight over what insurance providers in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program must provide. I don't really know, but I suspect that members of congress won't want to cut this off for themselves. Even the Republican majority cares about itself, if no-one else.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 May 2012, 2:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Mitt the Plastic Mormon

ruveyn


This sounds like a challenge for a song, or some other creative endeavour.

Any takers?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 May 2012, 2:53 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Mitt the Plastic Mormon

ruveyn


This sounds like a challenge for a song, or some other creative endeavour.

Any takers?


I hear echos of Peter, Paul and Mary in my mind.

ruveyn



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

05 May 2012, 3:05 pm

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.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 40
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.