[quote name='IRHari']Actually bic isn't that far off. Most people in this country don't give as much of a shit about millions of dollars going to rich defense companies, but the minute you talk about the mythical welfare queen picking up foodstamps in their cadillacs they go batshit.
It saves everyone in the system money if you have health insurance as opposed to going to the emergency room. If you've covered you can get more preventative care saving money in the long run for everyone in the system, not just the minority.[/QUOTE]
Looks like you beat me to it. People are generally more angered by perceived injustices then actual injustices. Its more important to get angry at the person you think is getting a one up on you then the massive company that actually IS getting a one up on you.
[quote name='dohdough']Dammit...there's another debate tonight and I missed the first 45 minutes.[/QUOTE]
Not that good really. More of Cain flip flopping and ramming 999 into everything, Romney stays safe, Gingrich makes himself out to be above these debates, Ron Paul hates on the Fed, Bachmann is off in left field with tax plans being related to happy meals, Huntsman seems to understand whats going on and nobody claps when he speaks, Santorum still looks doa and flails trying to gain traction all night, and Rick Perry is apparently too stupid or so relaxed to be bothered by his own policy decisions and as usual they all thank god they are not Obama.
[quote name='cindersphere']Umm okay? Dude whether you want to admit it or not, that race was decided before it began. Hmm really conservative election being won by a conservative? Say it isn't so! But no I didn't post it for the same reason why I didn't post the other Dem wins, such as the successful recall of Paul Scott, or the Iowa senate staying in the hands of Democrats, or the Pyrrhic recall of Russell Pearce in Arizona. Why? Because like the Mississippi governors race they were not important as the three I did post, which put into effect or keep drastic changes to policy decision.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Maria is really the only one that makes CNBC watchable the I'm a bit shocked that a person with a BA in economics didn't challenge any of these clowns on their backwards economic theory.
The last page here had a statement that people don't like to buy health insurance to pay for other people's healthcare, or something very close to that. I just have to say that I've never read anything more ridiculous than that. Health insurance (and all insurance really) is pooled risk. Put it this way; if you have health insurance and you break your leg, are you using your own health insurance? What about the next year where you still have insurance but you don't break your leg? In fact, you get no medical care whatsoever the next year but you still pay the $5k or whatever per year in premiums. What does that mean?
It's the same thing with this "death panel" BS. If you think govt health care is evil because of death panels, for what reason do you think that there are entire floors at health insurance companies that employ actuaries? ing imbeciles.
Most people do not want to be forced to buy health insurance to help pay for people who can't afford it.
I wasn't far off bic. So I ask again, what is insurance if you don't use it? What are you paying for? It's pooled risk and you're paying for everyone else in addition to yourself.
[quote name='nasum']
The last page here had a statement that people don't like to buy health insurance to pay for other people's healthcare, or something very close to that. I just have to say that I've never read anything more ridiculous than that. Health insurance (and all insurance really) is pooled risk. Put it this way; if you have health insurance and you break your leg, are you using your own health insurance? What about the next year where you still have insurance but you don't break your leg? In fact, you get no medical care whatsoever the next year but you still pay the $5k or whatever per year in premiums. What does that mean?
.[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman.
Go back and re-read what I said. Reading is fundamental, kids.
[quote name='bic']People want insurance and they want it cheaper. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that they (people with AND without health insurance) don't want to be forced to pay in to a system to make costs cheaper for the minority.[/QUOTE]
Really? The people elected Obama, and it's not like he kept his healthcare plans a secret during his campaign.
[quote name='camoor']Really? The people elected Obama, and it's not like he kept his healthcare plans a secret during his campaign.[/QUOTE]
The 08' election was a referendum on the bush administration. But thats beside the point.
What got obama's popularity to rise was his stance against the iraq war and the fact that he voted against it. Not because of nat'l healthcare. Any reasonable person would acknowledge this.
Do you believe that every person who voted for him in '08 wanted nat'l healthcare? If so, I have some waterfront property in death valley I'd like to sell to you.
[quote name='Msut77']Enough did.
You going to pretend it isn't an important issue?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Healthcare was an important issue. Still is. Since ya know, healthcare costs by and large have risen, thus resulting in less doctor visits, leading to an increase in profits for these companies. Is that what you voted for?
[quote name='bic']Nope. Healthcare was an important issue. Still is. Since ya know, healthcare costs by and large have risen, thus resulting in less doctor visits, leading to an increase in profits for these companies. Is that what you voted for?[/QUOTE]
I wish the health care reform bill was better. Stll beats the status quo however.
[quote name='bic']The 08' election was a referendum on the bush administration. But thats beside the point.
What got obama's popularity to rise was his stance against the iraq war and the fact that he voted against it. Not because of nat'l healthcare. Any reasonable person would acknowledge this.
Do you believe that every person who voted for him in '08 wanted nat'l healthcare? If so, I have some waterfront property in death valley I'd like to sell to you.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='bic']The 08' election was a referendum on the bush administration. But thats beside the point.
What got obama's popularity to rise was his stance against the iraq war and the fact that he voted against it. Not because of nat'l healthcare. Any reasonable person would acknowledge this.
Do you believe that every person who voted for him in '08 wanted nat'l healthcare? If so, I have some waterfront property in death valley I'd like to sell to you.[/QUOTE]
Such a hypocrite. Then again, I've come to realize that it's only "the will of the people" when the GOP wins. Any other time it can be attributed to whatever else the conservatives think up.
@camoor: It's ironic that the part of the PPACA that seems to draw the most ire is the individual mandate... and that's something "Candidate" Obama campaigned against (Hillary wanted it though). Obama and Congress basically put the individual mandate in to appease the insurance companies; guaranteeing them healthy individuals buying in in return for offering (some would say shitty) care to those with pre-existing conditions. It was a clear buy off. And Romney said Obama and Congressional Democrats hate businesses.
[quote name='bic']I think you misread what I posted. People want insurance and they want it cheaper. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that they (people with AND without health insurance) don't want to be forced to pay in to a system to make costs cheaper for the minority.[/QUOTE]
Everybody on the internet seems to think that disagreement=failure to comprehend.
Okay, let's evaluate your one sentence summary
What I'm saying is that they (people with AND without health insurance) don't want to be forced to pay in to a system to make costs cheaper for the minority.
1) People *with* health insurance are not being "forced to pay into a system". They elected to pay into said system pre-PPACA. Nothing really changes for them, except they now have a *chance* of *lower* costs as there should be more shared risk. These people may indeed be "upset" as you suggest, but their anger is unfounded. If the PPACA was scrapping every existing insurance for a single-payer system (God, if only this were true), then they would have a legit beef as they were (allegedly) happy with their private plan. But that's *not* the case here. They were already in the system so what are they really complaining about? A feeling?
2) People without insurance *are* being "forced into a system", you are (technically) correct there. But the 'people w/o insurance can be futher divided into two groups. A) People who want insurance but cant afford/qualify for it; B) People who do not desire health insurance.
A) These people are (generally) pleased that they can now get health insurance. They have wanted it, but either due to finances or pre-existing conditions, were unable to get it. They want something, now they got it. I dont see any logical reason they would be upset.
B) Research would show that this group is the true "minority" in the health care/insurance debate. At best the research only suggests that only 11 Million of the alleged 47 Million uninsured have access to and can afford health insurance but decline to do so. So that's less than 25% of the 'uninsured' and less than 4% of the (2009) US population as a whole. So when we're talking about 'minorities' this is the group that we should think of first. The rest of the country *wants* health insurance.
And as the end of the article linked above states:
"We all pay for the uninsured," Aetna Insurance CEO Ron Williams said in a 2008 interview in Fortune magazine. "The average employer is paying 12 percent more in premiums today to cover the uninsured than they would pay if we brought those 47 million into the system."
So if anything, one could make the argument that we the people who pay into the system are already subsidizing the care of those who consciously decide against health insurance. They still (occasionally) get sick. They still will (occasionally) have accidents and get hurt. Should we tell them, 'Tough luck, you should have thought ahead'? No, we have a moral obligation to help others when they need it.
So for those who dont have insurance and dont want it to be upset that they are being 'forced into a system to make costs cheaper for a minority' is farcical at best. The status quo has the majority subsidizing *their* costs, brought about by nothing other than their laissez-faire approach to their health care. For them to be *mad* about the PPACA just makes me want to vomit!
I was once one of the uninsured who had access to and could afford health insurance but chose not to buy it. It was one of the dumber things I could have done. I'm lucky that I didnt *need* significant care during those years, but if I had.... I was gambling with my very life. But, if I had broken a leg or something the ER would have indeed put a cast on me whether I had a Blue Cross card or not. Someone else would have borne the brunt of the cost....and would have never 'known' it.
Everybody on the internet seems to think that disagreement=failure to comprehend.[/QUOTE]
Yeah..Don't catch feelings. You misinterpreted what I said. It happens.
Okay, let's evaluate your one sentence summary
1) People *with* health insurance are not being "forced to pay into a system". They elected to pay into said system pre-PPACA. Nothing really changes for them, except they now have a *chance* of *lower* costs as there should be more shared risk.
You conveniently left out one part. These people who choose to cancel their current plan for whatever reason, will need to find another plan or face a fine.
These people may indeed be "upset" as you suggest, but their anger is unfounded. If the PPACA was scrapping every existing insurance for a single-payer system (God, if only this were true), then they would have a legit beef as they were (allegedly) happy with their private plan. But that's *not* the case here. They were already in the system so what are they really complaining about? A feeling?See above response. You're not telling the whole story.
2) People without insurance *are* being "forced into a system", you are (technically) correct there. But the 'people w/o insurance can be futher divided into two groups. A) People who want insurance but cant afford/qualify for it; B) People who do not desire health insurance.
A) These people are (generally) pleased that they can now get health insurance. They have wanted it, but either due to finances or pre-existing conditions, were unable to get it. They want something, now they got it. I dont see any logical reason they would be upset.
B) Research would show that this group is the true "minority" in the health care/insurance debate. At best the research only suggests that only 11 Million of the alleged 47 Million uninsured have access to and can afford health insurance but decline to do so. So that's less than 25% of the 'uninsured' and less than 4% of the (2009) US population as a whole. So when we're talking about 'minorities' this is the group that we should think of first. The rest of the country *wants* health insurance.
Again, for the 3rd time. People want health insurance and they want it cheap. I'm not arguing against that.
And as the end of the article linked above states:
So if anything, one could make the argument that we the people who pay into the system are already subsidizing the care of those who consciously decide against health insurance. They still (occasionally) get sick. They still will (occasionally) have accidents and get hurt. Should we tell them, 'Tough luck, you should have thought ahead'? No, we have a moral obligation to help others when they need it.
So for those who dont have insurance and dont want it to be upset that they are being 'forced into a system to make costs cheaper for a minority' is farcical at best. The status quo has the majority subsidizing *their* costs, brought about by nothing other than their laissez-faire approach to their health care. For them to be *mad* about the PPACA just makes me want to vomit!
I was once one of the uninsured who had access to and could afford health insurance but chose not to buy it. It was one of the dumber things I could have done. I'm lucky that I didnt *need* significant care during those years, but if I had.... I was gambling with my very life. But, if I had broken a leg or something the ER would have indeed put a cast on me whether I had a Blue Cross card or not. Someone else would have borne the brunt of the cost....and would have never 'known' it.
Only people who don't want healthcare are against the PPACP? That's one of the most naive things I've ever read. COSTS ARE GOING UP! You don't think people knew they would rise? C'mon already!
[quote name='bic']I saw your smug reply before he posted his. Calm down, I'll get to your idol. In the meantime, unlock your jaw and remove my penis from your throat.[/QUOTE]
It is the belligerence combined with the idiocy that irks me. Costs have gone up? Just like they have for decades? Blame yhe bill that hasn't been fully enacted yet.
Yeah, I didn't really miss anything there.
If you don't use it via illness or injury, somebody else is using it by virtue of the pooled risk. Now your conservative bullet point scratch the surface but don't bother to see if it passes the sniff test version of rising health care costs is because the haves have to pay for the health care of the havenots. Here's a simple solution; don't buy health insurance! This way you're completely self reliant. Just don't get sick or hurt because then you have to pay full price. Likely finding yourself amongst the havenots afterwards as you're buried in debt from medical bills.
So, you're complelled to purchase health insurance by the free market already, what's so bad about having it go single payer at which point the insurance premiums will be lower due to the increased risk pool? Instead of having 6 different companies getting 1/6th of the risk pool, now we get one entity getting 6/6ths of the pool further spreading the costs and therefore reducing premiums. I'm sorry if you don't have a background in fincance/economics/accounting/actuarial science to fully understand this concept, but don't take Rush's word for it that the bogeyman will come and get you when health care payments become easier.
56.8% of eligible voters voted in 2008.
Obama received 52.9% of that vote.
So, approximately 30.0% of people elected Obama. Not "the people".
[quote name='Msut77']It is the belligerence combined with the idiocy that irks me. Costs have gone up? Just like they have for decades? Blame yhe bill that hasn't been fully enacted yet.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha.
"We passed a bill that will cost us an additional 2 trillion over the next decade, even though the actual bill is nothing like we (liberals) really wanted and costs have shot up, doctor visits down; at least we know costs have already been rising for years."
"We passed a bill that will cost us an additional 2 trillion over the next decade, even though the actual bill is nothing like we (liberals) really wanted and costs have shot up, doctor visits down; at least we know costs have already been rising for years."
[quote name='nasum']Yeah, I didn't really miss anything there.
If you don't use it via illness or injury, somebody else is using it by virtue of the pooled risk. Now your conservative bullet point scratch the surface but don't bother to see if it passes the sniff test version of rising health care costs is because the haves have to pay for the health care of the havenots. Here's a simple solution; don't buy health insurance! This way you're completely self reliant. Just don't get sick or hurt because then you have to pay full price. Likely finding yourself amongst the havenots afterwards as you're buried in debt from medical bills.
So, you're complelled to purchase health insurance by the free market already, what's so bad about having it go single payer at which point the insurance premiums will be lower due to the increased risk pool? Instead of having 6 different companies getting 1/6th of the risk pool, now we get one entity getting 6/6ths of the pool further spreading the costs and therefore reducing premiums. I'm sorry if you don't have a background in fincance/economics/accounting/actuarial science to fully understand this concept, but don't take Rush's word for it that the bogeyman will come and get you when health care payments become easier.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you did miss it.
The last page here had a statement that people don't like to buy health insurance to pay for other people's healthcare, or something very close to that.
But since I'm derpy today, what's the difference between being "forced" to buy insurance and being strongly compelled to purchase insurance due to the consequences of not purchasing insurance?
I believe it was correct to begin with - a bit over half the eligible voters voted and a bit over half of those voted for Obama. You can't say "30% of people" because that doesn't take into account non-eligible voters (minors, illegal immigrants, etc.).
Quick search says we had approximately 307,000,000 "legal" people in the US in 2008. Obama received approximately 63,700,000 votes - so, ignoring the illegal population, Obama got about 20.7% of the people to elect him.
ing imbeciles.
