|
I would oppose it. I think it would be largely pointless and a waste of money. Military spending doesn't really produce much. It employs people, but the results of their employment don't really (other than the inherent nature of being employed) doesn't really benefit the economy or society.
I'd rather provide free education to doctors, then mandate that they work in under served areas for a set number of years. Same with teachers, free education, but your place of employment is chosen for you for the first 3-4 years.
I had what I thought was a really awesome idea maybe 5 years ago: policeman draft.
Basically, if you live in a city you sign up for a draft and a certain percentage of the police force is made up of people drafted for service. It would do two things I think which would be good. 1-enhance police-community relations. Regular people having to do a cop's job, and getting to know some people on the force, and vice versa. 2-It would regulate community mores as it pertains to arbitrary enforcement of laws. There's always a lot of leeway for individual officers to let people off the hook for minor infractions, and I think people who are on the job 24/7 end up harder and less lenient than others. If the community at large is basically OK with pot as a drug, regardless of its legality, "drafted" police are more likely to look the other way and there would be less arrests for possession, etc.
So the point is to encourage police to ignore the law?
One more little pedantic point I'd like to pull out of your post, Andrew R, and that's "free citizen." You can be free, OR you can be a citizen. Being a citizen means being part of civilization, the privilege of which is offset by duties both public and private, monetary and non-monetary.Our founders disagree. subjects give of themselves for others, for the state (crown), a free american citizen was meant to be able to do for himself.
Why would we want to listen to a bunch of men two hundred years dead who lived in a very different world and weren't necessarily the most rational people around? Remember the antics of John Adams as president? Or Thomas Jefferson, for that matter? Remember all of their political infighting and the way the Army and the Continental Congress got along during the Revolution?
on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.
Do you have evidence that a single sentence of the screed above is actually true?
Because this thread has sure created a lot of anti-Obamacare screeds that are entirely inaccurate.
Fair Question. The above mentioned facts have been in the news a lot. While there are differing takes on their significance, the 6 Million Plus who have lost their insurance coverage is absolutely fact. Even the Sunday morning talk shows (which lean left) had to concede that. They just don't talk about it, and chalk up those who do to be Fox News disciples, even though it is accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also utterly screwed people with pre-existing conditions.
I really wish we'd just bit the bullet and go national health care, like Canada. But since that's actually Socialist, heads would explode...
It did if you ultimately believe that it is your job to eternally pay for someone else's pre-existing condition. Ultimately, where is the concept of personal responsibility and self reliance in the ACA and those who champion it.
While some reforms on that subject are merited, unchecked admission of all pre-existing conditions basically negates the feasibility of insurance. Just pay the fines until you need the coverage due to a condition, and then the insurance companies are now compelled to offer you coverage, even though you have not paid into their system before. There is no way insurance companies will survive. And that is what I ultimately contend is the real purpose of the law. It will effectively bankrupt insurance companies, and take the country to single payer, via the back door route. Not my idea of fair and honest government. If the US population wants single payer, then they would have voted for it, and poll after poll shows that we do not want single payer.
Why would you want national health care? Are you willing to settle for low quality care, while paying more for it? (assuming of course that you are paying for it). The numbers just don't lend themselves to long term quality care. Supply and demand dictates the cost of healthcare, and when you arbitrarily open up demand, without any increase (and likely a decrease) in supply, the system is going to fail. Now everyone can get healthcare with/or without the means to pay for it. Are there 1 more doctor to care for the 40 million newly insured that the current administration wants to cover. No. And when providers like me refuse to accept Medicaid, and the piss poor reimbursement rates and money grubbing audits that come with it, what will the administration do? Force providers to accept less reimbursement rates, or face penalties, or the like... we'll see...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our founders disagree.
With one another. About everything. Constantly.
More to the point, I disagree with you about the meaning of being free.The freedom to die in a ditch is no freedom at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It did if you ultimately believe that it is your job to eternally pay for someone else's pre-existing condition. Ultimately, where is the concept of personal responsibility and self reliance in the ACA and those who champion it.
I agree. People born with a heart condition should take personal responsibility for their moral failings which cause such birth defects.
/boggle
It did if you ultimately believe that it is your job to eternally pay for someone else's pre-existing condition. Ultimately, where is the concept of personal responsibility and self reliance in the ACA and those who champion it.
It also utterly screwed people with pre-existing conditions.
I really wish we'd just bit the bullet and go national health care, like Canada. But since that's actually Socialist, heads would explode...
Sorry, but I'd rather be interreliant with my neighbors and partially responsible for my whole community than play lone wolf. Last I've checked, Earth hasn't really had any lasting strong societies based off of self reliance.
Yes we have pretty much the same options as ever. Except, of course, the option to not get insurance and pay out of pocket if they chose. so much for affordable care, except for the ones let dip into taxpayer money via subsidies it is no cheaper. Even then there are still copays and deductibles.
Actually Andrew, you don't have the same options as ever. The ACA has made many of those past options "Illegal and Invalid." those former plans do not meet the President's definition of "acceptable coverage." This means, it does not bleed you, the worker, of enough of your money, that is then used to subsidize others who are getting part of their cost covered by yours. That's why there are only 4 options offered on Healthcare.gov. Others that cost less and covered less, are no longer allowed to be "choices," that you were once free to make and pay for.
It also utterly screwed people with pre-existing conditions.
I really wish we'd just bit the bullet and go national health care, like Canada. But since that's actually Socialist, heads would explode...
It did if you ultimately believe that it is your job to eternally pay for someone else's pre-existing condition. Ultimately, where is the concept of personal responsibility and self reliance in the ACA and those who champion it.
While some reforms on that subject are merited, unchecked admission of all pre-existing conditions basically negates the feasibility of insurance. Just pay the fines until you need the coverage due to a condition, and then the insurance companies are now compelled to offer you coverage, even though you have not paid into their system before. There is no way insurance companies will survive. And that is what I ultimately contend is the real purpose of the law. It will effectively bankrupt insurance companies, and take the country to single payer, via the back door route. Not my idea of fair and honest government. If the US population wants single payer, then they would have voted for it, and poll after poll shows that we do not want single payer.
Why would you want national health care? Are you willing to settle for low quality care, while paying more for it? (assuming of course that you are paying for it). The numbers just don't lend themselves to long term quality care. Supply and demand dictates the cost of healthcare, and when you arbitrarily open up demand, without any increase (and likely a decrease) in supply, the system is going to fail. Now everyone can get healthcare with/or without the means to pay for it. Are there 1 more doctor to care for the 40 million newly insured that the current administration wants to cover. No. And when providers like me refuse to accept Medicaid, and the piss poor reimbursement rates and money grubbing audits that come with it, what will the administration do? Force providers to...
ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
It's possible, I suppose, that the Insuranceplutocrats, GoldmanSachs, Liz Fowler, etc. were all wrong and that Obamacare isn't going to make them even more filthy rich, and that Barry has been sneaking one past all of us and is going to revive the Spirit of '47, but, uh, I doubt it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but I'd rather be interreliant with my neighbors and partially responsible for my whole community than play lone wolf. Last I've checked, Earth hasn't really had any lasting strong societies based off of self reliance.
I think that self reliance was what this country was built on, and what has helped the USA fund every struggling socialist country and banana republic across the globe for the last 100 years. Your responsibility is to take care of your family and dependents. My responsibility is to do likewise. I assist above and beyond that if/when I have the means to do so. That is how we take care of our communities, by taking care of our own. It is unethical for me to saddle you with the eternal responsibility to provide for my dependents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. People born with a heart condition should take personal responsibility for their moral failings which cause such birth defects./boggle
I think that when you don't have a decent rebuttal to make, you resort to attempting to marginalize someone's statement with character assassination (non-game-related of course:). Did I equate anyone's birth defects with moral failings? No. It's not a question of what causes personal challenges and difficulties. We all have them. The question is, what are you as an individual willing to do to answer those personal challenges, be they mental or physical, or whatever. If your answer is to hold out your hands for a freebie for the next 40 or 50 years, then you are at the mercy of the ability or willingness of someone else to take care of you. The Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank by all accounts) points out that if you: #1 Graduate from High School, #2 Get a full time job, and #3 Avoid getting pregnant/getting someone else pregnant before you get married: you will almost UNIFORMLY AVOID living in Poverty. People can and do take care of themselves and their families without government support or intervention. As I work in health care, I require payment to provide care. If you're not paying, then I'm working for less money or free altogether. If you want insurance or service, then work for it and pay for it.
I think that self reliance was what this country was built on, and what has helped the USA fund every struggling socialist country and banana republic across the globe for the last 100 years.
You have no idea why banana republics exist, do you? Or how the 1950s economy worked?
It's possible, I suppose, that the Insuranceplutocrats, GoldmanSachs, Liz Fowler, etc. were all wrong and that Obamacare isn't going to make them even more filthy rich, and that Barry has been sneaking one past all of us and is going to revive the Spirit of '47, but, uh, I doubt it.
Barry has snuck one past them. Whether or not the top dogs lose money is another question yet to be seen. Probably depends on who they give campaign contributions to.
The average working Joe was told very clearly, "you will save on average $2500 per year." The truth is now known. The average working Joe will on average PAY $2500 MORE per year.
If that's an "absolute fact", I assume you can back it up with solid sources? Not pundits or bloggers, but actual data.
I've heard a "4.7 million received cancellation letters" story, but most of them move to a similar plan even without going through the exchanges. Many of the high profile cases that hit the media were able to get cheaper better plans than they'd had.
Meanwhile increases in health care spending have slowed and the percentage of uninsured has dropped.
Jeff, I could if I was willing to dedicate the time to the search. I am not. If you deem my statement in error, feel free to do the search yourself and prove me wrong. I respectfully disagree with the statement that increases in healthcare spending have slowed. The percentage of uninsured hasn't dropped? What in the last week-perhaps. 3 million signed up (some of those are for Medicaid, and not for the ACA. Others aren't paying into it,) while 4.7 million (your number) or 6 million (my number) have lost their coverage. Either way, it's a net loss by any definition of the word.
The bolded part though... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Pull the other one, chuckles.
Well, if by "lean left", you mean "aren't full on crazy right", then they do. It's all a matter of perspective.
From my perspective, the entire mainstream political discourse of this country leans right.
Your perspective is your perspective. If you're that far to the left, then you would view things as you state. As for whether the Sunday morning shows lean left, compare them with anything on Fox, and what other conclusion can you come to?
I agree. People And of course if you're sick and can't work, then hope you've got the money saved up. Good luck buying insurance on the private market when you've got an expensive medical condition.Before Obamacare at least.
You make it sound like no one has gotten sick and either had insurance or survived without government help. If you have an expensive medical condition, you usually get a job that offers employer based insurance, which because you're in a large size group plan, has to accept your pre-existing conditions. I work in public mental health in addition to private practice for precisely that reason. I want the employer provided insurance. So I work for it. Millions of people do the same for the same reason.
As for whether the Sunday morning shows lean left, compare them with anything on Fox, and what other conclusion can you come to?That anything compared to Fox leans left?
Undoubtedly correct, unless we're talking about militia groups. That said, I used to work on Capitol Hill. Let's be real. The Sunday Morning shows are to the left. Merely consider the perspectives given, the stories chosen to be covered, and the stories chosen to be avoided.
Although I suppose they might be better said to just fly their flag higher than GOP TV does.
They probably do.
Brookings is, at best, centrist. It's really small c conservative since it's focused on maintaining the status quo of society.
No way they're centrist. They swing left on most every issue. Heritage swings consistently right.
Oh, and Heritage? They proposed Obamacare.
Writing a theoretical paper on the subject (in defense of the Romney Massachusetts plan?) and actually proposing and supporting its adoption and implementation are two vastly different things.
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.
You really, truly don't understand how health insurance works, do you?
Insurance is designed to prevent you from taking on the risk of a financial event you cannot afford to have. Statistically, you will spend more in insurance than you will in auto repairs, or on health care, or on replacing your house. Because you assign risk to someone else, and then pay them to take that risk on.
That's all insurance is. Notice there is nothing in that statement about using "their premiums [to] help pay for your healthcare."
This fundamental, willful misunderstanding is preventing you from seeing the actual problem, and instead you are blinded by your prejudices to where the solution lies.
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.You really, truly don't understand how health insurance works, do you?
Insurance is designed to prevent you from taking on the risk of a financial event you cannot afford to have. Statistically, you will spend more in insurance than you will in auto repairs, or on health care, or on replacing your house. Because you assign risk to someone else, and then pay them to take that risk on.
That's all insurance is. Notice there is nothing in that statement about using "their premiums [to] help pay for your healthcare."
This fundamental, willful misunderstanding is preventing you from seeing the actual problem, and instead you are blinded by your prejudices to where the solution lies.
I'm glad you agree with me?
You're saying precisely what I'm saying.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want national health care? Are you willing to settle for low quality care, while paying more for it?
The U.S. pays more than pretty much everyone with national health care, and yet gets worse results. The data are quite clear. If you're rich, the United States is the best care in the world. If you're not, you're better off in Canada. Or England. Or Japan. Or France. Or Italy. Or Spain Or Norway. Etc, etc, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want national health care? Are you willing to settle for low quality care, while paying more for it? (assuming of course that you are paying for it). The numbers just don't lend themselves to long term quality care. Supply and demand dictates the cost of healthcare, and when you arbitrarily open up demand, without any increase (and likely a decrease) in supply, the system is going to fail. Now everyone can get healthcare with/or without the means to pay for it. Are there 1 more doctor to care for the 40 million newly insured that the current administration wants to cover. No. And when providers like me refuse to accept Medicaid, and the piss poor reimbursement rates and money grubbing audits that come with it, what will the administration do? Force providers to...
Your statements don't add up. Canada has had a national health care system, they pay less than we do, but most studies on health care outcomes show little to no difference.
They've had universal coverage since 1966, which financial changes in 1984 (it improved the system for how the government paid for health care and prohibited user fees).
I don't have to imagine that universal coverage can work. I just have to look at Canada.
As a country, why should we pay double (as a % of our respective GDP's) to achieve almost exactly the same result?
Salesman A is offering you a car for $10,000.
Salesman B is offering you the same exact car for $20,000.
Convince me why you want the one offered by Salesman B.
|
|
No way they're centrist. They swing left on most every issue. Heritage swings consistently right.
Brookings is, at best, centrist. It's really small c conservative since it's focused on maintaining the status quo of society.
good luck, around here severely left is proper and how dare we be conservative at all.
It's possible, I suppose, that the Insuranceplutocrats, GoldmanSachs, Liz Fowler, etc. were all wrong and that Obamacare isn't going to make them even more filthy rich, and that Barry has been sneaking one past all of us and is going to revive the Spirit of '47, but, uh, I doubt it.Barry has snuck one past them. Whether or not the top dogs lose money is another question yet to be seen. Probably depends on who they give campaign contributions to.
The average working Joe was told very clearly, "you will save on average $2500 per year." The truth is now known. The average working Joe will on average PAY $2500 MORE per year.
No argument on the second paragraph. But they're paying, if your numbers are right, $2500 more to "them." Who are now going to turn around and go bankrupt? I doubt it.
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all except for the liberals who keep trying to sell us on Obamacare!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should really stop following this thread. Constant laughter is really hurting my grumpy old guy image. :(
Your grumpy old guy image isn't very well-established. I, for one, thought you were a grumpy Danish (?) chick.
Your grumpy old guy image isn't very well-established. I, for one, thought you were a grumpy Danish (?) chick.
If I learned anything from Kelly Taylor, it's that "guys" is gender neutral!
Two single-payer advocates argue over Obamacare. Unfortunately, I can't find Part One.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only go by my experience.
I live in England. All my life I have lived in a system of Nationalised healthcare. No one I have ever met considers the NHS to be anything other than a source of national pride. It was in the opening of the 2012 Olympics for Pete's sake.
When a relative got breast cancer her treatment was free and on the NHS (and successful I might add.) I know people whose children had life threatening conditions at birth, the treatment was paid for. When one of my in laws tripped and broke her hip she was rushed to hospital in a free ambulance to a state of the art facility where she received free care until she was back on her feet and free physiotherapy afterwards.
In our country this is the norm.
On the other hand I have an American friend who last week sent out a request on Facebook asking if anyone knew a doctor who could examine her as a favour because she's felt ill for ages and can't afford to visit one.
Now I'm not saying our system is the best in the world, nor am I saying that America sucks, it does many things better than where I am from. But healthcare is not one of them. You pay more for a system that does not cover everybody and generally offers inferior care to most people.
Honestly in the 21st century free universal healthcare should be a basic right of a citizen.
good luck, around here severely left is proper and how dare we be conservative at all.
Andrew, I don't think you're familiar with "severely left." I'm definitely left of US center, but pretty centrist from a global perspective. "Severely left" would be advocating for state ownership of capital, complete equality of income (and everything else), etc. The only person who posts with any regularity and might fit that bill that comes to mind is Anklebiter.
Who, btw, is a non-skilled part-time worker with better health care coverage than most everyone, including the dentists and doctors that I (infrequently) visit.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
At least, until 2018...Down with Obamacare! For employer-paid Cadillac plans for all!
Actually, I take that back. The dentists and dental hygienists I visit are also Teamsters.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I'm not saying our system is the best in the world, nor am I saying that America sucks, it does many things better than where I am from. But healthcare is not one of them. You pay more for a system that does not cover everybody and generally offers inferior care to most people.
Yup. And what's really ludicrous is that Americans pay more of their taxes towards healthcare than we do. But we get a free health service out of it and they have to go off afterwards and spend huge amounts more on medical insurance. Then, when the insurer wriggles out of paying for an operation because the small print says they don't have to pay for operations on days ending in a 'y', they have to go and find the money to cover the full cost of the procedure.
This is a situation that that is quite blatantly ludicrous, and it's beyond me why anyone - left or right - puts up with it. There are solutions from both sides of the political spectrum which would be preferable to the current one (either full social health care or fully private health care which is not subsidised by taxes).
Because we've been indoctrinated to believe that anything that might work is socialism and thus evil.
And despite what some might think, fully private healthcare wouldn't be better. Far too many people wouldn't be able to afford anything significant. Luckily, we're still compassionate enough as a nation not to let it get that bad. Just not enough to take a better approach.
Yeah, that some that think private healthcare is perfect tend to be the exact same some that can afford it.
Or in other words "I'm covered. Screw everyone else."
You're saying precisely what I'm saying.
No, I'm not.
Insurance doesn't mean "I help you pay for your stuff and you help me pay for mine." Insurance is a product designed to alleviate finacial risk. Statistally, you will pay more in insurance premiums than you will in benefits received, because that's what insurance is supposed to do. My premiums do not help someone else pay for health events. My premiums pay for the insurance company assuming the risk of a castastrophic health event I cannot pay for.
Like I said, if you refuse to learn what insurance is, you've blinded yourself to real solutions.