Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Thats the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution. You're right you need to read more if you are going to be successful in future trolling endeavors.

I wasn't quoting either document. I was quoting that rather melancholy looking dog that made the post.

Chongara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution. You're right you need to read more if you are going to be successful in future trolling endeavors.

I wasn't quoting either document. I was quoting that rather melancholy looking dog that made the post.

He can look melancholy at times. Often, the 110lb dog tries to look like he hasn't eaten in days so I'll feed him again.

People don't have a right not to be shot. There are laws that say you shouldn't shoot someone except in extreme cases.

I think people can decide amongst themselves that a gunshot to the torso would be painful, without bringing in outside experts. (No doubt, at this point, sebster will weigh in with the various sections of the torso that could sustain a gunshot without necessarily being painful or life threatening.)

As only about 1/10 of the population isn't covered under insurance (and some of those may be illegals anyway) it's more likely that the gunshot victim does have insurance to get the lead out. If they are the 1/10 of the population, they will still receive emergency room attention to remove the offending bullet.

I don't see the logic in putting the healthcare of 9/10 of the population at risk because of the various reasons 1/10 of the population doesn't have insurance.

Notice, 90% of the population has health insurance.
100% of the population receives healthcare.

Get the trivial insurance fraud, emergency room visits for splinters, and trial lawyers away from the healthcare system, and everything would be hunkydory.

Best,

About the right to life, I always thought that referred to the government taking your life. As in for some types of autocratic governments the nation literally owns your life and can kill you without recrimination.

It does bring up an interesting point. How many would be opposed to a bill that grants "disaster" policies to U.S. Citizens?

Usually it is the life threatening illnesses that are used as defenses of Universal Healthcare, but most of the real problems of such a program (ignoring for the moment of the significant problem with government forcing individuals to purchase something) would involve all of the non-life threatening abuses that such a system would entail.

And anyone who does not think it would be abused needs to read up on just how horribly abused government programs to help the "common man" are. (Sadly, since the spirit of such programs is in the right place)

Phanatik wrote:We somehow managed to survive for decades without keynesians mucking stuff up with their we-know-better-than-everyone-else attitudes.

Survive, sure, but is survival really living?

But seriously, some of us are smarter than you are, or at least have more knowledge than you do. I couldn't rebuild an engine if I tried, and most people wouldn't consider it insulting if someone told me that. But O...M...G when policy enters into the equation any suggestion that you might not be intellectually equipped to deal with the matter is demeaning.

Is the main issue with this proposal essentially making health insurance mandatory?

The main problem being the 'mandatory' part?

Presumably there are varying levels of insurance, so would this new form cover all types of illness?

Phanatik wrote:
Get the trivial insurance fraud, emergency room visits for splinters, and trial lawyers away from the healthcare system, and everything would be hunkydory.

Well, aside from all the people without insurance that suffer life-threatening injuries (or have, say, cancer), sure.

But I'll reiterate: "I know things, therefore I know, and have valuable opinions on, policy."

One of the things that has always bothered me about civilian health insurance, is the apparent costs to the individual... From what I understand, in America it is perceived as being far too expensive.. But, having family members who work in the health care industry, I know that the reason why H.C. costs are "so high" is because of those without insurance (for whatever reason, be it poverty or illegal immigration or what have you) going to a hospital get "free" health care (what you thought it was actually free???). Basically it boils down to those who have insurance or large sums of money paying for those without.


Enter "mandatory government healthcare"... does this mean that the average civilian health insurance plan cost go down? If, in theory every person in the US has healthcare coverage that means that no uninsured person is cared for in a hospital or other clinic type, which should, in turn bring overall costs down for everyone. However, I just can't see it working this way at all. IF any of the HC bill remains after the supreme court goes through it, I foresee a medicaid style system, which will bring about much of the "army doctors" that I talked about in a previous post.


And realistically, in the US, only a complete medicaid system would bring about the "army doctors" that I talk about. IF they manage to keep our system "as is" with a few tweaks that allow more people to receive the care they need, while retaining the incentive for doctors to specialize in their given fields.

Phanatik wrote:
Get the trivial insurance fraud, emergency room visits for splinters, and trial lawyers away from the healthcare system, and everything would be hunkydory.

Erm, and the drug companies, who at the very least are leacherous sods that demand markups with triple digits or more for even basic medications that are 40 years old. And when I say triple digits I dont mean 110% I mean more like x00% where x is = just about anything.

Yes, the big pharma companies are notoriously corrupt. It's not even something they bother to hide at the moment.

Though I doubt it matters to phanatik, for reference I studied in the field for two years before switching to chemistry. The methods that the pharmaceutical industry uses to get around having to show side effects are just morally wrong and for that matter unscientific.

Melissia wrote:Yes, the big pharma companies are notoriously corrupt. It's not even something they bother to hide at the moment.

Though I doubt it matters to phanatik, for reference I studied in the field for two years before switching to chemistry. The methods that the pharmaceutical industry uses to get around having to show side effects are just morally wrong and for that matter unscientific.

Au contraire, I have no delusions that Big Pharma wouldn't sell their grandmothers to improve their bottom line.

Best,

Anyone know when a decision is suppose to be made?

Roughly.

june

Piston Honda wrote:Anyone know when a decision is suppose to be made?

Roughly.

All quotes that I've seen is "by June"

Well going to schedule my second surgery before I lose my insurance again.

Phanatik wrote:Au contraire, I have no delusions that Big Pharma wouldn't sell their grandmothers to improve their bottom line.

Only after chopping her up in to her component parts

I still don't understand what Obamacare will change from the way it is now, except for insurance rate going up.

broodstar wrote:I still don't understand what Obamacare will change from the way it is now, except for insurance rate going up.

As I understand, It's like this:

Currently, some people have health care. And some don't. Those that don't, often get expensive medical treatment anyway, and the money that they can't/don't pay has to come from somewhere.

So, for every uninsured person that doesn't pay, their costs get thrown onto the honest, hard working, healthcare-having Americans.

Healthcare being a requirement prevents irresponsible Americans from leeching off the system and placing the burden on those who do pay for their healthcare.

broodstar wrote:I still don't understand what Obamacare will change from the way it is now, except for insurance rate going up.

It's a very big law. You can read a summary here.

Some of it is clearly good, some of it is iffy, and some of it is clearly not so good, just like any really big piece of legislation.

Phanatik wrote:I really hope that people that think like you do that you can "structure" society/economies from the top down have an increasingly diminishing influence over decision-making processes.

I say stick your one-size-fits-all top-down models where the sun doesn't shine. We somehow managed to survive for decades without keynesians mucking stuff up with their we-know-better-than-everyone-else attitudes.

Only true believers in an unrealistic way of thinking that brought us social security, medicare and medicaid would want to quadruple down to bring us government healthcare as well.

I say go away!

Regards,

Here we go again. I explain to you basic economic arguments for why certain economic models can't be applied to certain industries, and you reply with empty rhetoric that doesn't even remotely address the point I made to you. All I can do at this point is plead with you that if you want to argue points on economics, you need to actually gain an appreciation of economics. Go and read some foundational economics texts, learn about what actually makes an effective market and why that effective market doesn't (and can't exist) for all products.

Please go and learn something. Come back with something more than political rhetoric to shout, and maybe you'll have a contribution to make to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:It's a very European philosophy; that the Great and Good of enlightened intellectuals know what is best for the masses.

To be fair, America has generally accepted a fair amount of economic meddling, but much of the hullabaloo in the past few years is the degree to which the Executive office has tried to shift us socially further left.

No, it isn't European. It's basic economics, the kind that's accepted everywhere around the world.

This argument of meddling assumes there's some inherently pure form of market that's free of human interference. That's a fantasy, invented by people who know nothing of economics.

Property laws are an invention of human governments. Contract laws are an invention of human governments. It's all rules written by humans. To pretend that stuff is inherent, but that some other rule is now suddenly intervention is utter nonsense.

sourclams wrote:
It's a very European philosophy; that the Great and Good of enlightened intellectuals know what is best for the masses.

Its not really a European thing, it just sort of a thing.

Some people know a lot about some things, and others know a lot about other things.

I can't rebuild the engine in my car, and I damn sure can't present a non-lethal blowfish for consumption, but I have a ton of knowledge and experience regarding domestic and international politics, and the making of policy.

I've never really understood why people get offended when they're told they don't know how policy works, while freely accepting that that they can't fix an engine, or code a video game. Not that I'm complaining, people with unjustified beliefs are generally easy to manipulate.

dogma wrote: but I have a ton of knowledge and experience regarding domestic and international politics, and the making of policy.

Are you saying you can plan my life better than I can plan it myself?

broodstar wrote:
Are you saying you can plan my life better than I can plan it myself?

Oh, I don't care about you. You're a number.

I care about you in a collective sense, and even then only because I'm paid to.

But yes, I'm better than you at establishing state policy, or simply policy that effects lots of people over a long period of time.

dogma wrote:

broodstar wrote:
Are you saying you can plan my life better than I can plan it myself?

Oh, I don't care about you. You're a number.

I care about you in a collective sense, and even then only because I'm paid to.

But yes, I'm better than you at establishing state policy, or simply policy that effects lots of people over a long period of time.

Fair enough, but remember, I took an oath to defend the people of this country and it's constitution against all threats foreign and domestic.

When I run up and push you into cover, I don't care about you, you're a number.

You are a citizen of this country, so I do care about you in the collective sense, I will defend you.

ph34r wrote:

broodstar wrote:I still don't understand what Obamacare will change from the way it is now, except for insurance rate going up.

As I understand, It's like this:

Currently, some people have health care. And some don't. Those that don't, often get expensive medical treatment anyway, and the money that they can't/don't pay has to come from somewhere.

So, for every uninsured person that doesn't pay, their costs get thrown onto the honest, hard working, healthcare-having Americans.

Healthcare being a requirement prevents irresponsible Americans from leeching off the system and placing the burden on those who do pay for their healthcare.

Er, there's no difference then?

sebster wrote:

Phanatik wrote:I really hope that people that think like you do that you can "structure" society/economies from the top down have an increasingly diminishing influence over decision-making processes.

I say stick your one-size-fits-all top-down models where the sun doesn't shine. We somehow managed to survive for decades without keynesians mucking stuff up with their we-know-better-than-everyone-else attitudes.

Only true believers in an unrealistic way of thinking that brought us social security, medicare and medicaid would want to quadruple down to bring us government healthcare as well.

I say go away!

Regards,

Here we go again. I explain to you basic economic arguments for why certain economic models can't be applied to certain industries, and you reply with empty rhetoric that doesn't even remotely address the point I made to you. All I can do at this point is plead with you that if you want to argue points on economics, you need to actually gain an appreciation of economics. Go and read some foundational economics texts, learn about what actually makes an effective market and why that effective market doesn't (and can't exist) for all products.

Please go and learn something. Come back with something more than political rhetoric to shout, and maybe you'll have a contribution to make to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:It's a very European philosophy; that the Great and Good of enlightened intellectuals know what is best for the masses.

To be fair, America has generally accepted a fair amount of economic meddling, but much of the hullabaloo in the past few years is the degree to which the Executive office has tried to shift us socially further left.

No, it isn't European. It's basic economics, the kind that's accepted everywhere around the world.

This argument of meddling assumes there's some inherently pure form of market that's free of human interference. That's a fantasy, invented by people who know nothing of economics.

Property laws are an invention of human governments. Contract laws are an invention of human governments. It's all rules written by humans. To pretend that stuff is inherent, but that some other rule is now suddenly intervention is utter nonsense.

Here we go again.
I explain to you the basic tenets of freedom and you bore me with talk about your beloved models. I would much rather have the freedom to make my own mistakes than have you try to plan my life with a model, even if it were somehow perfect.

I can argue about government meddling without assuming some "pure form of market that's free of human interference." Many people are fed up with government meddling and are pushing back. And guess, what? There are more of us.

I believe you are in Australia? and suffering under socialized medicine? Keep it. Just don't try to foist it off on us.

I was probably engaging in economics when you were still a bubble in your momma's martini. Keep your pleadings and explanations to yourself.

In any case, why should I go and read a book when you'll just tell me I didn't read it or don't even own it because I disagree with you, again?

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:You are a citizen of this country, so I do care about you in the collective sense, I will defend you.

I don't know. These central planners all have big egos.
They would make good cover.

Best, and thanks...

Phanatik wrote:

I believe you are in Australia? and suffering under socialized medicine? Keep it. Just don't try to foist it off on us.

Oh, what a terrible burden it is!


Really the stuff some people post, you can't make it up.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

I believe you are in Australia? and suffering under socialized medicine? Keep it. Just don't try to foist it off on us.

Oh, what a terrible burden it is!


Really the stuff some people post, you can't make it up.

Australia, Texas' long lost crazy cousin (or vice versa).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

I believe you are in Australia? and suffering under socialized medicine? Keep it. Just don't try to foist it off on us.

Oh, what a terrible burden it is!


Really the stuff some people post, you can't make it up.

Really, some people!
Dense.

broodstar wrote:I still don't understand what Obamacare will change from the way it is now, except for insurance rate going up.

Here is a high-level and therefore caricutre look at how Insurance works. The the more people healthy people you have to pay the costs for the percentage of sick people, the farther you can spread out those costs. This is called risk pooling.

For example, let's say I have a policy with 10 other people and we all pay $10 a month. Every month, the Insurance pool collects $100, and over a year, we have accrued $1,200. Now, let's say on new Year's I get injured in a drunken fall. I go to the doctor, and the service cost $1,000. I go to my insurance company and they pay the $1,000, leaving the policy with $200 left over.

Then, my fellow Policy holder Bob has an incidnet on january 15th. This costs $500. That is not enough to cover the costs. The policy has a couple options. They can either increase the number of people in the pool from 10 to 20, raise how much each person pays, or cut Bob and I out and replace us with healthier and less accident prone people.

So that's how Insurance works. Here's what Obamacare does to that system.
1. You can not simply cut Bob and I out of the policy when we become expensive anymore.
2. It forces you increase your risk pool, by taking on more people. Therefore, more people paying premiums to cover the other sick ones.
3. It will require the set-up of Health Care Exchanges (essentially alternate Policies) that people can choose form, thereby allowing more competition for less expensive premiums; limiting a Policies ability to simply raise premiums.

In a nutshell, Obamacare is betting that increasing the risk pool will solve all our problems. Therefore, if the inidividual mandate goes, you aren;t increasing the Risk Pool, but still limiting the options of Policies to pay claims. It is the worst of all possible worlds.

Easy E wrote:2. It forces you increase your risk pool, by taking on more people. Therefore, more people paying premiums to cover the other sick ones.

The people being taken on, however, are primarily young and healthy people who don't need health insurance/much health insurance. In its simplest form, this is an age-based subsidy where young people subsidize older (older meaning less healthy) people.