Jump to content


- - - - -

So you thought Obamacare will give you insurance well guess again


#31 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9399 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:36 AM

Or you know, get the government out of it. 

 

Yes because I want a private company deciding if my health care is worth the cost.

 

Not.

 

Every other modern country on the planet has a one payer system, a government system. Yet the USA doesn't because we are full of dumbness.



#32 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:53 AM

Yes because I want a private company deciding if my health care is worth the cost.

 

Not.

 

Every other modern country on the planet has a one payer system, a government system. Yet the USA doesn't because we are full of dumbness.

Sorry, you are right. Obamacare improved the quality and cost of healthcare. Why not continue with the expansion of government intervention. 



#33 TheN8torious   Shhh...I'm Invisible CAGiversary!   16939 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

TheN8torious

Posted 14 June 2016 - 06:20 PM

Sorry, you are right. Obamacare improved the quality and cost of healthcare. Why not continue with the expansion of government intervention.


Do you honestly believe this version of the ACA is the one Obama and others who came up with the idea want? Do you not remember how many times it was rejected and the concessions that had to be made to get it to pass?

It's crazy to me that people act so shocked that it didn't work out exactly as intended considering the amount of obstruction that took place and the endless scrutiny it's under.

When people have a mindset of never letting it pass or turning it into something unrecognizable that is destined to fail, why would you expect any different?

#34 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 14 June 2016 - 10:28 PM

Or you know, get the government out of it. 

Government had a hands off approach before Obama. That's why insurance companies had a thing called death panels.



#35 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 15 June 2016 - 03:32 AM

Yes because I want a private company deciding if my health care is worth the cost.

 

Not.

 

Every other modern country on the planet has a one payer system, a government system. Yet the USA doesn't because we are full of dumbness.

Kind of like what they have been doing now? Its funny that the rich in the socialist nations fly to neighboring countries to get private treatment and yet we expect top notch quality as soon as healthcare is socialized here in USA. 

 

Government had a hands off approach before Obama. That's why insurance companies had a thing called death panels.

I do not know much about that but is that not what is going on right now with ACA? 

 

Do you honestly believe this version of the ACA is the one Obama and others who came up with the idea want? Do you not remember how many times it was rejected and the concessions that had to be made to get it to pass?

It's crazy to me that people act so shocked that it didn't work out exactly as intended considering the amount of obstruction that took place and the endless scrutiny it's under.

When people have a mindset of never letting it pass or turning it into something unrecognizable that is destined to fail, why would you expect any different?

If it is destined to fail then what was the point of pushing it through? Of course this is not what the Obama administration wanted and yet they rolled with it. So in the end it is still considered a failure by the free market people and those who advocate for a single payer system. Nonetheless ACA proves that continued government intervention leads to decrease in quality and price hikes. It is clear that a free market system would improve on that. Would it be perfect? No, but it would give people a choice to take care of themselves and not be entitled to other people's services and products. 



#36 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 15 June 2016 - 10:28 AM

This happened almost 10 years ago. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Why should that teenager be the exception?



#37 TheN8torious   Shhh...I'm Invisible CAGiversary!   16939 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

TheN8torious

Posted 15 June 2016 - 04:00 PM

If it is destined to fail then what was the point of pushing it through? Of course this is not what the Obama administration wanted and yet they rolled with it. So in the end it is still considered a failure by the free market people and those who advocate for a single payer system. Nonetheless ACA proves that continued government intervention leads to decrease in quality and price hikes. It is clear that a free market system would improve on that. Would it be perfect? No, but it would give people a choice to take care of themselves and not be entitled to other people's services and products. 

Again, this logic is so flawed. This is like me chaining a 40lb kettlebell to your leg and then saying "See! You lost the race! You must suck at running!" Getting the ACA through at all was a foot in the door. It was a starting point. It sure as hell was better than giving up and going back to having nothing. Even calling it a "failure" isn't fair. 16.4 million people have health insurance that didn't have it before. Now, I guess to you those are people who are just "entitled to other people's services and products".

 

But until Libertarians (and Republicans) actually come out and suggest that these people lay in the corner and die, they're going to go somewhere. These are the people who were going to emergency rooms because they had a cold. Then when they couldn't pay, they went to the hospital financial advisors, showed their lack of income, and got it written off. That is the reality of what was happening and what would still be happening without ACA.

 

As for free market healthcare, I actually talked about that in my response in the Gary Johnson thread before I even read this one. So, see my thoughts there.



#38 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 16 June 2016 - 03:12 AM

Again, this logic is so flawed. This is like me chaining a 40lb kettlebell to your leg and then saying "See! You lost the race! You must suck at running!" Getting the ACA through at all was a foot in the door. It was a starting point. It sure as hell was better than giving up and going back to having nothing. Even calling it a "failure" isn't fair. 16.4 million people have health insurance that didn't have it before. Now, I guess to you those are people who are just "entitled to other people's services and products".

 

But until Libertarians (and Republicans) actually come out and suggest that these people lay in the corner and die, they're going to go somewhere. These are the people who were going to emergency rooms because they had a cold. Then when they couldn't pay, they went to the hospital financial advisors, showed their lack of income, and got it written off. That is the reality of what was happening and what would still be happening without ACA.

 

As for free market healthcare, I actually talked about that in my response in the Gary Johnson thread before I even read this one. So, see my thoughts there.

 

My biggest concerns are Johnson's belief in a free market system in areas where "goofs" are not acceptable. He's talked about healthcare and how we need competition and a legitimate marketplace.

 

The problem is, that generally leads to people cutting corners to reduce their costs as much as possible so their profit can be as large as possible. So, as much as he can declare "government healthcare is insanity", having a system that equates to direct from China goods on eBay is much, much worse.

 

And it's one thing to say "make the prices competitive". But eventually, you hit a wall where the question is "what about people in poverty who get sick?" and the answer is "Well...you're fucked!" To me, Libertarianism feels like Darwinism politics. It's survival of the fittest. And if you can't cut it, your evolutionary line just dies off because that's for the betterment of the species anyway.

 

Oh, but wait...he thinks the states should handle it themselves. Cool. So, you get states who feel sympathetic of people in unfortunate situations, that offer healthcare options...everybody in need moves to those states...the states get overloaded...the system fails...and Libertarians get to gloat "See! See! We told you government fails at everything." How is that any less rigged?

 

 

 

Perhaps we should make it clear that healthcare is not a right. It is an entitlement or a positive right. A negative right would be something like freedom of speech or freedom to defend oneself. A right does not infringe upon your freedom. A positive right or an entitlement does, as it must be taken from person or a group and given to the other. Therefore while I agree that the intent of universal healthcare is a kind one it actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help. 

 

Now for companies cutting corners. This is acceptable as the hospitals provide a service for which it must receive something in return. It is like an exchange of goods at a local supermarket or taxi ride. Both are not rights and therefore no one is obligated to do anything unless its agreed by both parties.

 

Libertarian philosophy can be interpreted as Darwinism but that would be wrong, instead it is about maximum freedom and responsibility for oneself. The people who cannot take care of themselves are again not entitled to services of others. Yet, prior to government intrusion many were taken care of free of charge or for a small cost. You can do the research yourself and see that prior to 1960s many were cared for in private and non profit institutions. Today we see the same ranging from organizations such as Saint Jude and large drug companies who hold experimental trials. There are many other examples where people provided kindness but are now barred due to regulations. I think therefore people need to think hard before asking for continued government intervention.

 

Now in regards ACA. ACA is a failure as it was marketed as a solution to rising prices and instead it did nothing to combat that. Prices instead rose and people are losing insurance, I myself chose to no longer get coverage due to a 40% price hike. So old and sick people in, young and healthy out. Using a similar example we can say that Activision chose to release COD Ghosts which turned out to be shit because the developers rushed the product instead of polishing it for another year. Perhaps a valiant effort for their efficiency but still a shit game. 

 

States can go ahead and provide a healthcare service (which I am against) but you say they can get overloaded. Well in that case they can probably need to come up with better laws where healthcare is provided to the residents only or after a certain income threshold is met. Countless ways where they can make it work. If they choose to just give it away then why would anyone be surprised to the failures of such a service? Its like if Uber decides to provide only free rides and then be surprised they are not making any profit. Its not rigged, its basic economics. 



#39 TheN8torious   Shhh...I'm Invisible CAGiversary!   16939 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

TheN8torious

Posted 16 June 2016 - 03:38 AM

Perhaps we should make it clear that healthcare is not a right. It is an entitlement or a positive right. A negative right would be something like freedom of speech or freedom to defend oneself. A right does not infringe upon your freedom. A positive right or an entitlement does, as it must be taken from person or a group and given to the other. Therefore while I agree that the intent of universal healthcare is a kind one it actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help. 

 

Now for companies cutting corners. This is acceptable as the hospitals provide a service for which it must receive something in return. It is like an exchange of goods at a local supermarket or taxi ride. Both are not rights and therefore no one is obligated to do anything unless its agreed by both parties.

 

Libertarian philosophy can be interpreted as Darwinism but that would be wrong, instead it is about maximum freedom and responsibility for oneself. The people who cannot take care of themselves are again not entitled to services of others. Yet, prior to government intrusion many were taken care of free of charge or for a small cost. You can do the research yourself and see that prior to 1960s many were cared for in private and non profit institutions. Today we see the same ranging from organizations such as Saint Jude and large drug companies who hold experimental trials. There are many other examples where people provided kindness but are now barred due to regulations. I think therefore people need to think hard before asking for continued government intervention.

 

Now in regards ACA. ACA is a failure as it was marketed as a solution to rising prices and instead it did nothing to combat that. Prices instead rose and people are losing insurance, I myself chose to no longer get coverage due to a 40% price hike. So old and sick people in, young and healthy out. Using a similar example we can say that Activision chose to release COD Ghosts which turned out to be shit because the developers rushed the product instead of polishing it for another year. Perhaps a valiant effort for their efficiency but still a shit game. 

 

States can go ahead and provide a healthcare service (which I am against) but you say they can get overloaded. Well in that case they can probably need to come up with better laws where healthcare is provided to the residents only or after a certain income threshold is met. Countless ways where they can make it work. If they choose to just give it away then why would anyone be surprised to the failures of such a service? Its like if Uber decides to provide only free rides and then be surprised they are not making any profit. Its not rigged, its basic economics. 

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I can't even process that somebody could believe half of that. All I see is "I've got mine. Good luck to the rest of you." If that's how you want to live, so be it. The fact that you believe not having insurance is a sound strategy just to put a little more "freedom" in your wallet shows where your priorities are. But God forbid you end up on the downside of luck one day. Pride comes before a fall.

 

Clearly, we're at an impasse here. Good luck to you in your method of thinking. But no thank you to any of that.



#40 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 16 June 2016 - 10:28 AM

If you got your jack, you'd better go live far away from civilization. The roads you drive on, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity that fuels your home, the games you play were all paid for everybody else so people could have access to them. The government should have a vested interest in making sure people don't die of starvation, sickness, and poverty, especially if its denizens constantly talk about following the word of Jesus Christ.



#41 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 16 June 2016 - 12:21 PM

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I can't even process that somebody could believe half of that. All I see is "I've got mine. Good luck to the rest of you." If that's how you want to live, so be it. The fact that you believe not having insurance is a sound strategy just to put a little more "freedom" in your wallet shows where your priorities are. But God forbid you end up on the downside of luck one day. Pride comes before a fall.

 

Clearly, we're at an impasse here. Good luck to you in your method of thinking. But no thank you to any of that.

It has more to do with cost than freedom. The last two tax periods it was cheaper for me to pay cash and the penalty then the monthly payment + ridiculous deductible. This will probably change this upcoming year as the penalty does get steeper. 

 

Maybe you will change your mind like I have one day, going from a left leaning socialist to free market libertarian. It certainly took real life experience with corrupted government and a book on economics to push me in the right direction. 

 

If you got your jack, you'd better go live far away from civilization. The roads you drive on, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity that fuels your home, the games you play were all paid for everybody else so people could have access to them. The government should have a vested interest in making sure people don't die of starvation, sickness, and poverty, especially if its denizens constantly talk about following the word of Jesus Christ.

What you just described could all be accomplished with a free market, where self interest actually leads to efficiency and cooperation. Do you think many of today's great inventions were created out of goodwill? No. 

 

I agree that the government plays a part in the life of the people but it should let them decide to make their own choices, good or bad. If you start thinking that healthcare or education is a right then that only means you want to legally steal from the others when instead it should be done voluntary. 



#42 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 16 June 2016 - 05:23 PM

Wait, so you're telling us you don't carry health insurance of any kind? What do you plan on doing if you have a sudden need for medical care? I mean, you can take care of your health ally you want but something appendicitis can hit even the healthiest person out of nowhere. Do you plan on paying out of pocket for it? I mean, even if your surgery goes off without complication you're talking a minimum of $10k. Do you have $10k just laying around to pay for that?

What you just described could all be accomplished with a free market, where self interest actually leads to efficiency and cooperation. Do you think many of today's great inventions were created out of goodwill? No.

Uh, NASA?

#43 TheN8torious   Shhh...I'm Invisible CAGiversary!   16939 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

TheN8torious

Posted 16 June 2016 - 05:55 PM

It has more to do with cost than freedom. The last two tax periods it was cheaper for me to pay cash and the penalty then the monthly payment + ridiculous deductible. This will probably change this upcoming year as the penalty does get steeper. 

 

Maybe you will change your mind like I have one day, going from a left leaning socialist to free market libertarian. It certainly took real life experience with corrupted government and a book on economics to push me in the right direction. 

Doesn't this statement imply that I have neither life experience nor education? How much more condescending do you want to get? Why not just accept that for the things I value, your method of thinking doesn't work for me?

 

And like RedvsBlue said, you talk about insurance as though the only cost is the coverage. You won't have so much fun paying cash the day you get sick and actually need it. If you still possess the feeling of invincibility that comes with youth, then maybe your life experience isn't quite where you think it is. At the very least, you're willfully choosing to play a dangerous game, and gambling the entirety of your assets, just based on the premise "it won't happen to me".

 

Again, no thank you. I'll pass.



#44 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 16 June 2016 - 11:37 PM

Wait, so you're telling us you don't carry health insurance of any kind? What do you plan on doing if you have a sudden need for medical care? I mean, you can take care of your health ally you want but something appendicitis can hit even the healthiest person out of nowhere. Do you plan on paying out of pocket for it? I mean, even if your surgery goes off without complication you're talking a minimum of $10k. Do you have $10k just laying around to pay for that?

Uh, NASA?

Of course I understand that an accident can happen. If it is something that I can't cover then I can negotiate the cost of the treatment due to inflated pricing. I can hire a patient advocate to help and I can also apply for financing through the hospital if it offers it. 

 

Doesn't this statement imply that I have neither life experience nor education? How much more condescending do you want to get? Why not just accept that for the things I value, your method of thinking doesn't work for me?

 

And like RedvsBlue said, you talk about insurance as though the only cost is the coverage. You won't have so much fun paying cash the day you get sick and actually need it. If you still possess the feeling of invincibility that comes with youth, then maybe your life experience isn't quite where you think it is. At the very least, you're willfully choosing to play a dangerous game, and gambling the entirety of your assets, just based on the premise "it won't happen to me".

 

Again, no thank you. I'll pass.

My post was not meant to be condescending. I do accept the opinion of others which is fits with my libertarian philosophy and unlike some other members I am usually pretty open to good discussions. I was merely saying that my personal experience with a corrupted government helped me move away from socialism. I come from a third world country which used to be a soviet satellite. I have seen first hand how a government can go after its own people just for opposing it, imprisoning or even killing the citizens. My parents told me of stories how they would be waiting in food lines for hours and how life changing it was when USSR fell and capitalism spread among the nations. This is why I have a problem with people like Bernie Sanders who obviously have good intentions but never really experienced big government. This is why I am very pro 2nd amendment as I understand the reasoning behind it. As the government keeps growing, getting more intrusive, waging foreign wars and spying on its own people I am sometimes baffled that we still have people who advocate for continued expansion.  



#45 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 17 June 2016 - 12:01 AM

Of course I understand that an accident can happen. If it is something that I can't cover then I can negotiate the cost of the treatment due to inflated pricing. I can hire a patient advocate to help and I can also apply for financing through the hospital if it offers it.

My post was not meant to be condescending. I do accept the opinion of others which is fits with my libertarian philosophy and unlike some other members I am usually pretty open to good discussions. I was merely saying that my personal experience with a corrupted government helped me move away from socialism. I come from a third world country which used to be a soviet satellite. I have seen first hand how a government can go after its own people just for opposing it, imprisoning or even killing the citizens. My parents told me of stories how they would be waiting in food lines for hours and how life changing it was when USSR fell and capitalism spread among the nations. This is why I have a problem with people like Bernie Sanders who obviously have good intentions but never really experienced big government. This is why I am very pro 2nd amendment as I understand the reasoning behind it. As the government keeps growing, getting more intrusive, waging foreign wars and spying on its own people I am sometimes baffled that we still have people who advocate for continued expansion.

Socialism doesn't equal the USSR. I mean, our neighbors to the north enjoy every bit of freedom as ourselves (and in this day and age of government surveillance, maybe even more...) and they have more government programs and socialized medicine than we do. I get that your bad experience can color your future outlook but you're looking at one of the worst implementations of big government in modern times meanwhile creating a false equivalency between communism and socialism.

And the 2nd amendment as a deterrence for big government? Come on man, the federal government has access to grenades, grenade launchers, rocket propelled grenades, fully automatic assault weapons, mini guns, tanks, drones, laser guided smart bombs, tactical nuclear warheads, and the list goes on. Do you honestly think handguns, shotguns, and rifles are really a deterrence in the face of that kind of firepower?

#46 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 17 June 2016 - 01:29 AM

I don't really understand the rebel thing. Didn't anybody learn what the first President did during the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington stared down those b-es.

#47 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 17 June 2016 - 02:31 AM

Socialism doesn't equal the USSR. I mean, our neighbors to the north enjoy every bit of freedom as ourselves (and in this day and age of government surveillance, maybe even more...) and they have more government programs and socialized medicine than we do. I get that your bad experience can color your future outlook but you're looking at one of the worst implementations of big government in modern times meanwhile creating a false equivalency between communism and socialism.

And the 2nd amendment as a deterrence for big government? Come on man, the federal government has access to grenades, grenade launchers, rocket propelled grenades, fully automatic assault weapons, mini guns, tanks, drones, laser guided smart bombs, tactical nuclear warheads, and the list goes on. Do you honestly think handguns, shotguns, and rifles are really a deterrence in the face of that kind of firepower?

I don't know about that, they have less economic freedom and probably a bit less individual liberty. I think you confirmed it when you say they have more socialized programs which of course requires money. Government does not produce money which means it must be acquired by taking it from the people. Good citizens of Canada do choose to give up their money so its their choice and if they are happy then good for them. Like Thatcher once said "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". This is why many European nations are doing worse than before. Healthcare quality is decreasing in countries like Sweden and France. Welfare systems are hurting under increased pressure due to unemployment and immigration. Looking at a pattern, its clear that all those governments are getting more intrusive on individuals and businesses therefore I think we should expect these countries to get worse when it comes to freedoms. USA is also problematic in many areas and I never called it a free country, as a matter of fact we are probably in much worse shape than people expect.

 

Yes, guns are a deterrent. It might not be enough but if we decide that to just roll over then we might as well give up the rest of the liberties including freedom of speech. Then again we already see the constitution trampled and it is hard to answer if United States is still the land of the free.