Simple question.
-
Hopefully the states will nullify the law and perhaps all federal laws that are unconstitutional. People need to take over local and state governments through elections and constantly put pressure on them to restructure the internal governments across the states to defend the constitution and free markets.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
I don't get why someone as poor and unemployable as yourself is so keen to let pure capitalism crush you into poverty and death.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Nobody on any side of any debate can claim the current system (or lack thereof) works. Health care costs are going up so fast that, if unchecked, we will have REAL economic crisis in a few years that will make last year's meltdown look like a walk in the park. The problem, as I see it, is this: health care providers (e.g. hospitals and pharmaceuticals) and insurance companies, together have monopoly power over the rest of us. Between them, there is no economic pressure to lower costs. Providers raise their costs, insurance companies happily agree, raising premiums, because the more money that flows through them, the more money they make. It's a runaway train. It is getting increasingly difficult for individuals and (people forget about this) small businesses to get reasonable coverage. So more are becoming uninsured, prices are still going up, and when they really need something the bill is either passed on to the taxpayers, at whatever rate the provider feels like charging (which is quite likely much higher than what they charge their favorite insurer), or the person is financially ruined. Sometimes both. So we're already paying for it. The main premise behind this bill, as I understand it, is to prevent insurers from denying coverage. To do that, we need everyone to get coverage now, otherwise they will wait until something catastrophic happens and we wouldn't have really changed anything. The bill only makes sense (to me) if there are also real constraints on what health providers can charge (not just insurers), which I have to be honest I don't know. The whole debate has been so full of scare mongering and idiocy that I haven't followed up on the details. For the democrats: Why couldn't you get your shit together when you had the chance? Something, anything decisive would have almost certainly been better than this watered down, compromised pile of crap. For the republicans: What DO you want if not this? You had years to do something about this crisis (it IS a crisis) and did nothing. I don't know if this bill will fulfill the goal of reigning in health care costs. I have a real fear it could make things worse. My gut feel is that it may help a little, but probably not enough.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
David Kentley wrote:
. Between them, there is no economic pressure to lower costs.
Exactly the issue. That's why going to the most basic care costs hundreds of dollars in the US, and $50 here.
David Kentley wrote:
I don't know if this bill will fulfill the goal of reigning in health care costs. I have a real fear it could make things worse. My gut feel is that it may help a little, but probably not enough.
Yes, it's clear to me that this is a watered down mess, and I don't get why anyone is crying about it, except people who'd like real, decent, affordable health care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants
Why do you think that's what we want, or what must result ?
josda1000 wrote:
I stand and say that A) How would 535 elected officials of the federation know what's right for each and every situation?
As I said in the discussion we started and did not finish, for every American who is offended at the idea of having insurance, there's probably hundreds who need medical care and wish they were not locked out of the system. Any system of government is a compromise that hopefully meets the needs of the many without upsetting the few too much.
josda1000 wrote:
How can, for example, Ian in New York know what my situation is without even knowing me?
Ian knows you are human and that you want to stay well. He knows that the money you pay into an insurance scheme from youth helps amortise the risk of insuring someone who is older and more likely to need care. He understands how insurance works, and knows that lifelong membership in a fund is the only way to provide you with affordable insurance in old age.
josda1000 wrote:
But anyway, please I'd like to know your answers, I'm distrought about the outcomes this week. As are most here, which is a good thing. Bittersweet, yet good.
Americans, more than other peoples, seem to live for the free lunch. That's why the instruction books that come with appliances are insane, because if they don't tell you not to blow dry your hair in the shower, someone will, and will sue. IF you want health care in your old age, you can either get rich, die for lack of basic care, or live your life under an insurance scheme that helps pay for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants Why do you think that's what we want, or what must result ?
It does lie. That's why I think it.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said in the discussion we started and did not finish
Actually I'm trying to make this really long response to your last comment... but it's becoming ridiculous so I'd given up on it. If you'd really like the response I will do so tomorrow.
Christian Graus wrote:
for every American who is offended at the idea of having insurance, there's probably hundreds who need medical care and wish they were not locked out of the system. Any system of government is a compromise that hopefully meets the needs of the many without upsetting the few too much.
And that is precisely the point. The government just signed a bill that will tax literally everyone, whether they need the insurance or not, and only to enforce that everyone have it. In the end, this is just helping the corporations, NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT! This is a farce, whether you're politically on the left or right, or independent. I'm surprised there isn't an outrage all over the land right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ian knows you are human and that you want to stay well. He knows that the money you pay into an insurance scheme from youth helps amortise the risk of insuring someone who is older and more likely to need care. He understands how insurance works, and knows that lifelong membership in a fund is the only way to provide you with affordable insurance in old age.
Do you realize what you're saying here?! You're saying that Ian knows everything. (I'm not saying Ian is saying this, to make it blatantly clear.) You're saying that all humans want to be taken care of; that there are no humans that can take care of themselves. Stated differently: 535 elected people can take care of 300 million people without even knowing them and knowing their needs. That is arrogant and it pisses me off. You're also saying that each and every one of the 535 people actually KNOW how insurance works in the nitty gritty sense, and can lay it all out in one bill. BAM! It's done, all set. Honestly, that's even more arrogant than saying that these people know all.
-
josda1000 wrote:
why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants (read, government lying to its people) to control such a large commodity as health insurance?
Do you think that for profit insurance companies are more trustworthy? I don't. The government won't control health insurance, but it will (thankfully) regulate it more - though not enough for my liking.
josda1000 wrote:
How would 535 elected officials of the federation know what's right for each and every situation?
This isn't a mystery. Obama ran on a platform of health reform and the voters elected him and voted in large democratic majorities in both the house and the senate. He - and the Democrats - are doing what they were elected to do.
josda1000 wrote:
The problem here is obviously not that the government is the insurer, but that they are the facilitator of such. They are saying that if you do not have coverage that is up to governmental standards, whether you need/want it or not, that you will be fined for every month that you are not covered, just as is enacted in Massachusetts.
You realize what the purpose is here, right? Insurance companies are not going to be allowed to disqualify people for pre-existing conditions. If there isn't an individual mandate then people would game the system and not purchase insurance until they were sick. The third part is that people who can't afford the premiums will get subsides.
josda1000 wrote:
Now they are saying that they may be suspending elections
What???
josda1000 wrote:
10 Represenatives of the Congress are asking for more security at their homes and offices... boy I wonder why.
I know. It's awful. You have right wingers screaming about Nazis, socialism and the end of the world as we know it. It's not suprising some crazies take that kind of talk seriously and decide to act.
Carbon12 wrote:
He - and the Democrats - are doing what they were elected to do.
I think the majority of them were elected simply because of a backlash against Bush. Not because of what they wanted to do. Surprise, they plan on doing things in there too. Prepare for the next backlash.
-
I don't get why someone as poor and unemployable as yourself is so keen to let pure capitalism crush you into poverty and death.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
crush you into poverty and death.
That's what government does.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
crush you into poverty and death.
That's what government does.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Funny... I look out the window, I see a lot of people making decent livings... They must be doing a pretty pathetic job of crushing us.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants Why do you think that's what we want, or what must result ?
It does lie. That's why I think it.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said in the discussion we started and did not finish
Actually I'm trying to make this really long response to your last comment... but it's becoming ridiculous so I'd given up on it. If you'd really like the response I will do so tomorrow.
Christian Graus wrote:
for every American who is offended at the idea of having insurance, there's probably hundreds who need medical care and wish they were not locked out of the system. Any system of government is a compromise that hopefully meets the needs of the many without upsetting the few too much.
And that is precisely the point. The government just signed a bill that will tax literally everyone, whether they need the insurance or not, and only to enforce that everyone have it. In the end, this is just helping the corporations, NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT! This is a farce, whether you're politically on the left or right, or independent. I'm surprised there isn't an outrage all over the land right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ian knows you are human and that you want to stay well. He knows that the money you pay into an insurance scheme from youth helps amortise the risk of insuring someone who is older and more likely to need care. He understands how insurance works, and knows that lifelong membership in a fund is the only way to provide you with affordable insurance in old age.
Do you realize what you're saying here?! You're saying that Ian knows everything. (I'm not saying Ian is saying this, to make it blatantly clear.) You're saying that all humans want to be taken care of; that there are no humans that can take care of themselves. Stated differently: 535 elected people can take care of 300 million people without even knowing them and knowing their needs. That is arrogant and it pisses me off. You're also saying that each and every one of the 535 people actually KNOW how insurance works in the nitty gritty sense, and can lay it all out in one bill. BAM! It's done, all set. Honestly, that's even more arrogant than saying that these people know all.
josda1000 wrote:
It does lie. That's why I think it.
Are we talking about government, or health insurance ?
josda1000 wrote:
Actually I'm trying to make this really long response to your last comment... but it's becoming ridiculous so I'd given up on it. If you'd really like the response I will do so tomorrow.
I wasn't taking a shot. Life gets busy. If you'd like to still discuss it, I definitely would, but if you don't reply, I won't assume you were hiding from my crushing logic, or anything.
josda1000 wrote:
The government just signed a bill that will tax literally everyone, whether they need the insurance or not, and only to enforce that everyone have it.
Who doesn't need medical care at some point in their life ? Why should you be allowed to not contribute to the cost of insurance when you're healthy and have income, and still expect affordable insurance when you're older and perhaps limited in your earnings ? Insurance is shared risk. With robbery, the risk is constant, with health it increases with age. If people don't insure early, they don't help to spread the risk, which is what makes insurance affordable and viable.
josda1000 wrote:
You're saying that all humans want to be taken care of; that there are no humans that can take care of themselves.
I am saying the % of humans who want no medical care ever in their life is very small. Every society has small groups who are not catered to by virtue of the fact that the majority is catered to, instead.
josda1000 wrote:
You're also saying that each and every one of the 535 people actually KNOW how insurance works in the nitty gritty sense
Not at all. I am saying that legislators rely on expert advice, if the issue is space travel, sanitation, or health.
josda1000 wrote:
Do we? Then why the hell are we so mad about this bill?
Well, partly because of an irrational fear for anything that's remotely close to socialism, partly because your country is more blindly divided on political lines than most, and partly because you don't want to pay for your insurance when you're young, you only want to collect on it when you're old. But mostly because of the fear mongering on death pan
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants Why do you think that's what we want, or what must result ?
It does lie. That's why I think it.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said in the discussion we started and did not finish
Actually I'm trying to make this really long response to your last comment... but it's becoming ridiculous so I'd given up on it. If you'd really like the response I will do so tomorrow.
Christian Graus wrote:
for every American who is offended at the idea of having insurance, there's probably hundreds who need medical care and wish they were not locked out of the system. Any system of government is a compromise that hopefully meets the needs of the many without upsetting the few too much.
And that is precisely the point. The government just signed a bill that will tax literally everyone, whether they need the insurance or not, and only to enforce that everyone have it. In the end, this is just helping the corporations, NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT! This is a farce, whether you're politically on the left or right, or independent. I'm surprised there isn't an outrage all over the land right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ian knows you are human and that you want to stay well. He knows that the money you pay into an insurance scheme from youth helps amortise the risk of insuring someone who is older and more likely to need care. He understands how insurance works, and knows that lifelong membership in a fund is the only way to provide you with affordable insurance in old age.
Do you realize what you're saying here?! You're saying that Ian knows everything. (I'm not saying Ian is saying this, to make it blatantly clear.) You're saying that all humans want to be taken care of; that there are no humans that can take care of themselves. Stated differently: 535 elected people can take care of 300 million people without even knowing them and knowing their needs. That is arrogant and it pisses me off. You're also saying that each and every one of the 535 people actually KNOW how insurance works in the nitty gritty sense, and can lay it all out in one bill. BAM! It's done, all set. Honestly, that's even more arrogant than saying that these people know all.
God...I'm about to use CSS to make a point...
josda1000 wrote:
The government just signed a bill that will tax literally everyone
Let's look at the taxes (as provided by CSS) then! Tax on uninsured: not me, only what...16% of the US (in 2008) Tax on High-Cost Employer plans: not me, taxed on insurers Additional hospital insurance tax: not me, applies to those making over $250,000 if filing jointly, $200,000 is individually. Fees on health plans: not me, charged to the insurers Tax on Indoor Tanning: not me. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage: not me. Tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures: not me. Surcharges on the wealthy: not me. Tax on employers: not me. Tax on Pharm companies: not me. Tax on medical device manufacturers: not me. Guess it doesn't tax "literally everyone".
josda1000 wrote:
535 elected people can take care of 300 million people without even knowing them and knowing their needs. That is arrogant and it pisses me off.
Talk to the founding fathers. You can direct your ire towards them. That's the system we have...you don't like it, move.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
crush you into poverty and death.
That's what government does.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Given that I have universal health care, why is it that I live so much better than you do ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
How can, for example, Ian in New York know what my situation is without even knowing me?
*quickly minimizes the surveillance feed* Right... No way I could know... None at all... :)
josda1000 wrote:
Now they are saying that they may be suspending elections, for the fact that there will be a backlash.
Hadn't heard about that... Interesting... Link?
josda1000 wrote:
But anyway, please I'd like to know your answers, I'm distrought about the outcomes this week. As are most here, which is a good thing. Bittersweet, yet good.
I'm actually more in favor of adopting an NHS-style public health insurance... Socialism isn't a bad thing, if done properly, and it nicely complements capitalism when economies of scale can really be beneficial. As for this specific bill, though... I don't know how much it'll improve, and I'm sure something will go wrong in the next few years to completely ruin it... The most I'm hoping for right now, is that if/when it bombs, it gets everyone moving toward a better solution... What we have now (pre-reform) just isn't good enough.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
josda1000 wrote:
Now they are saying that they may be suspending elections, for the fact that there will be a backlash.
Hadn't heard about that... Interesting... Link?
Same links that said Bush would. Only substitute 'republican' for 'democrat' and 'right' for 'left'
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
This is a question for those that basically are for mandatory health insurance for all, though anyone of course is free to discuss/answer/comment. My question is, why would one want an institution that lies constantly to its participants (read, government lying to its people) to control such a large commodity as health insurance? This legislation is telling three hundred million people to get insurance, or else. I stand and say that A) How would 535 elected officials of the federation know what's right for each and every situation? How can they be so pompous and naive? How can, for example, Ian in New York know what my situation is without even knowing me? The problem here is obviously not that the government is the insurer, but that they are the facilitator of such. They are saying that if you do not have coverage that is up to governmental standards, whether you need/want it or not, that you will be fined for every month that you are not covered, just as is enacted in Massachusetts. Great. Now they are saying that they may be suspending elections, for the fact that there will be a backlash. A big one. 10 Represenatives of the Congress are asking for more security at their homes and offices... boy I wonder why. But anyway, please I'd like to know your answers, I'm distrought about the outcomes this week. As are most here, which is a good thing. Bittersweet, yet good.
If health insurance weren't such a stupid institution I may agree with you. But look at other insurance, it's all stuff that you never expect to happen. Now, how many people do you know who had their houses burned to the ground, or were flooded, or had a major car accident? Generally speaking these are exceptions. Now show me someone who has never gotten sick, never had to go to the hospital, and has never needed any health care that costs more than 50 bucks. We're all going to get sick, we're all going to need coverage at some point, and someone is going to pay for it. That said, I'd much rather have a public option that gives basic coverage for the majority of situations, run by the government to be self sustaining rather than trust private companies to actually regulate themselves, as it spreads the risk out further and eliminates a good portion of the overhead involved in insurance companies. But then a lot of health insurance companies would take a shot to the pants as they'd likely not be able to compete with it and make money. What we have here is a minor step in an odd direction because every ninny out there who still fears communists are going to take their stuff cry socialist when someone attempts to do something other than fill corporate accounting ledgers.