As much as I'd rather not, I have to agree with bugleyman: This is not socialism.
Far more akin to fascist economic models, where the capital remains in private hands, but the government controls the allocation of resources and the production. Or, if you prefer, "mandates coverage and sets up panels to determine medical efficacy, denying drugs and technologies that are deemed 'unnecessary.'"
Not to worry, though. There are some of us who will refuse to comply with the new law, assuming the Republicans don't take over the Senate, the Presidency, and retain control of the House.
Now off to make a contribution to ensure that happens.
@Doug-Why is making sure that people have healthcare the worst thing in the world?
@Doug-Why is making sure that people have healthcare the worst thing in the world?
Did I say it was the worst thing in the world? Nope. So perhaps you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
@Doug-Why is making sure that people have healthcare the worst thing in the world?Did I say it was the worst thing in the world? Nope. So perhaps you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
Maybe instead of responding with vitriol to a purposely hyperbolic question, you could just answer?
How about if I phrase it this way: why are Republicans reacting to something that was, ultimately, their idea as if it were going to single-handedly bring down the republic?
Maybe instead of responding with vitriol to a purposely hyperbolic question, you could just answer?
How about if I phrase it this way: why are Republicans reacting to something that was, ultimately, their idea as if it were going to single-handedly bring down the republic?
Once again, you should really read what I wrote. I didn't say it was going to single-handedly bring down the republic.
Put away your strawman.
If not "the worst thing in the world", then why is it so bad?
Because giving the government the power to compel me to enter into a contract infringes upon my liberty. Because the financial burden of Obamacare is crippling to our economy. Because the law is written in such way that it encourages companies to drop their private health care insurance, pay the fines, and force people onto government programs. Because government programs increase dependency and stifle individual creativity and initiative.
I can keep going, if you wish.
And if you do, that means another $20 goes to the Romney campaign.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of the industrialized world, including places like Japan, Switzerland, the UK, and Australia, have government-mandated universal health coverage. Every single one of those countries spends less on as a % of GDP on health care. Every single on of those countries has better results, including higher life expectancies, fewer cardiovascular deaths per capita, lower infant mortality, etc.
There is no shortage of evidence that government-mandated universal care works, while there is no shortage of evidence that our system does not.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doug,
So you want to support the guy who actually instituted 'Obamacare' when he was a governor and who publicly called for the President to adopt a simialr model to protest the President who listened to him and adopted that policy? Could you explain how this makes sense, bercause as a foreigner it seems totally nuts.
If not "the worst thing in the world", then why is it so bad?
Because giving the government the power to compel me to enter into a contract infringes upon my liberty. Because the financial burden of Obamacare is crippling to our economy. Because the law is written in such way that it encourages companies to drop their private health care insurance, pay the fines, and force people onto government programs. Because government programs increase dependency and stifle individual creativity and initiative.
I can keep going, if you wish.
And if you do, that means another $20 goes to the Romney campaign.
As I said, I would have preferred everyone simply get put on Medicare...just make it a tax, and that would kill the "the government is forcing me to buy something" argument.
As for the financial burden -- I don't think there is one. Getting people insured gets them access to preventative care, which is less expensive than trying to deal with it in an emergency room. If, on the other hand, you truly believe that that the uninsured should simply be left to die, then I really don't know what to say.
|
|
Bugley,
That's hardly fair. Doug hasn't said people shouldn't get emergency treatment. They just hacve to wait till its an expensive emergency rather than seeking cheaper preventative treatment. I don't know why he supports that but he hasn't gone as far as some moronic people and said the poor shouldn't get healthcare at all.
Bugley,
That's hardly fair. Doug hasn't said people shouldn't get emergency treatment. They just hacve to wait till its an expensive emergency rather than seeking cheaper preventative treatment. I don't know why he supports that but he hasn't gone as far as some moronic people and said the poor shouldn't get healthcare at all.
I did say "if."
But that does seem to be the undercurrent: If you don't have insurance and something goes wrong, it's your fault, so you deal with it. Given the eventual cost of this attitude to everyone, I just don't get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me try to understand something here.
Before "Obamacare," people with no insurance could still get emergency treatment, and the taxpayers footed the bill when they couldn't pay.
Now, with "Obamacare," you get a tax penalty if you don't have insurance, to cover your share of Medicare.
Either way, tax dollars are being collected for health care, even from insured people. Previously, care for uninsured people came totally from others' tax dollars. Now it comes first from their tax dollars, and after that from everyone else's.
Does this not lower the tax burden on those of us who are insured (i.e., who have full-time jobs)?
So, of the people opposing it, are those people the ones who have been freeloading all along, and will now have to start paying in like the rest of us?
|
|
Doug,
So you want to support the guy who actually instituted 'Obamacare' when he was a governor and who publicly called for the President to adopt a simialr model to protest the President who listened to him and adopted that policy? Could you explain how this makes sense, bercause as a foreigner it seems totally nuts.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to us, either. It really is nuts. :(
Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to us, either. It really is nuts. :(
TWENTY MORE DOLLARS TO ROMNEY!
I agree with all of you. I really really dont like this law. To me, IMO, it does border on fascism. The only true winners that I can see are a)insurance companies and b) big pharma companies that have a new lobbying access. True nationalised healthcare would have been far more preferable, I thought the democrats realised that if Heritage came up with something, its probably not a good idea.
Edit- One silver lining that I got from my quick glance at Chief Justice Robert's opinion was finally a limit was put upon the Commerce Clause.
Secondary Edit- and unless new developments occur, that is all I will comment on the healthcare act. This horse died awhile ago.
argh.
What the individual mandate does is put the burden for paying for the system on young, single, working class males who don' thave a lot of money to start with In case you haven't looked at the problem with social security as well as the current recession, these people are a rapidly shrinking proportion of the population: you can't get blood from an orange.
Edit: better?
unless its a blood orange, of course. 8p
I think you have a typo, BNW. Do you mean "it puts the burden for".... or did you mean "it takes off the burden". Please clarify, cos that would be two polar opposite things.
Edit- Im pretty sure I know what youre getting at, but I just want to be sure.
yup, crystal clear. thanks
My problem with it is that they seem to have found a way to combine the worst parts of the 'socialized medicine' part with the worst parts of the old system. Now I have become a captive payer into a for-profit system run by people who have already demonstrated a complete lack of integrity.
Oh, it's far from perfect, but I do think it is an improvement. Hopefully things like requiring pre-existing conditions be covered will help mitigate the impact of that lack of integrity.
Sadly, this is the best thing we could get through congress.
Doug,
So you want to support the guy who actually instituted 'Obamacare' when he was a governor and who publicly called for the President to adopt a simialr model to protest the President who listened to him and adopted that policy? Could you explain how this makes sense, bercause as a foreigner it seems totally nuts.
There are a couple reasons for my support. First, the Constitution delegates certain powers to the individual states. That was supposed to prevent the national government from having too much power over the lives of its citizens. How can a bureaucracy 1000 miles away know how to control my life better than a bureaucracy 50 miles away?
Also, there are degrees of separation between Romney and Obama. At the point of origin, two degrees isn't much. But twenty years down the line, that little bit of difference turns into a huge gap.
Besides, in our system of government, there are only two main political parties. As much as I don't care for some of Romney's stances, I find myself in agreement far more with him than the current occupant of the White House.
As for the financial burden -- I don't think there is one.
The financial burden I spoke of is the national burden, not how much more you might pay for your insurance. If you haven't noticed, the federal government has the worst track record in successfully determining how much entitlement programs cost. There is not one entitlement program that has come in at or below projections. So how is creating another bureaucracy, staffed with thousands of people, supposed to hold down costs when it mandates coverages that I don't need (last time I checked, I have no need for any pregnancy-related services, since I don't have a uterus)?
No, the financial burden be the additional money that is borrowed in order to pay for this program. And if you haven't noticed, politicians are loathe to actually do anything productive to stop the drunken-sailoresque spending spree every time the need votes.
I don't understand it by any means, but then I've grown up with the mother of all socialist healthcare systems, the NHS, so much of American policy in this area s literally alien to me.
A coworker recently came back from Ireland. He was very happy that there was no out-of-pocket expense for his daughter's emergency room visit.
Honestly, if I wanted NHS-style medicine, I'd move to the UK.
How does the government force pregnancy coverage for males? If you never use the service for that, you're not using that coverage, right?
The government mandates certain coverage. Substance abuse treatment, for instance. And pregnancy-related services. There is no out for male or elderly citizens. So I get to pay an increased premium for services I don't use.
As I said, my perspective was a rant. I still have not seen a single compelling reason that federally mandated healthcare is a good thing. For a little more than 15 years, from the time I was 19 and working for arby's until I was 34 and got married I had no health insurance. I did not have the latest tech toys, hell I didn't even have a car I walked everywhere. If I needed treatment I paid cash out of pocket sometimes at the cost of only being able to afford Ramens noodles for food for a month or so. I have healthcare now and regularly skip appointments, miss follow up visits, and just deal and cope with the issues without complaint otherwise. I go to the doc just to keep my wife from worrying that I am not taking care of myself. I have severe arthritus in my knees, hands that constantly throb with tingling sensation or numbness, blood circulatory issue with my left nut that causes a discomfort akin to having been kicked in the jewels, and sleep apnea. I've dealt with those problems for years be
fore being told by a doctor what the medical diagnosis was by accepting that healthcare won't change anything other than force me to miss work. I just had a partial sigmoid colectomy due to diverticular disease. The surgeon Yanked my perfectly healthy appendix WITHOUT informing me or my wife until after the fact AND the day after the surgery I nearly died due to my heart slowing from pain medication. Great frigging healthcare. If I would've known what was going to happen I would NEVER gotten the surgery and dealt with the period bouts of stomach pain and vomitting. Plus I still have the same stomach pain I've always had. As things stand now, with me turning 40 next February I will be skipping yearly physicals. I will NOT allow myself to be violated under the guise of a prostate exam. I was living a happier life prior to having healthcare. Sorry. Thanks but no thanks to federally mandated healthcare. I would rather pay a fine and go without. Preventative and proactive healthcare has done nothing to improve my quality of life beyond not vomitting after eating seeds, popcorn, nuts, and greasy meat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand Gendo but cannot agree after having been on government healthcare since I was born 29 years ago.
I should mention that missed appointments are a huge cost to any healthcare provider and recommend you make the effort to cancel or not schedule appointments you cannot or will not keep. You only increase premiums for everyone otherwise.
Regardless of your feelings about the Individual Mandate, this idea is really dangerous.
So, according to the SCOTUS, Congress has the power to tax a “non-activ...ity” (in this case, NOT buy health insurance).
I wonder what other “non-activities” could be taxed?
I hope you see where I am going with this ...
Regardless of your feelings about the Individual Mandate, this idea is really dangerous.
So, according to the SCOTUS, Congress has the power to tax a “non-activ...ity” (in this case, NOT buy health insurance).
I wonder what other “non-activities” could be taxed?
Not buying vegetables?
Not buying an Electric Car?
Not giving to designated charities?
I hope you see where I am going with this ...
I just don't get the outrage. The government can already fine you for:
Not filing your income taxes.
Not registering your car.
Not mowing your grass.
Not showing up for jury duty.
Not answering the census (yes, really)
Etc., etc.
Who cares if they call it a fine or a tax?
Heck, it isn't hard to argue that the courts, roads, public schools, the fire department, the military, etc. are all things we're forced to buy.
Sorry, but if anyone is seriously worried about fascism, there is a lot more cause for concern in executive branch over-reaches in this administration (and that last one, for that matter) than there is a a tempest-in-a-teapot about being forced to get health insurance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand it by any means, but then I've grown up with the mother of all socialist healthcare systems, the NHS, so much of American policy in this area s literally alien to me.A coworker recently came back from Ireland. He was very happy that there was no out-of-pocket expense for his daughter's emergency room visit.
Honestly, if I wanted NHS-style medicine, I'd move to the UK.
If you seriously think we don't ration care in this country, then you're simply not paying attention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a little more than 15 years, from the time I was 19 and working for arby's until I was 34 and got married I had no health insurance.
Preventative and proactive healthcare has done nothing to improve my quality of...
Yes, preventative and proactive healthcare did nothing to improve your quality of life...because you didn't HAVE it when it mattered.
/boggle
That's the heart of this. Poorer people spend more than they make and they are spending it on crap and luxury while kicking the doctor bill can down the road. Times are tough. People need to grow up.
I don't see whats allegedly mature about not entering into a financial arrangement that's deliberately designed to be a bad bet against yourself. These young people are the FUNDING source for all the other groups (children, the sick, and the elderly) precisely because they don't need to pay nearly as much in healthcare costs as they're being charged: in other words they're being ripped off.
I have no objection to someone that gets off their rear and works for a living actually being able to afford an xbox and an I phone. You're SUPPOSED to be able to afford something other than food and shelter if you're working.
If you need to take something from someone in order to pay the medical bills, try Bain capital's Private island or multi million dollar weekend retreat.
Don't young males have kids and eventually get sick and/or old? Everyone needs healthcare at some point; why shouldn't everyone pay for it?
I'm with you.
I think the objections from conservatives is the questionable constitutionality of it all, which apparently the SCOTUS is A-OK with. From other people (BNW and potentially myself included) it's simply not something I can afford at the rates that are offered.The idea is that by getting everyone on board, including all the people who said "no thanks, I'm perfectly healthy" before like young men (until they weren't too young and needed it) we will reduce the overall cost for everyone.
In a sane world, having the people who don't NEED healthcare pay INTO healthcare and thus subsidize it for everyone else SHOULD bring the costs down for everyone.
I don't think we are living in a sane world. I think the insurance companies, seeing a mandate, will just roll around naked in my hard-earned cash. But that's just a cynical gut-feeling and nothing to base legislation on.
In the end, I'm just disappointed they didn't say "medicare for all, lulz!" and call it a freaking day.
Most young men end up with pneumonia or a broken bone or something while they are in this wide age bracket called "young." When it happens, they just say screw the bill.
Then take away THEIR x boxes and make them pay their bills. A remedy already exists for this... SUE THEM. You can no more treat every healthy young person like a debtor for not paying a bill than you can treat every racial minority like a criminal.
What happened to treating individuals like individuals?
You are NOT going to pay for chemotherapy with the spare change of gen X males. The money isn't there to get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, I'm just disappointed they didn't say "medicare for all, lulz!" and call it a freaking day.No disagreement there, but that's an argument to do more, not less.
It is, but it's also an argument to do things differently.
They did sneak in an increase to how many people can receive medicare benefits, to 138% of the poverty level, I wish they would have picked a level where I could get in on that action. I'm making about 145% of poverty right now.I think strategically that's great, because now you can oust people from medicare by increasing the minimum wage. Zing!
The thing is that even really s%&@ty medical coverage isn't cheap, and it's the mandate that sticks in everyone's craw. You and I may agree that it's semantics, but something being withheld from your paycheck and something you have to consciously seek and buy have very different psychologies attached to them. And I genuinely think that's where a lot of the backlash stems from.