Page 63 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573113 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #621
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    And why doesn't that also work for doctors and hospitals? Why can't they demand some form of assurance they will get their money?
    They should. Therefore they must also able to deny services whenever they do not receive that assurance. Same way any other contract works. Protects both parties.

  2. #622
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Then you must be a vehement opponent of PPACA.

    If you leave government out of it, you also leave insurance companies to fend for themselves, and if that means chasing all their customers away with runaway premiums, then so be it and adios. Runaway prices should be met with going out of business, not bailed out by mandated participation. When government steps in and forces participation, that chains us all to each other and drags us down with the sinking ship that is their defective pricing and reimbursement practices.
    And where do you think all those customers are going to go, exactly? People are going to stop paying for medical care? Who picks up the tab, then?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #623
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    And where do you think all those customers are going to go, exactly? People are going to stop paying for medical care? Who picks up the tab, then?
    That's not the issue.

    Look, if you think the solution to this runaway cost problem HAS to include every citizen getting every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it, then you're stuck with our current runaway cost problem, and all you're doing is desperately trying to find someone to pay the mounting tab.

    But if you want to fix the problem, you have to accept the fact that some people will be denied medical care, because they have no money and they're not insured, and cumulatively we can't fund unlimited health care for all forever.

    Option 1 is stick with our current entitlement mentality re: health care. Give everyone everything they need, and then stick the bill on anyone with any money left in the bank.

    Option 2 is reestablish the financial relationship between provider and patient and face the harsh-ass reality that not everyone can be treated--everyone can't have everything.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 03-29-12 at 05:58 PM.

  4. #624
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    It's not either everything or nothing. There is a minimal level of care that would not include everyone getting everything they want. having access for everyone for that minimal level would be good for the country, and could be done at a lower cost than having that care treated in the ER, or waiting until the cared needed was for a serious condition that now needs serious and expensive care. No one suggests that everyone gets everything.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #625
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And you're making an assumption they wouldn't be.
    They wouldn't be. It wouldn't be the first time the court has ruled against the constitution though. And I do not believe you have ever read those documents, as you are unable to provide anything except the words of what other progressives have said.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #626
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It was intended as a joke to tweak conservatives, who can only see activism when decisions don't go their way.
    You you admit to trolling?

    The second part is quite funny as you seem to do the thing you accuse others of (via the 2000 election)...
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  7. #627
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    They wouldn't be. It wouldn't be the first time the court has ruled against the constitution though. And I do not believe you have ever read those documents, as you are unable to provide anything except the words of what other progressives have said.
    I'm not concerned with what you believe. You've set up a premise where anything that disagrees with you must be wrong. That you can't see the error in this thinking is problematic. Honest, knowledgeable people disagree. Law, language is all too often less clear than we like. That is why people often disagree on what the law says.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #628
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I know weaseling when I see it. You refuse to define judicial activism, after repeated attempts to get you do so (all of your answers were sarcastic), so it perfectly well stands to reason that you wish it to remain purposely undefined.
    It is a normal liberal MO. Be it this, or what 'rich' is, or what is a 'fair amount' or 'fair share' when it comes to taxes. They deal in generalities because it seems they think they can not lose an argument if they do not provide specifics.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  9. #629
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It's not either everything or nothing. There is a minimal level of care that would not include everyone getting everything they want.
    I didn't say want. I said need. And given that everyone gets sick and/or injured and dies, this need is potentially limitless.

    having access for everyone for that minimal level would be good for the country, and could be done at a lower cost than having that care treated in the ER, or waiting until the cared needed was for a serious condition that now needs serious and expensive care.
    As above, "minimal" is still potentially limitless.

    It's also the case that we already spend three times average of industrialized countries on outpatient care, and TWICE what the #2 country (Sweden) spends, so opening the floodgates of access to outpatient is definitely NOT going to make our overall expenditures go down.

    No one suggests that everyone gets everything.
    Course not, but that's the result when you can't bring yourself to tell anybody "sorry." WE CAN'T LET THEM DIE IN THE STREETS!!! leads to being obligated to never neglect anyone. We feel fundamentally entitled to whatever health care we need, and until that changes we're stuck with this runaway cost problem, trying to stick the mounting bill on someone else.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 03-29-12 at 06:13 PM.

  10. #630
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that -- according to opponents of the mandate -- the government could implement an absolutely socialistic single player plan, but for some reason a minor tax penalty to encourage the purcahse of private insurance for private medical care is causing the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves. Are you saying you don't see any disconnect here?
    Yes, they could implement a single payer system, just as they did for SS. I doubt they would have enough support, but they could accomplish it.

    And that is 100% different than forcing private citizens to purchase something from private industry. That you can not see that is telling.

    What ever happened to all the left's bitching about government collusion with private industry? This is clearly such a thing, but they support THIS government/industry collusion.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •