Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:

I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.

I've got a better idea. Everyone gets 100% coverage until your 18th birthday. After that, figure it out on your own. Can't get it. Then cope. I did for 10 years and would do it again.

How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

I now await the inevitable firing squad for my inflammatory perspective.

Do you understand how insurance works?

Car repair costs, across the nation are X. While that number can be averaged across the total of all drivers, the individual cost will almost never reflect the national average (ignoring for the moment even factors like local price fluctuations).

Insurance doesn't average your own cost over the period of time you have insurance, but rather it averages everyone's cost together over that same period.

When healthy people opt out of health insurance, they are increasing the cost for everyone. X/Y < X/Y-1

When someone receives medical care they are unable to pay for, they are increasing the cost for everyone. X/Y < X+1/Y

Right now, both of those factors are going on. So currently we are paying:

X+1/Y-1

When instead we could be paying:

X/Y

A major problem we're having right now is that health care industry is growing, but our economy as a whole isn't growing the by same amount. Health care is eating up more and more of our economy.

A second problem is that health care is tied to employment. If you don't work, you don't have health care. Usually when people need health care the most, they are unable to work.

Part B of the second problem is that it makes our labor market less efficient. There are a lot of people who either choose jobs or are unable to switch jobs because of health care coverage, either due to pre-existing conditions or difficulty in handling gaps in coverage. The British don't have this problem. It's one less thing standing in the way of big and small businesses being able to attract the people they want/need at the time that they want/need them.


We could have RFID chips installed when we sign up for private insurance. Then, the hospital could choose not to treat people who are not covered.

I know it seems barbaric, but so, too, is the idea of forcing some person barely living above poverty to pay someone else's health care.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I know it seems barbaric, but so, too, is the idea of forcing some person barely living above poverty to pay someone else's health care.

Yes that would be bad.

Which is probably why people barely living above poverty are exempted from the mandate.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

We could have RFID chips installed when we sign up for private insurance. Then, the hospital could choose not to treat people who are not covered.

I know it seems barbaric, but so, too, is the idea of forcing some person barely living above poverty to pay someone else's health care.

Not treating someone is much worse than simply spreading costs however. This is a false equivalency.

Also part of the way we are spreading the costs is by offering more people the government option (medicare) so that they aren't paying for it (directly) and by offering subsidies to some of those that are buying insurance so that they don't end up worse off due to having to pay for it.

Making the other part of the argument false as well since it's already covered in the law.

Besides you really think people are going to put up with being chipped? Especially with all the tin foil hatting already going on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except the law includes subsidies for low/no income people to help provide them with care.

Studies show, that if you go to the doctor early in the course of a health problem, it is cheaper and easier to fix. In addition, good counseling can improve how a person takes care of themselves, reducing the occurrence of future problems.

So, it's easier and cheaper to pay for someone to go the doctor regularly than it is to pay for their emergency room visits.

You are in a car accident, riding in someone else's car. They can't find your ID and your RFID was damaged in the crash. You are unconscious. Do you want treatment, or to be left on the sidewalk?

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I know it seems barbaric, but so, too, is the idea of forcing some person barely living above poverty to pay someone else's health care.

Yes that would be bad.

Which is probably why people barely living above poverty are exempted from the mandate.

Exactly.

Darkwing, it seems pretty clear you have strong opinions, as well as a bit of an agenda. The problem is that it seems like you don't actually understand all the facets of the issue (which is certainly understandable - it's a HUGE, complicated issue)

I just wish people would stop lining up blindly behind the same tired old Republican vs Democrat banners and spouting off the same tired old Republican vs Democrat rhetoric and instead stop fighting each other, find ways to work together and, you know, actually make things better.


As far as Republican vs. Democrat on this issue:

The republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress for 6 years and all they managed was the Medicare prescription plan. If they had wanted to truly reform the system and make it better, they had 6 years to do it and they didn't. For them to cry foul now seems highly disingenuous.


Marc Radle wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I know it seems barbaric, but so, too, is the idea of forcing some person barely living above poverty to pay someone else's health care.

Yes that would be bad.

Which is probably why people barely living above poverty are exempted from the mandate.

Exactly.

Darkwing, it seems pretty clear you have strong opinions, as well as a bit of an agenda. The problem is that it seems like you don't actually understand all the facets of the issue (which is certainly understandable - it's a HUGE, complicated issue)

I just wish people would stop lining up blindly behind the same tired old Republican vs Democrat banners and spouting off the same tired old Republican vs Democrat rhetoric and instead stop fighting each other, find ways to work together and, you know, actually make things better.

I'm certainly not siding with Republicans or Democrats. They are all pro-big government whereas, in my opinion, the only thing big government creates is corruption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I wouldn't say it's easy for people to be corrupted, but it is not uncommon.

We need a government. A government is how we decide things together as a society. Market forces are woefully inept at working for a greater good, so we have to set down rules. Government is going to be bigger than it used to be, because society is bigger than it used to be. Not just on a population level, but if you go back and analyze how many people someone knew back in the 1900's compared to today, you'll see a huge shift. Not only do I know a lot of people, but they're literally all over the world.

I dislike it when people talk about "big government" as if it's run by some shadowy organization we have no influence over. Is it all above board and ideally efficient? No, but nothing else is either.

I'm a veteran. The best health care I've ever received has been from the Minneapolis VA Hospital. It's better than when I was in the military. The government already runs multiple health care organizations, the VA, Medicare and Medicaid. They've been doing it for 50 years.

The Walter Reed scandal happened. One of the positive things about it being a government facility though is that public pressure was more easily brought to bear to hold the VA accountable though. My mother works as a social worker at the VA, she sees this happen fairly regularly on the small scale as well. Political pressure is brought to bear to fix injustices.

Compare that to some of the major problems in the private sector. The banking crisis happened. But because it's private, political pressure is harder to apply and so nothing really changed in how the banking industry works.

The political process is partly broken in this country, but at the same time, it also works better than we portray it. I heard an interview with Barney Frank the other day which seemed to put a good perspective on it. He said that in his entire career, he never heard of a single representative that voted against his district because of lobbyist or campaign contributions. The thing is though, that 75% of the time, a district doesn't really care about what the congressman is voting on, so then lobbyists and campaign contributions take a much more prominent role in the decision process.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.


GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

I'm American, but I'm also amazed by this debate.

We talk about how great we are and how this is the land of opportunity. In this country, if you get sick, it's possible to lose your house. What an opportunity!


GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

If you were able to find any example of a country with universal health care filled with people who thought it was a terrible idea, that would be one thing. But you can't. All the countries that have it love it.

You're trying to attack a very complex issue with "But government!" Meanwhile, the people you're arguing against have actual evidence.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

If you were able to find any example of a country with universal health care filled with people who thought it was a terrible idea, that would be one thing. But you can't. All the countries that have it love it.

You're trying to attack a very complex issue with "But government!" Meanwhile, the people you're arguing against have actual evidence.

if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US that had universal health care filled with people who love it, that'd be one thing, but you can't. The so called "evidence" that is being used to promote universal health care is equivalent to claiming that a Boeing 747 makes a good family vehicle because it has wheels like a bicycle, but is big enough for a family.

Take Social Security. Remind me HOW MANY TIMES the Social Security fund has been raided for other things. Now, what will happen when universal health care gets raided (not 'if', but 'when')? We know that Medicare recipients in Tennessee, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Texas, Rhode Island, and New Mexico have had a harder time finding a doctor who accepts Medicare since January 2002 - when a 5.4 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors went into effect. When universal health care gets raided (again, not 'if', but 'when'), everyone who has been made to be dependent on the Federal government for health care will have the same problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

Just curious, what are you basing these assertions on?

From how I understand it, every hyperpower in history (a superpower that exists without rivals) has been able to harness people from multiple nations, ethnicities and ideas. Eventually the strife between those differing groups pulls it apart, but it is that harnessing in the first place that allows the nation to rise so high.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gendo wrote:
How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

Entitlement isn't anything specific, its more or less a republican buzzword for "Government payouts that aren't going to me"

You're talking about ending social security, which is monstrously unfair to people who've had a sizable chunk of their paycheck taken from them for decades.

I've been Social Security since I was 14...I turn 40 next year. I want it gone. It's not going to be there when I retire anyway. I'm planning for it to be gone. The one thing Bush wanted to do was privatize SS. I was all for that. That way I would know that the money stolen from me every paycheck would go towards paying for MY, and only MY retirement or other needs.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US that had universal health care filled with people who love it, that'd be one thing, but you can't.

<blink, blink, blink. . . > Canada? Obvious, I know, but unless you mean something else by comparable?

Shadow Lodge

Gendo wrote:
I've been Social Security since I was 14...I turn 40 next year. I want it gone. It's not going to be there when I retire anyway. I'm planning for it to be gone. The one thing Bush wanted to do was privatize SS. I was all for that. That way I would know that the money stolen from me every paycheck would go towards paying for MY, and only MY retirement or other needs.

And all the elderly individuals that live off of that tiny amount of a monthly check, and depend on it completely, not only for just living (food and shelter), but also on severe pain management?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it.

Hospital emergency rooms are legally required to treat patients. They can't say 'you do not have insurance so please go sit in the corner while you bleed to death' (or, 'we have been unable to determine whether you have insurance because you are unconscious, if you come too before you bleed to death we'll ask'). Ergo, in a sense the United States already has 'universal health care'.

So, when I broke my foot - damned near snapped my small toe off and lacerated my foot so bad I needed stitches, stupidity on my own part occurring while babysitting and while I had no insurance, that St.Joe's Hospital in Reading, PA was required to treat me with an actual cast and caring for the wound? Hmmm...that seems better than wrapping my foot in compresses and bandages, giving me a pair of crutches, and a piece of wood with some canvas and then instructing that they could do no more due to my lack of insurance, referring me to the free clinic downtown was illegal. Funny how things have changed. My experience actually happened in '94. I have a scar on the bottom of my right foot and the toe DOES NOT touch the ground when I walk. Oh, I also walked home from the hospital. They may not be able to say 'go sit in the corner and bleed to death'...they can give you s@#$ty care and cast you off when they've done the absolute bare, insufficient, minimum.

I do pay my own way. I've had accidents driving...I pay cash for the damages. I rarely go to the doctor...when I do, I pay cash. I have health insurance and car insurance these days, I don't use them. For em they are robbery plain and simple. I am not acting entitled. I am saying that requiring health insurance to be mandatory is tantamount to saying we are too stupid to care for ourselves, be responsible for ourselves and our own health. For me it's akin to affirming the 'victim' mentality that seems to permeate so much today...whoops, I spilled a cup of hot coffee in my crotch, wasn't my fault, the lid was loose...whoops, I got fat from overeating, wasn't my fault, the food wasn't labeled properly...whoops, I shot an innocent in his home because he witnessed me participating in a gunfight, wasn't my fault, I was abused as a child...look I was playing football, got tackled and broke my collar bone, let's sue the person that tackled me because football doesn't have any kind of ASSUMED RISK of injury. Extreme and over the top examples, but examples of things that happen in this country none the less.


Irontruth wrote:
Gendo wrote:

I have one problem with Obamacare...making it MANDATORY that you must have healthcare and then getting FINED for not having it. DOn't throw car insurance in the mix as precendence. That's crap. Car insurance is there to protect yourself from the other idiot(s) behind the wheel.

I've got a better idea. Everyone gets 100% coverage until your 18th birthday. After that, figure it out on your own. Can't get it. Then cope. I did for 10 years and would do it again.

How about eliminate any and all programs that fall under the crappiest word in the english language: ENTITLEMENT. No one is entitled to anything.

I now await the inevitable firing squad for my inflammatory perspective.

Do you understand how insurance works?

Car repair costs, across the nation are X. While that number can be averaged across the total of all drivers, the individual cost will almost never reflect the national average (ignoring for the moment even factors like local price fluctuations).

Insurance doesn't average your own cost over the period of time you have insurance, but rather it averages everyone's cost together over that same period.

When healthy people opt out of health insurance, they are increasing the cost for everyone. X/Y < X/Y-1

When someone receives medical care they are unable to pay for, they are increasing the cost for everyone. X/Y < X+1/Y

Right now, both of those factors are going on. So currently we are paying:

X+1/Y-1

When instead we could be paying:

X/Y

A major problem we're having right now is that health care industry is growing, but our economy as a whole isn't growing the by same amount. Health care is eating up more and more of our economy.

A second problem is that health care is tied to employment. If you don't work, you don't have health care. Usually when people need health care the most, they are unable to work.

Part B of the second problem is that it makes our labor market less efficient. There are a lot of people who either choose jobs...

We as individuals SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING TO PAY FOR ANYONE ELSE. We should be responsible for our OWN PERSON and that of our children until they become legal adults. Everyone else should figure it out on their own. Figure out the numbers based on our own track record. Yes, I have a very selfish perspective. I have issues with knowing that I have been a burden to others...I'd rather die than be forced to rely on anyway else. Insurance is just another way to say that we MUST be burdened with paying for other people. A crime if there ever was one. Insurance of any sort should be optional, not mandatory. You don't want, don't take it. You want it just in case? Then get it. Either way their should be a CHOICE.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US that had universal health care filled with people who love it, that'd be one thing, but you can't.
<blink, blink, blink. . . > Canada? Obvious, I know, but unless you mean something else by comparable?

I'm curious as to your definition of 'comparable' given that Canada has a population about 1/10th the size of the US.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I've been Social Security since I was 14...I turn 40 next year. I want it gone. It's not going to be there when I retire anyway. I'm planning for it to be gone. The one thing Bush wanted to do was privatize SS. I was all for that. That way I would know that the money stolen from me every paycheck would go towards paying for MY, and only MY retirement or other needs.
And all the elderly individuals that live off of that tiny amount of a monthly check, and depend on it completely, not only for just living (food and shelter), but also on severe pain management?

I've posted elsewhere about my back and how I may well end up on permanent disability. Yet, SS won't be there when most of us retire. Maybe that's unfair, but the reality is that the Federal government is unable (in point of practice) to provide a fair solution.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I've been Social Security since I was 14...I turn 40 next year. I want it gone. It's not going to be there when I retire anyway. I'm planning for it to be gone. The one thing Bush wanted to do was privatize SS. I was all for that. That way I would know that the money stolen from me every paycheck would go towards paying for MY, and only MY retirement or other needs.
And all the elderly individuals that live off of that tiny amount of a monthly check, and depend on it completely, not only for just living (food and shelter), but also on severe pain management?

Yes. The money I have contributed to SS should be going to MY future needs, no one elses. A very selfish, cold, and heartless perspective. I know this. Nothing I have seen has shown me that it is incorrect.

My question would be: Why is that there ONLY source of retirement income? Why didn't they have a back up plan? My Grandmother, born in 1912 and passed away in 1993, saved for retirment her entire working career. SS was a supplement, not the only source for her. My Great Aunt Catherine, born in 1922 and passed away in 1998, did the same thing, even though she earned an awesome pension from her time as a switch board operator. SS was a small bit of supplemental income. Were they unique? Or were they just smart?


Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

Just curious, what are you basing these assertions on?

From how I understand it, every hyperpower in history (a superpower that exists without rivals) has been able to harness people from multiple nations, ethnicities and ideas. Eventually the strife between those differing groups pulls it apart, but it is that harnessing in the first place that allows the nation to rise so high.

The 'hyperpowers' I can think of are England during the 19th century, Rome in the first couple of centuries AD, and the US in the 20th century (and maybe the 21st, but then again maybe not).

Of all of these, only the US has had a social security system in place. So, I don't think its accurate to compare it to the others.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gendo wrote:


My question would be: Why is that there ONLY source of retirement income? Why didn't they have a back up plan? My Grandmother, born in 1912 and passed away in 1993, saved for retirment her entire working career. SS was a supplement, not the only source for her. My Great Aunt Catherine, born in 1922 and passed away in 1998, did the same thing, even though she earned an awesome pension from her time as a switch board operator. SS was a small bit of supplemental income. Were they unique? Or were they just smart?

Or were they just lucky?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gendo wrote:


My question would be: Why is that there ONLY source of retirement income? Why didn't they have a back up plan? My Grandmother, born in 1912 and passed away in 1993, saved for retirment her entire working career. SS was a supplement, not the only source for her. My Great Aunt Catherine, born in 1922 and passed away in 1998, did the same thing, even though she earned an awesome pension from her time as a switch board operator. SS was a small bit of supplemental income. Were they unique? Or were they just smart?
Or were they just lucky?

We should stop striving for personal accountability/responsibility, its all just a matter of luck!

I don't think any society would get very far on that attitude.

I do value community (which is one of the reasons I'm a libertarian) and, so, am a strong believer in people helping each other (as a matter of moral 'should', not government enforcement), but I also have a low opinion of the idea that we should just do away with personal responsibility/accountability on the basis that its all just luck.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So what do you do with someone who had to spend his life savings on rebuilding his destroyed home, pay expensive vet bills when his pets needed surgery, or couldn't find a job for years?

Edit: Where did I say that 'luck' is a valid reason to never hold anyone accountable for their own responsibilities?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So what do you do with someone who had to spend his life savings on rebuilding his destroyed home, pay expensive vet bills when his pets needed expensive surgery, or couldn't find a job for years?

I don't much care about someone having expensive vet bills. Every dollar I have that might go to such a person, I'd rather go to help someone with medical bills.

I believe in student loans to help a person get retrained to get a new job (or, in today's economy, getting a certification might be better than getting a degree).

Rebuilding a destroyed home is what insurance is for.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?


I'm tired of people saying that those without insurance aren't paying our own way. Its a false dichotomy to say Get insurance or bum off the system.

If anything, when I get sick and the hospital charges me 600 dollars for a doctor to say "That looks bad, here's an antibiotic" I'm paying extra because of not only the freeloaders, but those of you with insurance companies who bargain for lower prices for medical care.

As for the remote possibility of a catastrophic illness, thats what medicare is for.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?

Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If only it were that easy. Especially in the current market.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US

No.

Stop.

First, you don't have a real definition of "comparable". You have an arbitrary definition - part of the criteria of which includes "Must not be like any country that actually exists" - and your definition will shift freely as counter-examples are presented so that you can constantly reassure yourself that you remain correct in your assumptions.

Second, many of the countries that have universal health insurance already are nothing like one another! Clearly, being similar to everyone else is not actually a requirement for making universal health insurance work.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

Just curious, what are you basing these assertions on?

From how I understand it, every hyperpower in history (a superpower that exists without rivals) has been able to harness people from multiple nations, ethnicities and ideas. Eventually the strife between those differing groups pulls it apart, but it is that harnessing in the first place that allows the nation to rise so high.

The 'hyperpowers' I can think of are England during the 19th century, Rome in the first couple of centuries AD, and the US in the 20th century (and maybe the 21st, but then again maybe not).

Of all of these, only the US has had a social security system in place. So, I don't think its accurate to compare it to the others.

Sorry, I adjusted what I quoted from you, that is what I am referencing. You said that immigration and diversity specifically promote corruption and failure in big government. I'm pointing out there are historical examples of empires who's major strength was their diversity, compared to powerful empires that didn't peak as high as them. The list includes:

Mongolian Empire
Rome
British Empire
Dutch Empire (very briefly and mostly economic)
Ancient China
Persian Empire
United States

These were all vast empires at one time or another, encompassing numerous ethnicities and migrations of people. Since you're saying that immigration and diversity directly leads to corruption, I'm assuming you have historical information that would point to that from multiple examples.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:
We as individuals SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING TO PAY FOR ANYONE ELSE. We should be responsible for our OWN PERSON and that of our children until they become legal adults. Everyone else should figure it out on their own. Figure out the numbers based on our own track record. Yes, I have a very selfish perspective. I have issues with knowing that I have been a burden to others...I'd rather die than be forced to rely on anyway else. Insurance is just another way to say that we MUST be burdened with paying for other people. A crime if there ever was one. Insurance of any sort should be optional, not mandatory. You don't want, don't take it. You want it just in case? Then get it. Either way their should be a CHOICE.

I'm concerned with the overall ability of this country to move forward and succeed. Resources are greater when pooled together, that's a fact. Human beings work better as a society, that's a fact. You on your own in the wilderness cannot build a car and the internet. It is impossible.

Your attitude would imply that it is an individuals own fault for having cancer, being unable to work and becoming homeless because they become bankrupt from medical bills. I find that unacceptable. I also find it ridiculous to consider that acceptable and still call ourselves the greatest nation on earth.

Your boot-straps point of view is commendable. Unfortunately for a large economy to exist and thrive, our current health care model does not fit and your model is even worse.

If you want to be a social Luddite, you're welcome to it, but don't insist the rest of us do it too just because you're angry at the world.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Actual, legitimate sources for every single one of your charges, please.

First, define "Whistleblower" using a universally agreed-upon terminology.

Next, please cite all ACTUAL instances of prosecution brought by the Obama Administration, cite case numbers, list charges, defendants, and who/what organization declared them "whistleblowers," and tell us what information they were bringing to light. List outcomes of each event. Note: information gleaned from Fox News, Newsmax, The News of the World, or completely out of your backside, does not count as legitimate.

Compare all past administrations to the current, beginning with George Washington, and show the numbers of prosecutions brought by every single administration, and identify how these were prosecutions against "whistleblowers" as defined above.

Next, explain how past misdeeds by the federal government prove or disprove a case against the current administration's agenda, and why you feel confident in implying that blame for those misdeeds falls on the current administration.

Next, please explain what the existence of, or absence of whistleblowers, has at all to do with a health care program?

Really. I'd love to hear about this whistleblower thing. Because I watch the news at least four times a day, on three different networks, and read CNN at least every other day, and I seem to have no idea what you're talking about with this whole "Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined" nonsense, and would love for you to cite chapter and verse.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

Heaven forbid you should fall on hard times and have to hear anybody tell you that you can't go on keeping the things you worked hard for, as a blue-blooded American citizen.

Real easy to rattle off nonsense when all is well. Not so easy when the unexpected happens. But guess what? The unexpected can happen to anybody at any time.

DEAL

WITH

IT.


So here's my 2cp on the issue.
As has been pointed out, hospitals are legally required to treat people who don't have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, at least in emergency situations. We do this for a number of reasons, and I am unsure anyone in this thread wants to enact a "let them bleed" policy. So let's take it as read that this happens and will continue to happen, and that it's probably beneficial for society that people aren't allowed to die in a gutter just because they're poor.

Now that we've established that the government already pays for healthcare, but has no means or power to reduce its costs in this regard, what do we do? Well, we could enact single payer. I think this is absolutely the best idea on the table. Obamacare is a poor substitute and a feeble compromise, but as has been stated, it was a conservative idea until the very moment Obama suggested it.

If there are more buyers, it will drive demand for health coverage up, which will drive revenues up. At the same time, other provisions in the affordable care act say that at least 80% of your premiums have to be spend on healthcare, as opposed to the 60-ish percent now, and rebate checks are already starting to be cut. So although people will be forced to pay in, and subsidized depending on income, they may also get a big fat rebate back if they don't actually consume any healthcare.

Once everyone basically NEEDS to hold coverage I feel this will encourage employers to offer or broaden their company health plans, and Obamacare incentivizes this as well.

I mean look, I'm all for personal responsibility, but let's face it: people aren't. No man is an island. You want to opt out of healthcare? Fine by me, but you also can't drive on our roads or use our justice system, etc etc.

I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

Oh please ! We've already been through this immigration issue on another thread, and I ALREADY brought you numbers showing that immigration fluxes and percentage of immigrant residents were actually aqual or even higher in the major UE countries (UK-France-Germany) that in the USA... How can you still stand on the same opinion on this topic?

And whatever, what's the relation between high immigration and healthcare ? How could immigrants promote corruption in the government, in which they play no part ?


Meatrace wrote:
I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.

I mean, that's great and all, but clearly not everyone does.

Is that even in dispute?
And no, the other option is a single payer system, and then there's a public option, or there's mandating that insurance providers (if not healthcare providers) be not for profit. There's a fair bit of granularity there. But really the problem arises when people are unable to pay, which happens more than you might like to think. Especially near end of life and in emergency situations.

I think a part of the problem is that insurance COVERS less and less. I was, or rather thought I was, fully insured 3 years ago. I got wanged on the head and thought I might be concussed so I went to the emergency room. I was there for about 15 minutes, they had one guy come in, look at my eyes, check my head for blood, and basically say "nah, you're fine" and sent me packing. $400. WITH insurance.

My point is that we don't have a problem paying for things that we use, like roads or police or the justice system, etc. These are things we value, even when we aren't using them. Why is it so hard to think of healthcare the same way? I recognize that society is better when the least of us is cared for, then the bottom quintile has some spreading around money, and everyone is educated.


meatrace wrote:


I mean, that's great and all, but clearly not everyone does.
Is that even in dispute?

No, but it seems like people that don't want to buy insurance are being colored as freeloaders when in fact many of us are paying our own way.

Quote:
But really the problem arises when people are unable to pay, which happens more than you might like to think. Especially near end of life and in emergency situations.

Ok, so because i MIGHT end up being one of those people I'm going to get fined ? Why not Jail sentences for potential criminals?

Quote:
I think a part of the problem is that insurance COVERS less and less. I was, or rather thought I was, fully insured 3 years ago. I got wanged on the head and thought I might be concussed so I went to the emergency room. I was there for about 15 minutes, they had one guy come in, look at my eyes, check my head for blood, and basically say "nah, you're fine" and sent me packing. $400. WITH insurance.

And that's the product I should be forced into buying? A corporation that takes my money month after month after month but will refuse to pay out their agreed upon services when I need them and then hide behind a veritable phalanx of lawyers

Quote:
My point is that we don't have a problem paying for things that we use, like roads or police or the justice system, etc. These are things we value, even when we aren't using them. Why is it so hard to think of healthcare the same way?

Because its not Feasible to track an individuals Road usage. Its feasible to track an individuals doctor visits.

There's also no provision in the constitution to allow the government to do this. I know people forget this, but the federal government in particular is limited in what its allowed to do as well as being prohibited from taking certain actions.

For me, the problem with Obamacare isn't so much that its socialized, its that its socialized BADLY.

Best Case Scenario.

I need about 300 dollars worth of medical care a year. I will be charged 300 dollars a MONTH by an insurence company. That extra money will go into paying for Grandma's Dialysis (as well as the corporate coffers). Mit Romney needs 500 dollars a year in medical care and he contributes the exact same 300 dollars a month that I do.

Its a Ridiculously regressive tax.

More likely scenario

I put in 300 dollars a month for insurance for 30 years, paying for grandmas dialysis and corporate profits. The insurance company gets to the point where it has maximized the profit from the younger workers so that when I'm 50 and have a heart attack, the CEO's write themselves a giant bonus check, declare bankruptcy and bail out.


Again, I'd point out to you that the other provisions in the law prevent such an alacritous extraction of wealth by the corporations, and they would have to rebate you a good portion of what you pay in. I mean the general strategy is 1)make everyone pay in 2)force the companies to charge less. Because, really, even assuming a healthy profit margin (like 8% or so) the amount of money we spend to fund the current private for profit health insurance business ought to be enough to cover everyone at a reasonable rate. The end goal being, effectively, to spread out the cost to everyone and make sure everyone also benefits from it equally.

While it's perhaps not feasible to track road usage, certainly you could track police calls or times you appear before court, or for every day you spend in a public school. I don't think any of those things should be private. I think privatizing those things would be fundamentally detrimental to a free society. I think having private, for profit health care is similarly detrimental.

There is no provision in the constitution regarding a lot of stuff, man. It's an old-ass document and needs some revisiting. Not really an argument though.

I'm not saying Obamacare is awesome or anything, don't get me wrong, but I still think it's better than the republican/libertarian ideology of "let the poor die in the gutter."

On a side note, the ER horror story I shared is precisely WHY I want something else. I REALLY REALLY wanted a public option. That was the only choice that my employer gave me. Once Obamacare provisions take effect in full, there will be far more affordable private options.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.

Really? Cause aside from one surgery provided at an extremely low price by a local surgeon, I've just gotten sick when I didn't have health insurance and managed to live through it without treatment.

This whole idea that I'm freeloading because my job doesn't provide medical insurance is insulting to say the least. Does anyone really think I'm getting away with something because my only option is to wait until a problem is so grave that it requires treatment at the emergency room?

I'm honestly baffled that, given the number of examples of functional systems in Europe, the American government would choose require insurance rather than provide decent coverage. That said, I'll take what coverage I can get at this point.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US

No.

Stop.

First, you don't have a real definition of "comparable". You have an arbitrary definition - part of the criteria of which includes "Must not be like any country that actually exists" - and your definition will shift freely as counter-examples are presented so that you can constantly reassure yourself that you remain correct in your assumptions.

Second, many of the countries that have universal health insurance already are nothing like one another! Clearly, being similar to everyone else is not actually a requirement for making universal health insurance work.

Scott, use this definition of 'comparable' - must be the same population as ours (+/- 10%) and same geographic size as ours (+/- 10%).


Smarnil le couard wrote:


Oh please ! We've already been through this immigration issue on another thread, and I ALREADY brought you numbers showing that immigration fluxes and percentage of immigrant residents were actually aqual or even higher in the major UE countries (UK-France-Germany) that in the USA... How can you still stand on the same opinion on this topic?

And whatever, what's the relation between high immigration and healthcare ? How could immigrants promote corruption in the government, in which they play no part ?

What your numbers were comparing people migrating between two first world countries. That's a joke! I'm talking about people migrating between places like Guatemala/Mexico and the United States. Show me that, for example, Poland is ignoring its social burden for its poor by encouraging them to migrate to Germany in large numbers and, thereby, overburdening German social services.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US

No.

Stop.

First, you don't have a real definition of "comparable". You have an arbitrary definition - part of the criteria of which includes "Must not be like any country that actually exists" - and your definition will shift freely as counter-examples are presented so that you can constantly reassure yourself that you remain correct in your assumptions.

Second, many of the countries that have universal health insurance already are nothing like one another! Clearly, being similar to everyone else is not actually a requirement for making universal health insurance work.

Scott, use this definition of 'comparable' - must be the same population as ours (+/- 10%) and same geographic size as ours (+/- 10%).

Do your argument is that because no other country is close to the same size as ours, there is nothing we can learn from them? The US is so unique that we can't apply things that have worked (or learn from things that haven't) in other countries?

We should try Communism then. It's never been tried in a country comparable to the US.


Bruunwald wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Given that the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined and given the sordid history of the federal government and health care scandals (Walter Reed, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MK Ultra, radiation experiments on US Soldiers, medical experiments on the mentally ill/mentally handicapped, the list goes on and on and on), shouldn't that be a red flag against putting this administration in control of what happens to our bodies?

Actual, legitimate sources for every single one of your charges, please.

First, define "Whistleblower" using a universally agreed-upon terminology.

Next, please cite all ACTUAL instances of prosecution brought by the Obama Administration, cite case numbers, list charges, defendants, and who/what organization declared them "whistleblowers," and tell us what information they were bringing to light. List outcomes of each event. Note: information gleaned from Fox News, Newsmax, The News of the World, or completely out of your backside, does not count as legitimate.

Compare all past administrations to the current, beginning with George Washington, and show the numbers of prosecutions brought by every single administration, and identify how these were prosecutions against "whistleblowers" as defined above.

Next, explain how past misdeeds by the federal government prove or disprove a case against the current administration's agenda, and why you feel confident in implying that blame for those misdeeds falls on the current administration.

Next, please explain what the existence of, or absence of whistleblowers, has at all to do with a health care program?

Really. I'd love to hear about this whistleblower thing. Because I watch the news at least four times a day, on three different networks, and read CNN at least every other day, and I seem to have no idea what you're talking about with this whole "Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations...

Not everything you asked for. (no case numbers or anything)

I'm not sure what it has to do with the Affordable Care Act, though.

My 2cp? The only problem I got with the whole deal is the mandate. Look, I get why the mandate exists. Do you get why its a very bad precedent to set and why its unconstitutional? If not, do you think this proposed state law would be Constitutional if enacted at the national level? It's the whole slippery slope that I object to. Wickard v. Filburn was bad enough, I dont think the Commerce Clause needs to be expanded anymore.

Edit- About the whistleblowers: I think the Obama Administrations indictment of Kiriakou is the worst. Instead of going after CIA torturers, as promised, the adminstration goes after the whistleblower who told on the torturers.


thejeff wrote:

We should try Communism then. It's never been tried in a country comparable to the US.

I agree.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
My 2cp? The only problem I got with the whole deal is the mandate. Look, I get why the mandate exists. Do you get why its a very bad precedent to set and why its unconstitutional? If not, do you think this proposed state law would be Constitutional if enacted at the national level? It's the whole slippery slope that I object to. Wickard v. Filburn was bad enough, I dont think the Commerce Clause needs to be expanded anymore.

Do you think it would be equally unconstitutional if instead of being a penalty if you didn't have health insurance, it was a tax credit for having insurance? With an overall tax increase to make the entire thing revenue neutral.

In other words, exactly the same financial consequences as the mandate, but phrased as a tax and a tax credit, both of which are certainly constitutional and have been used to encourage or discourage behavior before.
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference." Except when it comes to the law.

51 to 100 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.