OKLAHOMA CITY (March 13, 2013) – Nullification of Obamacare in Oklahoma took a step closer to reality Wednesday when the Oklahoma House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
HB1021 declares Obamacare unconstitutional and calls on the Oklahoma legislature to take action to prevent implementation of the federal health care plan in the Sooner State.
It shall be the duty of the Legislature of this state to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” within the limits of this state.
The bill passed 72-20 and will now move on to the State Senate.
Oklahoma Liberty executive director Mark Kreslins said bill sponsor Rep. Mike Ritze, along with States’ Rights Committee chairman Rep. Lewis Moore, Rep. Dan Fisher and Rep. John Enns all delivered passionate floor speeches prior to the vote, calling on their fellow representatives to step up, and rein in an out of control and tyrannical federal government.
Kreslins also credited strong grass roots support for pushing the bill through.
“This is a great day for nullification and for the liberty movement with the overwhelming victory of HB 1021,” he said. “We want to extend a huge ‘thank you’ to everybody who came out Tuesday to the liberty rally and then talked to your representatives on behalf of the bill. This victory would not have possible without you.”
Ritze said states have to step up and stop the federal government from completely running over the most basic rights of the people and their states.
“Thomas Jefferson made it perfectly clear in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 when he wrote; ‘That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.’”
Senator Nathan Dahm will serve as the bill’s primary sponsor in the Senate. It has not been assigned a committee at this time.
The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.
Manchu wrote: The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.
Out of curiosity, do you think gross misrepresentations of the other side put you on the same level or even lower than the "death panel" people?
Manchu wrote: I'm unaware of undertaking a gross misrepresentation. Stay curious.
In that case, we must conclude you truly believe that those who oppose Obamacare do so out of a desire to deny medical treatment to others. Based on prior conversations, I would have given you a lot more credit than that, but I will reevaluate.
It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.
Manchu wrote: It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.
I'm sorry, are you actually familiar with the ACA? Because it's a massive gift to "a system that profits on denying medical treatment."
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.
Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"
KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.
Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"
I'm fething concerned with the monetary costs! Honestly the ACA is a complete clusterfeth, the creators of the bill had nothing so high minded as preventing people from being denied insurance in their heads when they passed it, other wise they would have passed a bill that did just that, instead of the ACA, which well we're still trying to figure out what all it does.... besides generate an ungodly amount of paperwork and cost a fortune.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
It's a hobby, and as an Irish American, I'm far more likely to be whipped then I am to crack one.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.
See Premise 2 is an assumption though, you assume that the people who reject the ACA for whatever reason want to deny people medical care. It's a massive leap in logic.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.
It is, as it involves a couple of incorrect assumptions. I'm iffy on Premise 1, but Premise 2 is the real problem. Written correctly, it would read, "Forced purchase of a service from a private commercial entity is being denied based upon states' rights."
Seaward wrote: I'm sorry, are you actually familiar with the ACA? Because it's a massive gift to "a system that profits on denying medical treatment."
Yeah, see the problem there is that your description is total fantasy, that can only be claimed out of complete ignorance of reality, or complete indifference to it. And given how many times this stuff has been explained to you before, it's pretty clear you're just choosing to post whatever you like, regardless of what's actually true.
In ACA there exists for the first time a national requirement for insurers to pay out at least 80% of their collections in actual medical coverage. Given there is now a hard cap on how much any insurer can profit from the system, describing the bill as a gift to those companies is complete lunacy.
And of course, there is now no allowance for healthcare providers to deny protection based on a pre-existing condition. This is both the law that made it necessary to require people to get insurance, and a massive obligation on private insureres (who previously made much of their profit by figuring out who to exclude from coverage, including people who had up until that point been paying in to their system). Given that if you asked insurers to between a mandate for people to take insurance (or face a small fine), or the insurers being able to decide who it did and didn't insure, every single one of them is obviously going to choose the latter. Making your point, once again, complete loonie pants nonsense.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
See Premise 2 is an assumption though, you assume that the people who reject the ACA for whatever reason want to deny people medical care. It's a massive leap in logic.
What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.
Seaward wrote: Not at all. You're still conflating "opposition to the ACA" with "opposition to medical care for some people."
The idea that the nutbars protesting against ACA would totally be in favour of some other unstated and unknown means of providing healthcare to the uninsured 30 million is the blackest of comedy. It's the kind of claim you have to read and just laugh, because the alternative is to spend hours trying to get a liar admit he is lying.
I mean, fething seriously...
How many efforts were made by movement conservatism to extend healthcare coverage to the uninsured before ACA - none.
How many alternatives to ACA that would extend healthcare coverage to the uninsured have been proposed since ACA was announced - none.
How many future efforts will there be to extend healthcare to coverage to the uninsured - yeah, fething totally, we do really want that, it's just we don't want it this way because freedom, state's rights and here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
sebster wrote:
How many future efforts will there be to extend healthcare to coverage to the uninsured - yeah, fething totally, we do really want that, it's just we don't want it this way because freedom, state's rights and here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
And on what grounds do you oppose the ACA, and what alternative means do you support to get healthcare to the uninsured?
For what it's worth, I think he's said numerous times that he's in favour of a single-payer system, if I'm not mistaken.
To quote myself:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.
And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?
OKLAHOMA CITY -
Cities and counties in Oklahoma would be prohibited from entering into any agreements with organizations accredited by the United Nations under a bill approved by the Oklahoma House.
The House on Wednesday voted 67-17 for the bill sponsored by Bethany Republican Rep. Sally Kern that targets Agenda 21, a plan developed by the United Nations to help cities and countries become more environmentally sustainable.
No Republicans opposed the measure, which now heads to the Senate.
Kern claims the bill is needed to protect personal property from an "intrusion of our government into personal property rights." She alleged one of the "end goals" of Agenda 21 is to keep Americans from driving cars.
Oklahoma City's planning director Russell Claus has described the opposition to Agenda 21 as an "insane conspiracy theory."
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.
And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?
I never got the small government obsession that some Americans have, wouldn't you want more government services or better quality ones especially considering you're a country with a population of 300,000,000 I don't see how nation that big would work better with a smaller scale
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So yes I'd support a single payer system, or a full capitalist system with vouchers. Or death squads to match the level of hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread.
And do you believe either of those options is at all plausible within, say, the next 10 years?
Absolutely. Especially on that time scale.
Okay.... now I think you've lost your mind. How long did it take to get even the ACA since the health care issue was first broached? 43 years?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote:I never got the small government obsession that some Americans have, wouldn't you want more government services or better quality ones especially considering you're a country with a population of 300,000,000 I don't see how nation that big would work better with a smaller scale
Seriously, that kind of gak just would not fly in Canada. She would have so many pies on her that she'd have to change her name to Rep. Little Debbie.
It was almost all worth it, when in 2010 she had to run a race against the perfect opponent in her district:
A transgender person.
Which resulted in such gems like Kern calling her a "confused it", and then she managed to share the evil truth of the gay agenda!
TRANSCRIPT: "I was talking to a group of Republican activists telling them about a group of homosexual millionaires who, for years, have been working secretly to change the society of America, the political side of America, so that there will be freedom and equality for everyone." --- Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern, August 7, 2010
Did you see the freakout over ACA? I mean, the only really meaningful criticism of it is that it actually doesn't really do very much, and is more of an add-on and series of cost controls, to a system that needs massive reform... and yet people are still freaking out about it. We're in a thread where one state voted overwhelmingly to reject it (particularly stupid given that ACA is a really good deal for state governments).
And you think that within ten years there's any kind of a chance of the massive reform that would be moving to a full voucher system or single payer? Good luck with that.
There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.
There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.
I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.
In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.
Hordini wrote: There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.
There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.
I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.
In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.
Hordini wrote: There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.
There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.
I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.
In no way does someone opposing Obamacare mean that that person doesn't think that people should get treatment. It just means that they disagree with the way that Obamacare pursues that treatment.
Seriously, that kind of gak just would not fly in Canada. She would have so many pies on her that she'd have to change her name to Rep. Little Debbie.
It was almost all worth it, when in 2010 she had to run a race against the perfect opponent in her district:
A transgender person.
Which resulted in such gems like Kern calling her a "confused it", and then she managed to share the evil truth of the gay agenda!
TRANSCRIPT: "I was talking to a group of Republican activists telling them about a group of homosexual millionaires who, for years, have been working secretly to change the society of America, the political side of America, so that there will be freedom and equality for everyone." --- Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern, August 7, 2010
These monsters!
....Why in the name of the dark gods does this woman have a JOB!? That's the level of stupid and insulting that truly merits a beating.
She is just the ultimate example of the kind of things many in Oklahoma believe to be true, sadly.
But you get a good feel for what the Oklahoma legislature is like by taking a look at the kind of ballot questions they put out every two years and some of the silly bills they pass. I need to take a look at what they have introduced this year and where it is heading. I used to do some canvasing in the capitol and talk to legislators there. We have some good ones, but they are overshadowed by the stupid.
Hordini wrote: There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.
There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.
And until those people form some kind of alternative with congressional level support (even at the 'we're willing to just mention it' level) talk of this other unstated, unknown reform is a nonsense.
It is good an useful to try and figure out what you'd like to have if everything in the world was perfect and good. But that kind of thinking has a place, and it's place isn't as an alternative to the actual policies that are being put in place, and the kinds of policies that might replace it. At some point you have to deal with the reality that's in front of you.
The only existing alternative to the reforms of ACA is no reforms, and a return to what was there before.
I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.
Sure, and I've almost certainly spent more time correcting them in healthcare threads on Dakka than you have.
I've also spent an unbelievable amount of time correcting Americans who think European healthcare is a socialist dystopia of insane waiting lists and bureaucracy.
So what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Avatar wrote: The ACA's constitutionality could be challenged on basis of sexual discrimination.
I've asked you this before and you didn't respond... are you some kind of men's rights believer?
Captain Avatar wrote: The ACA's constitutionality could be challenged on basis of sexual discrimination.
Hint, Women are mention 134 times with 132 of these being for needs specific to women.
Men are mentioned 2 times with no male specfic needs covered.
One would ask, "Why, in this day and age, breast exams and HPV tests are covered but prostate exams and other male specific illnesses were left out?
Indeed, that is one question I suppose one could ask.
Another question is, how are you coming up with those 132 & 134 numbers? Is this from the Department of Made Up Statistics? Or something like a FW:FW:RE:FW type email containing something like this, right? Cause, uh - those are a little fact-devoid, at least in the version of the ACA I've looked at. Have a look for yourself, the Adobe Reader is free.
The text of it is available online, and while I didn't read the entire law*, I sure don't see anything like 134 items for women. There are 150 instances of the word "women", and in almost all of them, it's a reference to the "Office on Women’s Health" created in section 229. The word "Women" appears in this document about 50 times solely in referring to the title of the office, and not in reference to specific provisions. The word "HPV" does not appear at all, nor does "papillomavirus". So - how are you getting these numbers?
*just like the legislators who voted on it, amirite?
Manchu wrote: It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.
Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system. We can only assume those who support the ACA as supporting bureaucracy and horrific government management processes that do nothing at all in the way of what it was claimed.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.
I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.
Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"
No... the ACA was ultimately a political boondoggle essentially doubling-down on the SAME bad system... with some minor good things.
Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.
Manchu wrote: @Seaward: If you read the OP, just out of curiosity perhaps, you will only find an argument about states rights.
Because that's an argument that hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court yet with regards to the ACA.
Correct. You have to show that there's a conflict on the actual law in order to bring it up to the SC. You can just say "hey SC, I don't like it, do something 'bout it". You have to have standing.
When the Democrats proposed the ACA, the GOP counter offer was not the Canadian/NHS system. Do you think that would be less of a states rights issue than the ACA?
Manchu wrote: When the Democrats proposed the ACA, the GOP counter offer was not the Canadian/NHS system. Do you think that would be less of a states rights issue than the ACA?
Well... good question.
It's so polarized right now, I don't think we can truly go to the Canadian/NHS system.
What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).
If we go the Canadian/NHS system route... I'd like to see it as a Constitutional Amendment (is that true in Canada/UK?), so that puts to rest if its legal or not.
So you oppose taxes and all forms of insurance, gotcha.
Besides, we are talking about Quakenados now and how women are lazier than men and how gays are a bigger thread than Islam to our freedoms. Keep up please.
I oppose the concept of paying for his birth control or his wife/ gf's Viagra as well.
Clubbing together to buy roads bridges and community infrastructure is one thing but being forced to buy someone else's elective things that are not that expensive on their own is quite another.
whembly wrote: One idea is to allow specific insurance packages to be sold across state line (did you know that?).
Another is to allow people to create their own insurance pool by job nationally. (can't do that now effectively, because it only stays in the state).
Those things don't exist as alternatives to ACA. They're minor reforms at best, that could be bolted on to it at any time.
So as far alternatives to ACA go it's pretty weaksauce.
Or, let's go the Canadian route.
But you can't just keep saying that, pretending it's a realistic possibility. When dealing with legislation that's actually in place, it's just fething lazy to compare it to policy that exists in the happy land of unicorns and streets of fairy floss. You have to talk about the legislation in place in comparison to the actual plausible alternatives.
And given the growth of healthcare costs, you need to get with solving this problem sooner rather than later. ACA is certainly imperfect, but compared to the alternatives, it has the very massive advantage of actually being a thing that exists.
Fact of the matter, the ACA act is a bad policy, used for political gain. There's no altruism here.
Opposition to ACA is led by people who are grossly disingenuous, who lied as a regular matter of course, to the point where we got Fraz in this thread telling the most ludicrous nonsense, somehow having come to believe that ACA will improve the profits of private health insurers (when by the laws of ACA that is impossible).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's so polarized right now, I don't think we can truly go to the Canadian/NHS system.
Thankyou for accepting that.
What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).
And if you then went the last step and decoupled healthcare from employers, so that private individuals were free to go out and pick out the plan they wanted for themselves... well then you'd have a system.
Of course, ACA is in a lot of ways a step towards that.
Okay... seb... (or anyone else for that matter) let's dial back a bit.
Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?
whembly wrote:Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?
Still not quite.
In Canada, where multiple treatment options are available, the patient is given considerable control over the decision of which treatment option to choose. While ACA gives everyone access to insurance, when multiple treatment options are available, my understanding is that it will still be the for-profit insurance company making the decision about which treatment option is chosen.
Unless I'm wrong, and the ACA lets the patient select their own treatment?
whembly wrote: Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?
No. But as you yourself have said, you can't just swap from one system to another overnight.
On the whole, I do believe that the expansion of coverage, of stopping insurers from rejecting coverage based on a pre-existing condition, and the control on insurers administration as no more than 20% of total receipts (15% for larger insurers) are good steps forward. And the cost control measures aren't just good, but absolutely necessary to the future financial health of your country.
Now, as far as reforms go this was long overdue, and given that it's probably been needed since about the 1970s it could have been much more far reaching. But given the amount of lobbyist dollars in healthcare and the shamelessly partisan way the Republicans attacked the bill, it was probably about as much as was ever going to be achieved.
The issue now is whether you can build on those reforms and undertake new reforms. It would be great if you could take further steps to expand medicare like you suggested to provide a genuinely universal base level of healthcare, introduce even more competition in insurance (eventually getting to a point where people pick their own insurers), and further cost controls that limit overtreatment. Given the nonsense in this thread (people still having no idea what ACA actually does, people pretending that you can just remove ACA and that will somehow make other reforms more likely) that is unfortunately quite unlikely.
d-usa wrote: So you oppose taxes and all forms of insurance, gotcha.
Besides, we are talking about Quakenados now and how women are lazier than men and how gays are a bigger thread than Islam to our freedoms. Keep up please.
Well, if we can just add in wildfires we could have quakenadowildfires. Throw in some killer drop bears and you have your average spring day in Australia.
Frazzled wrote: Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system.
whembly wrote: Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.
It's nice to see conservatives supporting nationalized health care initiatives. Mmm, such sincerity.
Yes,I feel this way too. I'm sure once Conservatives managed to repeal Obamacare, the very next thing passed would be single payer.
No bureaucracy is ever gotten rid of here...ever. We still have the honey subsidy for the World War I. Oh noes we've got to sacrifice to keep the Kaiser at bay!
In other news (seriously) one of the key figures in the GSA scandal was just reinstated. A court ruled they couldn't fire him.
whembly wrote:Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?
Still not quite.
Correct.
In Canada, where multiple treatment options are available, the patient is given considerable control over the decision of which treatment option to choose
Okay... makes sense...
. While ACA gives everyone access to insurance,
Correct.
]when multiple treatment options are available, my understanding is that it will still be the for-profit insurance company making the decision about which treatment option is chosen.
You're right... and your're wrong.
Right: There are government sponsored plans (in addition to ACA's exchange) where the plan administrators determines what is covered or not... you know about this head of time when you sign up for such plans.
Wrong (but sorta right): Employer/Union based plans.... It's the EMPLOYER/UNION who defines the benefits (what's covered) based on industry standards, State Laws and individual Employer/Union needs. Then it's the plan administrators to manage plan.
So, when covered, we're most likely to have the same sort of treatment options that you see (sometimes more, sometimes less)... it's all fluid.
Unless I'm wrong, and the ACA lets the patient select their own treatment?
That was never the problem... ACA doesn't "do" that. Here's some good things:
Pre-existing conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Age 26: Insurers would be required to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26
Doughnut Hole: Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual’s out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550. Called the doughnut hole, it will be closed by 2020.
People forget about this: People with existing health insurance can keep it. Businesses prefer to offer a tax-free benefit like health insurance to attract good workers. That won't change under Obamacare. The bad thing is that ACA makes structural changes that may incur additional costs, if the workers want to keep the same plan.
There are few others... here's the bad things derived from the ACA:
If you don't buy insurance, you're taxed: This is bad because the poor, wellfare reciepient are now forced to get insurance (which is a good thing), here's the catch... most of those people though they'd get it for free... and that's not the case. With an already limited cash flow, they'll be forced to shift some of that to purchase heavily subsidized insurance (usually $50-$250 by some estimates). That may not seem a lot... but, it is... and they're NOW starting to see that.
Insurance Premiums are going up at a faster rate the pre-ACA. The additional costs will not just be taken out of the corporation's bank account, their cost will be transfered to the consumers.
Donut closing: Pharmaceutical companies will pay an extra $84.8 billion in fees over the next ten years to pay for closing the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D. This will raise drug costs if they pass this onto consumers.
Employment hours are shifting: More and more, we're hearing that businesses are adjusting their employee's hours to avoid being forced to provide insurance.
Point being here... all those supposed "good things"...does incur costs and the vast majoring of the burden will fall onto the consumers or via more tax revenue. This is not a magic wand to "fix" everything.
Here's one that is constantly being ignored:
-Primary Care Doctors and Specialty Doctors do NOT have to take everyone who comes in the door. The Medicare reimbursement rates are dropping fast... what that means is that these doctors will DROP the Medicare patients from their office, thus affecting care to those on Medicare. While it's true that the ACA does CHANGE the level of Care... it absolutely changes the ACCESS to the providers.
The absolute BIGGEST issue I have with the ACA bill... is that it tries to be a "one-sized fit all" solution. What they should of done is pass a bill for each good thing (ie, pre-existing condition, donut hole fix, etc) on an individual basis... incrementally fixing the problem at hand.
We STILL don't know what the rules and regulations will be untill 2014 and again 2016... and that fething SCARES the providers.
The issue now is whether you can build on those reforms and undertake new reforms. It would be great if you could take further steps to expand medicare like you suggested to provide a genuinely universal base level of healthcare, introduce even more competition in insurance (eventually getting to a point where people pick their own insurers), and further cost controls that limit overtreatment. Given the nonsense in this thread (people still having no idea what ACA actually does, people pretending that you can just remove ACA and that will somehow make other reforms more likely) that is unfortunately quite unlikely.
That's a good point...we'll see right?
I just saw something this morning... help me out... what is it called when you STOP receiving any income, and continue to run your business as normal (paying bills/payroll/etc)... and determine how many days you can keep your doors open?
My company? We can do that just over 300 days...
The next local hospital system 14 days...
The next one after that, 2 days.
We've never seen that before... and apparently it's epidemic around the states.
With what the economy, raising premiums, ACA... it wouldn't take much to bring those numbers down even further.
What this meas is that, if thing don't improve... we could be facing massive closures of hospitals system around the US... thus, overloading the big hospital systems. If that happen, we may get to the point where it's politically possible for Government takeover and implementation of Single-Payer like Canada.
Buckle your seat belt guys. It's going to be bumpy.
What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).
You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.
As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.
ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care. Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?
What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).
Spoiler:
You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.
As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.
ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care.
Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?
If we have a catastrophe, like I mentioned in previous post... yes.
I wasn't ignoring the fact that there's some good things within ACA (I've listed some of them).
My soapbox , is that there's got to be a better way.
What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).
Spoiler:
You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.
As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.
ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care.
Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?
If we have a catastrophe, like I mentioned in previous post... yes.
I wasn't ignoring the fact that there's some good things within ACA (I've listed some of them).
My soapbox , is that there's got to be a better way.
I really should have separated the two paragraphs of my post better, as really only the public option paragraph was directed at your post specifically (the one about raising taxes to include everyone in Medicare). Sorry I couldn't be more clear. I read your post listing the good of ACA and agree, for instance, even if I don't agree completely with your list of drawbacks. I frankly don't care if the insurance agencies are scared. They should be. With any luck For-Profit health insurance will become a gross minority of people in my lifetime.
I'm just not sure there actually is a better way. Not with the rampant bickering in the legislature (as evinced by this thread's original topic), the gross mischaracterization of univsersal health care as communism, and the beyond disgusting amount of money thrown at both sides of an incompetantly corrupt Congress by the medical lobbying groups. To be honest, I don't even see the doomsday scenario you created being enough to spur national healthcare here. There is simply too much of a cognitive dissonance throughout many parts of the country when it comes to "what THEY want", with "THEY" usually being a group they're part of but refuse to accept membership in. I can only think back to a piece on socialized health care where the reporter went around deeply poor areas (of the south, majorly :-\ ) and people continually railed against socialized health care while being on medicaid or medicaire THEMSELVES. "Oh, well I deserve it!" Too many of those sorts of people (who are all over) would simply still refuse to see the good of socialized or governmental health care, unless it was the last thing between them and death.
Do I want there to be a quick solution to the health care mess? Absolutely I do. But I also want to go into space and meet aliens. Have a feeling I'll see the second before I see the first.
I really should have separated the two paragraphs of my post better, as really only the public option paragraph was directed at your post specifically (the one about raising taxes to include everyone in Medicare). Sorry I couldn't be more clear. I read your post listing the good of ACA and agree, for instance, even if I don't agree completely with your list of drawbacks. I frankly don't care if the insurance agencies are scared. They should be. With any luck For-Profit health insurance will become a gross minority of people in my lifetime.
No problemo dude.
The "folks are scared" bit are not really the insurance agencies... but the providers. Doctor's office, Specialist, Hospital Organization in general...
I'm just not sure there actually is a better way. Not with the rampant bickering in the legislature (as evinced by this thread's original topic), the gross mischaracterization of univsersal health care as communism, and the beyond disgusting amount of money thrown at both sides of an incompetantly corrupt Congress by the medical lobbying groups. To be honest, I don't even see the doomsday scenario you created being enough to spur national healthcare here. There is simply too much of a cognitive dissonance throughout many parts of the country when it comes to "what THEY want", with "THEY" usually being a group they're part of but refuse to accept membership in. I can only think back to a piece on socialized health care where the reporter went around deeply poor areas (of the south, majorly :-\ ) and people continually railed against socialized health care while being on medicaid or medicaire THEMSELVES. "Oh, well I deserve it!" Too many of those sorts of people (who are all over) would simply still refuse to see the good of socialized or governmental health care, unless it was the last thing between them and death.
That's a fair point...
I don't think I'm in the minority as such... (ya'll think I'm a right-wing nutso... but, hey, I'm your right-wing nutso ). But if we were actually OFFERED a system similar to the Canadian model, not only I, but most healthcare providers would jump on that like a starving fat kid on Krispy Kreme donuts.
Do I want there to be a quick solution to the health care mess? Absolutely I do. But I also want to go into space and meet aliens. Have a feeling I'll see the second before I see the first.
Speaking of those Oklahoma politicains... just show them this:
Manchu wrote: The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.
The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.
Manchu wrote: The Civil War was about slavery. Please stop kidding yourself.
Total Bullocks! We all knwo the Civil War started when some Yankees fans took a trip to North Carolina. Their accents were so atrocious war was declared just to keep 'Yous Guys' out.
Manchu wrote: The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.
The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.
My main opposition to the ACA is that it is not in fact affordable. What is the point in making sure people can not be denied coverage if those very people will be unable to afford the coverage?
As far as I know, medical care is available to anyone, especially if they can afford it. medical insurance on the other hand is a big scam and waste of time for most, and in the hands of the government even more so.
I admit the capitalist system we're under now is useful at times, i scrimped, saved and got my eye surgery done by one of the best doctors in the country with 0 wait. Screening, Pre Operation appointment, surgery, post op. Total time from contacting the doctor to the post op (this coming monday) no more then a month.
And this has nothing to do with our Republican Governor betting on the wrong horse for Presidential election and not applying for a big pile of federal money, right?
Sometimes I hate living in this state. Another reason is that straight party-line votes resulted in an Dentist being elected State Superintendent of Public Education....
If I didn't make so much money here, I'd move back to Japan.
Sometimes I hate living in this state. Another reason is that straight party-line votes resulted in an Dentist being elected State Superintendent of Public Education....
Dentists are doctors................ Well they can make as much.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I admit the capitalist system we're under now is useful at times, i scrimped, saved and got my eye surgery done by one of the best doctors in the country with 0 wait. Screening, Pre Operation appointment, surgery, post op. Total time from contacting the doctor to the post op (this coming monday) no more then a month.
Which is not a bad system for elective procedures that you can plan for in advance.
Now, cancer and car wrecks on the other hand do not give luxuries like that and cost a lot more. That's where capitalism buries you.
Hordini wrote: There aren't very many people in the US who think that people shouldn't get health care of some sort.
There are a significant number of people who don't think that Obamacare is the correct way to go about it.
And until those people form some kind of alternative with congressional level support (even at the 'we're willing to just mention it' level) talk of this other unstated, unknown reform is a nonsense.
It is good an useful to try and figure out what you'd like to have if everything in the world was perfect and good. But that kind of thinking has a place, and it's place isn't as an alternative to the actual policies that are being put in place, and the kinds of policies that might replace it. At some point you have to deal with the reality that's in front of you.
The only existing alternative to the reforms of ACA is no reforms, and a return to what was there before.
I met a disturbingly large number of Europeans who thought that people in America will just be left to die in front of a hospital if they can't pay for their health care. They had something in common: they were all wrong.
Sure, and I've almost certainly spent more time correcting them in healthcare threads on Dakka than you have.
I've also spent an unbelievable amount of time correcting Americans who think European healthcare is a socialist dystopia of insane waiting lists and bureaucracy.
So what?
I'm just saying, most people who oppose Obamacare don't think that people shouldn't be able to get medical treatment or just be left to die. I know a lot of people who oppose Obamacare, and none of them think that people shouldn't be able to get treated. I'm not saying that they all have good or realistic ideas for a solution, but that does not make them "nutbars" or "liars" who require hours to get them to admit they're lying just because they don't think the ACA is all it's cracked up to be.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I admit the capitalist system we're under now is useful at times, i scrimped, saved and got my eye surgery done by one of the best doctors in the country with 0 wait. Screening, Pre Operation appointment, surgery, post op. Total time from contacting the doctor to the post op (this coming monday) no more then a month.
You could do that in Japan, Canada and the UK too. Having a national health system does not prevent private health provision.
Frazzled wrote: No bureaucracy is ever gotten rid of here...ever. We still have the honey subsidy for the World War I. Oh noes we've got to sacrifice to keep the Kaiser at bay!
It was WWII (the one without the Kaiser). And the subsidy is in place because bees provide pollination to crops - benefitting a greater economy than just the bee farmer.
And the grand, whopping total of that subsidy is $3 million. And it is constantly reviewed and cut back, which may well be to the detriment of the greater agricultural industry (I honestly don't know if it is, I'm not an expert on pollination and/or bees, but it is debated among people who are, and all the while the subsidy is cut back for reasons that have nothing to do with the outcome of that scientific debate).
I just saw something this morning... help me out... what is it called when you STOP receiving any income, and continue to run your business as normal (paying bills/payroll/etc)... and determine how many days you can keep your doors open?
It's called working capital to monthly expenses. Us accountants aren't very good at coming up with catchy names. It's a good ratio to indicate overall financial health and stability, though funnily enough not that effective at determining the likelihood of an immediate liquidity problem (as it doesn't account for overdraft facilities and other emergency debt raising).
We've never seen that before... and apparently it's epidemic around the states.
One of most pressing issues in US healthcare is that for all the money that is splashed through the system, it isn't going to the hospitals. It's a fair criticism that ACA (to my knowledge) didn't really address that.
What this meas is that, if thing don't improve... we could be facing massive closures of hospitals system around the US... thus, overloading the big hospital systems. If that happen, we may get to the point where it's politically possible for Government takeover and implementation of Single-Payer like Canada.
Having had a couple of disasters over here with the farming out of hospital management to for profit private interests who proceded to claim big management fees, cut maintenance, equipment upgrades and other short term forgettable expenses, then walk away when the whole thing turns to gak, I can tell you that governments just don't let hospitals close because of a short term money crisis. They step in and pick up the tab, because the alternative is to see people be denied basic life saving treatment while a perfectly functional hospital is sitting there with the lights turned off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
R3con wrote: The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.
No, it wasn't. Get over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: My main opposition to the ACA is that it is not in fact affordable.
ACA is a cost control bill. Therefore your main opposition is nonsense.
Cheesecat wrote: I never got the small government obsession that some Americans have, wouldn't you want more government services or better quality ones especially considering you're a country with a population of 300,000,000 I don't see how nation that big would work better with a smaller scale
system.
I'd love better quality government services. The assumption that better quality will follow from more money or more bureaucracy is laughable, though.
It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.
Seaward wrote: It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.
Over the course of this debate I've asked in dakka maybe 30 times how you remove the ability of insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, without requiring people to get insurance while they are well (otherwise they'll just wait until they do get sick and then go out and get insurance).
Manchu wrote: The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.
The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.
Yeah, the states' right to keep slaves.
I was going to say they were both right. It was about state's rights and the separation of powers. Unfortunately the state right at issue was slavery.
Seaward wrote: It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.
Over the course of this debate I've asked in dakka maybe 30 times how you remove the ability of insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, without requiring people to get insurance while they are well (otherwise they'll just wait until they do get sick and then go out and get insurance).
Only answer I've ever heard is 'freedom!'
Seb... that still happens.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
There is no problem, that is merely how the inability to deny coverage for preexisting conditions works.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
There is no problem, that is merely how the inability to deny coverage for preexisting conditions works.
You're missing the point... in order for the Mandate to truly work, you'd need those healthy folks to purchase insurance to drive down the risk pools... thus, driving down (theoretically) the premiums.
If the healthy folks just work around it, and pays the tax until THEY get sick, thats circumventing the system.
Let's put it this way, I guess the system would work if the tax is the average cost of having insurance.
What is there to follow? The system is designed so that people can opt out at a price lower than that of average, individual health insurance premiums. It isn't the best possible design, we should really just have a national insurance provider, but that pesky hatred of "government" gets in the way.
What is there to follow? The system is designed so that people can opt out at a price lower than that of average, individual health insurance premiums. .
That wasn't the intent and you know it. The idea was that everyone gets insurance (privately, or via state exchange), so that the risk pools is driven downward.
It isn't the best possible design, we should really just have a national insurance provider, but that pesky hatred of "government" gets in the way.
True... unless hospital systems/Doctor offices starts closing shop... then, it may be appealing to the masses to accept a single payer system.
That wasn't the intent and you know it. The idea was that everyone gets insurance (privately, or via state exchange), so that the risk pools is driven downward.
Of course that was the intent. Policy professionals are not idiots, nor are politicians, despite what many people seem to think.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: My main opposition to the ACA is that it is not in fact affordable.
ACA is a cost control bill. Therefore your main opposition is nonsense.
Here is what I am talking about and I am super paraphrasing here:
Government: hey, you have to buy health insurance
>50% of USA gamers on this forum: but I have no money
...
Government: hey, you have to buy health insurance
>50% of USA gamers on this forum: but I have no money
...
Government: you have to buy health insurance or will smack you with a big fine
>50% of USA gamers on this forum: but I have no money
Government: oh yea and we are raising your income taxes to help cover this
Now how is that affordable?
We all know several people who fall in that magic income zone where they do not qualify for medicaid, foodstamps whatever, but barely have enough money to pay rent and electricity.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
I agree, that's a problem I've thought about since the issue began - the fine is much lower than the cost of insurance. As you say, easy to game the system (though how much gaming there will really be depends on a lot of factor (ease of cancelling/getting insurance, minor benefits to coverage outside of coverage of major illness etc).
Of course, for people to then start crowing about the 'freedom' they're losing by paying a cheap fine, and knowing they can get coverage when they get sick... well it just shows how insane the protest against this bill has been from the start.
I mean, if only there had been constructive, informed and considered debate in the first place. Maybe you'd have gotten a better bill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Of course that was the intent. Policy professionals are not idiots, nor are politicians, despite what many people seem to think.
And not being idiots, they've designed the policy around political realities, not sound economic modeling. What that means is that when first introduced, the fine is way lower than the cost of insurance, because of the political reality that people freak the feth out over any new government cost.
Of course, in time the economic reality will catch up, and we'll see that fine drift up until it's comfortably greater than the cost of insurance. At the same time though, given that healthy people will be actively taking out insurance as individuals, the market cost of individual insurance will drop massively (currently they're way over-inflated as the only people looking to get them are people who expect major hospital expenses in the near future).
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
I agree, that's a problem I've thought about since the issue began - the fine is much lower than the cost of insurance. As you say, easy to game the system (though how much gaming there will really be depends on a lot of factor (ease of cancelling/getting insurance, minor benefits to coverage outside of coverage of major illness etc).
Of course, for people to then start crowing about the 'freedom' they're losing by paying a cheap fine, and knowing they can get coverage when they get sick... well it just shows how insane the protest against this bill has been from the start.
I mean, if only there had been constructive, informed and considered debate in the first place. Maybe you'd have gotten a better bill.
Right on bro!
Wished Reid/Pelosi engaged with the other side more... but, alas... that's our funky politics now.
Thanks on that term " working capital to monthly expenses"... spent a great deal of google-fu'ing that and came up empty. That spooks me... it really does.
Of course, in time the economic reality will catch up, and we'll see that fine drift up until it's comfortably greater than the cost of insurance. At the same time though, given that healthy people will be actively taking out insurance as individuals, the market cost of individual insurance will drop massively (currently they're way over-inflated as the only people looking to get them are people who expect major hospital expenses in the near future).
Assuming that you're correct about the falling prices of individual coverage, that should happen in 2016 when the hard threshold for the fine increases to 2,085 USD.
Wished Reid/Pelosi engaged with the other side more... but, alas... that's our funky politics now.
We agree on something, and then you just gotta go and get all screwy on me again. I mean, you think the problem was Reid and Pelosi not working with the other side?!
The whole death panels thing? That was a product of Reid and Pelosi not being bi-partisan enough? I mean, come on dude, the Republicans were telling lie after lie to hammer the Democrats on the healthcare reform bill. You think the problem was with the Democrats?
Thanks on that term " working capital to monthly expenses"... spent a great deal of google-fu'ing that and came up empty. That spooks me... it really does.
Really? I just typed it into google and the first hit came up with an okay enough definition (though in it working capital is defined as equity, which is not correct).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Assuming that you're correct about the falling prices of individual coverage, that should happen in 2016 when the hard threshold for the fine increases to 2,085 USD.
Uh, I knew it went up, but I forgot the hike was that much. Well there you go then, they're getting the legislation with a small fine, then dragging it up.
And I don't know if individual insurance will increase, but there is a chance that as people take up private insurance its reasonably likely that it will trend towards the group rate given the businesses (given the current trends I'd take equilibrium as good enough proof of my theory).
Plus, Health Exchanges may contribute downward price pressure on the market as competition is increased, where insurance companies now often work regionally. Consumers only have access to one or two insurance carriers.
Wished Reid/Pelosi engaged with the other side more... but, alas... that's our funky politics now.
We agree on something, and then you just gotta go and get all screwy on me again. I mean, you think the problem was Reid and Pelosi not working with the other side?!
The whole death panels thing? That was a product of Reid and Pelosi not being bi-partisan enough? I mean, come on dude, the Republicans were telling lie after lie to hammer the Democrats on the healthcare reform bill. You think the problem was with the Democrats?
Democrats...all.the.way.
gak... I remember CNN commented on the the fact that eventually the Republicans were locked out of the process.
Stop being so anti-republican and that democrats turns everything to gold.
Thanks on that term " working capital to monthly expenses"... spent a great deal of google-fu'ing that and came up empty. That spooks me... it really does.
Really? I just typed it into google and the first hit came up with an okay enough definition (though in it working capital is defined as equity, which is not correct).
Interesting... I just didn't know enough buzz words to feed google. This was right in your wheelhouse... I'd new you'd get it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Assuming that you're correct about the falling prices of individual coverage, that should happen in 2016 when the hard threshold for the fine increases to 2,085 USD.
Uh, I knew it went up, but I forgot the hike was that much. Well there you go then, they're getting the legislation with a small fine, then dragging it up.
And I don't know if individual insurance will increase, but there is a chance that as people take up private insurance its reasonably likely that it will trend towards the group rate given the businesses (given the current trends I'd take equilibrium as good enough proof of my theory).
Uh, I knew it went up, but I forgot the hike was that much. Well there you go then, they're getting the legislation with a small fine, then dragging it up.
And I don't know if individual insurance will increase, but there is a chance that as people take up private insurance its reasonably likely that it will trend towards the group rate given the businesses (given the current trends I'd take equilibrium as good enough proof of my theory).
The average, annual individual insurance premium is ~3000 USD, so in order for the fine to exceed the hard cap the average premium needs to fall by ~1000 USD by 2016.
The argument I would make is that people will tend to prefer an option which provides some form of return (health insurance) over one which is nearly as expensive, and provides nothing.
whembly wrote: gak... I remember CNN commented on the the fact that eventually the Republicans were locked out of the process.
They were, eventually. After repeated efforts were made, and they responded with gibberish, or openly political requirements (such as the request made at the absolute end of the process that they would come to the table only if Democrats through out everything that had formulated so far).
And that's after the Republicans made such a grossly disingenuous faux-outrage over a 'socialist' takeover of healthcare, that had been (until Democrats announced it as their policy) a market based solution favoured by the Republican party (it had originally come out of their think tanks).
Stop being so anti-republican and that democrats turns everything to gold.
You keep getting confused between anti-Republican and pro-Democrat.
If I am deciding whether to turn left or right on my way home, and I see on the left there is a random stranger milling about, while on my left I see blood drenched hobo torturing a stray cat, I am not being pro-random stranger if I prefer his side to the blood drenched hobo.
The Democrats are a politically compromised collection of professional politicians that judge every single issue on whether or not it will help them get re-elected, along with what their special interests and lobbyists desire.
Whereas the Republican Party... well let me first say the Republican Party has a fine and very proud history. But the party right now is committed to a series of policies that are simply ludicrous, have no basis in reality, and have attempted to achieve these policies through openly partisan means that manipulate the democratic processes of your country.
If you were to return to the party of Eisenhower? To being a party that valued both conservatism and the principles of good, stable government? Man that'd be nice, and I think in most cases I would favour that party over the special interests of the Democrats. But you don't have that party, instead you've got Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and all the rest. And that is a party that no only is incapable of governance, it's a party that seems to reject the idea of governance altogether.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: The argument I would make is that people will tend to prefer an option which provides some form of return (health insurance) over one which is nearly as expensive, and provides nothing.
whembly wrote: If you were to return to the party of Eisenhower? To being a party that valued both conservatism and the principles of good, stable government? Man that'd be nice, and I think in most cases I would favour that party over the special interests of the Democrats. But you don't have that party, instead you've got Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and all the rest. And that is a party that no only is incapable of governance, it's a party that seems to reject the idea of governance altogether.
If you are electing people to government, do you choose the people that think Government doesn't work?
When you are choosing a new CEO for your corporation, do you choose the Marxist who thinks that Capitalism doesn't work?
Do you see why someone could be anti-republican and not necessarily be pro-democrat?
Manchu wrote: It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.
Opposition to a bill that will double my current healthcare premiums means I actively don't want poorer people to have coverage at all?
That is a broad assumption.
I oppose certain aspects of Obamacare, but I certainly don't want to prevent others from having healthcare.
In California, we have MediCal. It covers ALL children under 18 and most residents under 20 under certain restrictions(mainly income, rich kids don't get it). Once you are an adult, there are regulations you have to meet and follow to maintain eligibility for it. Myself, my wife and our 2 sons had it for a few years while going through employment struggles. Now that I have a regular job and make enough to pay for coverage, CA gave me 12 months of final coverage for my sons only. Mine was terminated the second I had coverage from work, and my wife is covered at her job.
If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I'd qualify for MediCal coverage again, as would my sons since my wife's income is not enough to pay for outside coverage.
California has a system that, while not perfect, functions well enough to afford basic and emergency medical coverage. I shattered my knee in 2011 and 100% of the cost was covered since I only made $8/hr and had no coverage through work.
So why should CA be forced into new laws and regulations when it already has a system in place? Why should any state? The law should have been about getting states to have a MediCal-esque system in place that is regulated by that states own needs.
I fail to see how the social medical needs of Montana are the same as those in Alabama.
Still, I fail to see how me not wanting to pay 2x as much for the same coverage(which will happen come next year) is tantamount to me actively not wanting the less fortunate to have their medicine.
Seaward wrote: It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.
Over the course of this debate I've asked in dakka maybe 30 times how you remove the ability of insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, without requiring people to get insurance while they are well (otherwise they'll just wait until they do get sick and then go out and get insurance).
Only answer I've ever heard is 'freedom!'
Seb... that still happens.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
The fact that citizens will be taxed for abstaining from a service is absolutely insulting.
Regardless, the problem is (and I hate to say this, because in nearly all cases I oppose government intervention) unregulated, opaque hospital management. There is literally zero relationship between the price they pay for a medical device and the value that you are billed. This would be nothing more than free market capitalism were it not for the fact that, in many cases, people are unable to consent one way or another: If you are in a serious car accident and unconscious, and you make it to a hospital, you're going to get treatment whether you like it or not. In an industry where A) people can't "shop around" for the best hospital, B) people are often given services without ever consenting to them, and C) we're talking something that is already heavily involved with the government anyway (NIH research, etc.), hospitals are one of the few areas where government ought to intervene.
Intervening in the health insurance side of things only makes the problem worse.
I think one thing the federal government needs to look at is all of these states who are passing laws to over ride what the Fed says.
Gun control, health care, marriage(in either direction), drugs. All of these issues have laws passed by various states that are in direct violation of Federal law.
If that trend continues too far, then states will see the Federal government as superfluous and expensive and therefore make a move to either remove or restructure the federal government.
Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.
There are a few states that the US cannot honestly afford to lose. California is likely top of that list, due in large part to it's population size and it's GDP and economic value. Texas would likely be second, and New York third iirc.
So what happens when Texas decides they want out, and they convince New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma to go with them?
If the states lose the ability to govern themselves then why have states at all?
The federal government is trying to micromanage an issue that is far too big to micromanage.
Require states to have SOME form of public healthcare, excellent. But let those states decide how they want to regulate and run that program. If you don't like the way your state runs it's free healthcare, move to somewhere with a better plan.
Seaward wrote: It's also not the government's place to tell me I need to buy health insurance. I'm currently covered by my employer, but I'm probably going to knock off and go the self-employed route within a year or so here, and if I wasn't obliged to have coverage, I certainly wouldn't have any.
Over the course of this debate I've asked in dakka maybe 30 times how you remove the ability of insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, without requiring people to get insurance while they are well (otherwise they'll just wait until they do get sick and then go out and get insurance).
Only answer I've ever heard is 'freedom!'
Seb... that still happens.
If you don't have insurance (and you're healthy), you can still refuse to purchase insurance. When tax time comes every April, you'd just pay the tax (fine) for not having insurance. It's waaaaaaaay cheaper now to pay for the tax, than to purchase the insurance. If you get sick, you simply signup for one right away and the insurance cannot deny you. At. All.
See the problem? It actually makes it EASIER to game the system a bit.
The fact that citizens will be taxed for abstaining from a service is absolutely insulting.
Regardless, the problem is (and I hate to say this, because in nearly all cases I oppose government intervention) unregulated, opaque hospital management.
That's part of the problem due to the complexity of getting government cheese... these hospitals have to jump through hoops of fire in order to qualify.
There is literally zero relationship between the price they pay for a medical device and the value that you are billed.
Of course there is... it's just ridiculously complex how "that" price got there...
This would be nothing more than free market capitalism were it not for the fact that, in many cases, people are unable to consent one way or another: If you are in a serious car accident and unconscious, and you make it to a hospital, you're going to get treatment whether you like it or not. In an industry where A) people can't "shop around" for the best hospital, B) people are often given services without ever consenting to them, and C) we're talking something that is already heavily involved with the government anyway (NIH research, etc.), hospitals are one of the few areas where government ought to intervene.
Hospital don' make it their life's mission to make things overly complex. The issue is much more complex than just the hospitals.
Intervening in the health insurance side of things only makes the problem worse.
Agreed... it's taking an already complex system and throwing Pandora into the mix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote: I think one thing the federal government needs to look at is all of these states who are passing laws to over ride what the Fed says.
Gun control, health care, marriage(in either direction), drugs. All of these issues have laws passed by various states that are in direct violation of Federal law.
If that trend continues too far, then states will see the Federal government as superfluous and expensive and therefore make a move to either remove or restructure the federal government.
Everyone acts like slavery was the only issue behind the Civil War, and it wasn't. States rights were a major issue.
There are a few states that the US cannot honestly afford to lose. California is likely top of that list, due in large part to it's population size and it's GDP and economic value. Texas would likely be second, and New York third iirc.
So what happens when Texas decides they want out, and they convince New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma to go with them?
If the states lose the ability to govern themselves then why have states at all?
The federal government is trying to micromanage an issue that is far too big to micromanage.
Require states to have SOME form of public healthcare, excellent. But let those states decide how they want to regulate and run that program. If you don't like the way your state runs it's free healthcare, move to somewhere with a better plan.
Erm... States passing laws that contravene Federal codes occurs ALL THE TIME.
It's usually a tactic by the state to build a case (grounds) so that they can take the Feds to court.
Nothing new here... just how a normal dysfunctional family argues with one another.
d-usa wrote: If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.
Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.
At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.
d-usa wrote: If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.
Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.
At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.
Agreed.
I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.
It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.
d-usa wrote: If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.
Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.
At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.
Agreed.
I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.
It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.
Dear Texas,
Please don't leave till I get there.
Where in Texas?
We'll let you come here, but leave the Cali "government as the answer to everything and so can tell you what to do" style behind at the border please.
d-usa wrote: If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.
Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.
At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.
Was thinking about New Mexico instead of Texas, my screw-up there.
d-usa wrote: If Texas leaves and takes Oklahoma with them, then the federal budget looks more balanced already.
Why? Texas sends off substantially more in taxes then it gets back. A big argument against secession is that we'd get stuck with some of the crap federal debt.
At this point I'm not far against the concept. I no longer wish to be in a union with nanny states like New York and California.
Agreed.
I currently live in CA and I hate it here. The only things nice about it are the geography and SOME of the people. My company is moving to Texas solely because CA decided to add on to our taxes and with their democratic supermajority they can keep on doing it without it going to public vote. I'm all for taxing large corporations, but my company is 70 people. So when CA wants to take another 4% in taxes on top of what we already pay, and it stops us from hiring 2 people, we'll take our business elsewhere where we can grow and not be penalized so heavily for it.
It is not MY fault that CA is a bankrupt state despite it's massive economy. Gross mismanagement. I'm out.
Dear Texas,
Please don't leave till I get there.
Where in Texas?
We'll let you come here, but leave the Cali "government as the answer to everything and so can tell you what to do" style behind at the border please.
The office will be on Anderson Mill in Austin/Cedar Park. I'll be moving to either Cedar Park or southern Georgetown.
Also, I hate the CA government, and they have no answers.
No gak?
If you're driving on the weekend and you see what looks like a caveman in a Hawaiian shirt, drinking coffee and shuffling along with what looks like the world's oldest wiener dog, thats not a horrible fragment of some old dream. Don't stare too long though, or you'll miss the other wiener dog sneaking up on you.
When you get here, you must acquaint yourself with several things:
1) Alamo Drafthouse/Flix brewhouse (if you end up in Round Rock).
2) Lupe Tortillas
3) Amy's icecream. The server's like to throw the icecream around and other tricks like bartenders.
I always thought that deep within the politically conservative borders of Texas, you guys collected all the liberals and stuck them into Austin (aka Little California).
d-usa wrote: I always thought that deep within the politically conservative borders of Texas, you guys collected all the liberals and stuck them into Austin (aka Little California).
That would be correct. Sometimes a few get out once in a while, but we have constant pickupdriving rednecks patrolling.
I'm probably moving to Texas or Arizona shortly before Colorado becomes too purple to stand. Both states are more friendly to small business and gun owners too. The former and latter both help me with my career. Keep an eye out for a Wild Arms Forge opening near you!
Frazzled wrote: No gak?
If you're driving on the weekend and you see what looks like a caveman in a Hawaiian shirt, drinking coffee and shuffling along with what looks like the world's oldest wiener dog, thats not a horrible fragment of some old dream. Don't stare too long though, or you'll miss the other wiener dog sneaking up on you.
When you get here, you must acquaint yourself with several things:
1) Alamo Drafthouse/Flix brewhouse (if you end up in Round Rock).
2) Lupe Tortillas
3) Amy's icecream. The server's like to throw the icecream around and other tricks like bartenders.
In fact, if anyone ever wanted a nice, clear display of why something as abstract as 'state's rights' just fething isn't the kind of thing you go marching off to war over, look at the US right now. There's lots of disaffected people who believe very strongly that their state's rights to self-govern are being trampled by a large and getting larger Federal Government... and yet there is absolutely zero chance of this producing any real kind of secession movement, let alone one backed by force.
But the abolition of slavery... well that challenged the pocket books of the wealthy and influential, and challenged the way the rest of the population understood their place in the social order. That's the kind of thing people freak out about enough to start a war over.
So if you ever really thought 'states rights' was real and meaningful enough to justify war well just look at the US now. ANd look at it in 1860. States rights as a major cause for war is bs.
In fact, if anyone ever wanted a nice, clear display of why something as abstract as 'state's rights' just fething isn't the kind of thing you go marching off to war over, look at the US right now. There's lots of disaffected people who believe very strongly that their state's rights to self-govern are being trampled by a large and getting larger Federal Government... and yet there is absolutely zero chance of this producing any real kind of secession movement, let alone one backed by force.
But the abolition of slavery... well that challenged the pocket books of the wealthy and influential, and challenged the way the rest of the population understood their place in the social order. That's the kind of thing people freak out about enough to start a war over.
So if you ever really thought 'states rights' was real and meaningful enough to justify war well just look at the US now. ANd look at it in 1860. States rights as a major cause for war is bs.
Not to derail the thread too much... but, isn't the fact that the southern state wanted to maintain the status quo (thus, slavery) in fact, an excercise in defending their "state's right"?
There were also a plethora of other things the south didn't like... like the taxes/tariff on the texttile industries...
I really don't get this antagonistic debate on this.
And, yeah... as virulent the political debate has been, we ain't no where close to sucession.
