Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

OldWorldOrder · Dec 11, 2013

j-mac said:
Car insurance is imposed or not by the state you love in, not the federal government. Apple's and oranges really. Plus you have the privilege to drive. Are you people really trying to say that I am afforded life and liberty as a privilege?

lol so if the federal government does something it's slavery, but if the state government does something, it's not? Clue #2 that you don't know what slavery means.

j-mac · Dec 12, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
lol so if the federal government does something it's slavery, but if the state government does something, it's not? Clue #2 that you don't know what slavery means.

I asked a question you ignored, typical.

Driving a car is a privilege, are you saying that my life and liberty are also a privilege granted by government?

OldWorldOrder · Dec 12, 2013

j-mac said:
I asked a question you ignored, typical.

Driving a car is a privilege, are you saying that my life and liberty are also a privilege granted by government?

I don't pay attention to your questions, because they have nothing to do with the point. I don't believe in natural rights at all, so everything other than the freedom to think what you want is a "privilege" granted by those around you.

Boo Radley · Dec 12, 2013

j-mac said:
Car insurance is imposed or not by the state you love in, not the federal government. Apple's and oranges really. Plus you have the privilege to drive. Are you people really trying to say that I am afforded life and liberty as a privilege?

Who imposes it is of no meaning. If it is slavery

lamo), then it's slavery by the state as well. This is called logic. And while it is true that you can opt out of driving a car by not driving, the premise is the same. There is no way to opt out of health. So, you become our burden when you don't insure yourself. You will find throughout history, and our history, of communities dealing with health issues in a communal way. Now, it was a little more possible to hide for the world out in the wilderness, die young, and not be a burden on others. But in the world today, we live close to one another, with many more ways to burden others by our poor choices. It is reasonable to address such issues. When the uninsured have the potential to burden others, it is reasonable to address that as a community, be it state or federal.

TheNextEra · Dec 12, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Who imposes it is of no meaning. If it is slavery lamo), then it's slavery by the state as well. This is called logic. And while it is true that you can opt out of driving a car by not driving, the premise is the same. There is no way to opt out of health. So, you become our burden when you don't insure yourself. You will find throughout history, and our history, of communities dealing with health issues in a communal way. Now, it was a little more possible to hide for the world out in the wilderness, die young, and not be a burden on others. But in the world today, we live close to one another, with many more ways to burden others by our poor choices. It is reasonable to address such issues. When the uninsured have the potential to burden others, it is reasonable to address that as a community, be it state or federal.

And while I don't disagree with the premise that people can unknowlingly become a burden to society in various health ways, I do take exception with the method that is currently being used. Fraud and waste has been rampant with the implementation of the ACA.

Not only that, it doesn't tackle one of the leading burdens on society which is obesity. Yes, smokers should end up paying more for their health insurance, but so should those that are severely overweight or others that have conditions that would make them a burden on society.

For instance, a neighbor of a friend that lives in an apartment is currently on unemployment. The guy weighs over 300 pounds and has health issue. That person is currently a burden on society healthwise, yet he is given free medical and there are NO consequences for his actions. How is that correct?

Boo Radley · Dec 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
And while I don't disagree with the premise that people can unknowlingly become a burden to society in various health ways, I do take exception with the method that is currently being used. Fraud and waste has been rampant with the implementation of the ACA.

Not only that, it doesn't tackle one of the leading burdens on society which is obesity. Yes, smokers should end up paying more for their health insurance, but so should those that are severely overweight or others that have conditions that would make them a burden on society.

For instance, a neighbor of a friend that lives in an apartment is currently on unemployment. The guy weighs over 300 pounds and has health issue. That person is currently a burden on society healthwise, yet he is given free medical and there are NO consequences for his actions. How is that correct?

2 things about fraud and waste:

1) there usually are a smaller part of the problem in anything.

2) there will always be fraud and waste no matter the system.

No one is for fraud and waste. Every effort should be continued and improved to combat it. But that won't eliminate the need for reform.

As for the problems, we have a huge problem here. If you think making people pay for coverage is a struggle, consider mandating anything concerning just obesity alone, let alone other risk factors. We have had no consequences for your neighbor for decades. And no rational plan for dealing with him. At least if he were covered to begin with, the medical industry wouldn't have to factor him into their overcharging.

ACA isn't perfect, but any effort to deal with this problem is automatically demonized by someone. The only thing I credit this administration for is passing something, no matter how ugly. If we all looked at it as a start, and rolled up our sleeves, I think we could improve it. Maybe even find something we all could accept.

But few things start out perfect. We shouldn't expect it to.

TheNextEra · Dec 12, 2013

Boo Radley said:
2 things about fraud and waste:

1) there usually are a smaller part of the problem in anything.

2) there will always be fraud and waste no matter the system.

No one is for fraud and waste. Every effort should be continued and improved to combat it. But that won't eliminate the need for reform.

Yes, I'm aware there is fraud and waste in any system, but come on this is ridiculous. The website crap alone was unacceptable and who has been fired for it? Noone.

As for the problems, we have a huge problem here. If you think making people pay for coverage is a struggle, consider mandating anything concerning just obesity alone, let alone other risk factors. We have had no consequences for your neighbor for decades. And no rational plan for dealing with him. At least if he were covered to begin with, the medical industry wouldn't have to factor him into their overcharging.

Yet, it's ok to just make smokers pay an increase? That's what I'm getting at. I would agree with you if they didn't demonize anyone and made everyone pay the same, however, they go after smokers and the excuse is that they live a lifestyle that causes problems later on in life healthcare wise and that's why they should pay more. Well, the same thing can be said about obescity right? If you're going to have a system ALREADY going after smokers, why shouldn't it go after a LEADING health care issue like obesity?

ACA isn't perfect, but any effort to deal with this problem is automatically demonized by someone. The only thing I credit this administration for is passing something, no matter how ugly. If we all looked at it as a start, and rolled up our sleeves, I think we could improve it. Maybe even find something we all could accept.

But few things start out perfect. We shouldn't expect it to.

Again, I understand that things need to be fixed, but it is a two sided problem. Health care costs and health care availability. They have to be worked TOGETHER. You can't just do the availability part without first also addressing the costs. ACA doesn't address the costs and in fact has made it worse for MILLIONS of Americans.

Sorry, but the ACA is not the answer either. Now, don't get me wrong, I am against the bill but I am not FOR the tricks the GOP tried to pull to get rid of it either. If people want to get rid of it, they will elect people to do so.

Boo Radley · Dec 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Yes, I'm aware there is fraud and waste in any system, but come on this is ridiculous. The website crap alone was unacceptable and who has been fired for it? Noone.

Not really a matter of fraud and waste. More incompetence.

Yet, it's ok to just make smokers pay an increase? That's what I'm getting at. I would agree with you if they didn't demonize anyone and made everyone pay the same, however, they go after smokers and the excuse is that they live a lifestyle that causes problems later on in life healthcare wise and that's why they should pay more. Well, the same thing can be said about obescity right? If you're going to have a system ALREADY going after smokers, why shouldn't it go after a LEADING health care issue like obesity?

OK? People are still angry about it. The fact is, these things are unpopular here. It would be more difficult legislate it here.

Again, I understand that things need to be fixed, but it is a two sided problem. Health care costs and health care availability. They have to be worked TOGETHER. You can't just do the availability part without first also addressing the costs. ACA doesn't address the costs and in fact has made it worse for MILLIONS of Americans.

Sorry, but the ACA is not the answer either. Now, don't get me wrong, I am against the bill but I am not FOR the tricks the GOP tried to pull to get rid of it either. If people want to get rid of it, they will elect people to do so.

I don't think ACA has actually made things worse. The best I can tell is a few states did a poor job with implementation. others did a good job. California looks wildly high, but Iowa has noticed very little change, for example. There is really no reason for insurance costs to increase.

And yes, it is a two pronged problem. And no, ACA has not done enough for either access or cost IMHO. But, I disagree that there has been any real bipartisan efforts made. Nor has any decent work been done to improve ACA.

TheNextEra · Dec 12, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Not really a matter of fraud and waste. More incompetence.

The amount paid for the website should be criminal.

OK? People are still angry about it. The fact is, these things are unpopular here. It would be more difficult legislate it here.

Fact is, wrong is still wrong. It is no more difficult than treating ALL smokers the same as they do now. If you smoke, you pay higher. If you are obese, you pay higher.

I don't think ACA has actually made things worse. The best I can tell is a few states did a poor job with implementation. others did a good job. California looks wildly high, but Iowa has noticed very little change, for example. There is really no reason for insurance costs to increase.

Well "better" I suppose is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how people paying higher for their insurance (or losing their insurance) is somehow better. You can try to justify the reasons for that all you want, but it hasn't made it better.

And yes, it is a two pronged problem. And no, ACA has not done enough for either access or cost IMHO. But, I disagree that there has been any real bipartisan efforts made. Nor has any decent work been done to improve ACA.

That is because some feel that ACA is going in the wrong direction all together. During the Bush years some on the left didn't "work with" Bush on the Iraq, they wanted to pull out all together. When people feel something is completely wrong, "working" to make it better isn't an option.

Boo Radley · Dec 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
The amount paid for the website should be criminal.

Perhaps.

Fact is, wrong is still wrong. It is no more difficult than treating ALL smokers the same as they do now. If you smoke, you pay higher. If you are obese, you pay higher.

That may be, but smokers still cost us more, even more than they pay in. The list can be rather long, and at the end of they day, we can actually charge next to everyone more.

Well "better" I suppose is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how people paying higher for their insurance (or losing their insurance) is somehow better. You can try to justify the reasons for that all you want, but it hasn't made it better.

The thing is, a lot of this isn't really linked to ACA. It's just sold that way. PBS recently showed how much of this would have happened even without ACA. Remember, they were dropping people from insurance and raising premiums long before Obama even took office. So, while no one would are those are bad things, or that ACA stopped them (though there is little logical reason for them based on ACA), when the smoke clears and the panic subsides, things make actually look better.

That is because some feel that ACA is going in the wrong direction all together. During the Bush years some on the left didn't "work with" Bush on the Iraq, they wanted to pull out all together. When people feel something is completely wrong, "working" to make it better isn't an option.

That may be, but it's unproductive. Even though I don't think the comparison fully works, we could have worked with Bush to end the conflict. Found a compromise, a better argument. Here we have a law, in place, surviving challenges, and the best way forward is to go to work. Stubborn contrariness hasn't been effective with either.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Who imposes it is of no meaning. If it is slavery lamo), then it's slavery by the state as well. This is called logic. And while it is true that you can opt out of driving a car by not driving, the premise is the same. There is no way to opt out of health. So, you become our burden when you don't insure yourself. You will find throughout history, and our history, of communities dealing with health issues in a communal way. Now, it was a little more possible to hide for the world out in the wilderness, die young, and not be a burden on others. But in the world today, we live close to one another, with many more ways to burden others by our poor choices. It is reasonable to address such issues. When the uninsured have the potential to burden others, it is reasonable to address that as a community, be it state or federal.

You seem to pine for an authoritarian state.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
I don't pay attention to your questions, because they have nothing to do with the point.

No, you don't pay attention to my question because to answer it honestly would expose your social authoritarian dreams.

I don't believe in natural rights at all...

Then you have a real problem living in the US don't you...Because this country is founded on natural rights.

...so everything other than the freedom to think what you want is a "privilege" granted by those around you.

:shock: Wow....That is a stunning statement...So, you think that if my life is a privilege, then you have the ability to take it if you are around me....I'd like to see that....It is so absurd, but thanks for revealing who, and what you really are.

OldWorldOrder · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
No, you don't pay attention to my question because to answer it honestly would expose your social authoritarian dreams.

I don't have social authoritarian dreams. Not sure where you got that from. Is it because I think you're dumb?

Then you have a real problem living in the US don't you...Because this country is founded on natural rights.

It's founded on the idea that they exist. I don't see any evidence of them. Too bad, I live here and work for the government.

:shock: Wow....That is a stunning statement...So, you think that if my life is a privilege, then you have the ability to take it if you are around me....I'd like to see that....It is so absurd, but thanks for revealing who, and what you really are.

Ummm yeah. I have the ability to take it and/or you have the ability to stop me. Those are the laws of nature.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

OldWorldOrder said:
I don't have social authoritarian dreams. Not sure where you got that from. Is it because I think you're dumb?

:lamo You go through life like that?

It's founded on the idea that they exist. I don't see any evidence of them. Too bad, I live here and work for the government.

That is too bad.

Ummm yeah. I have the ability to take it and/or you have the ability to stop me. Those are the laws of nature.

:roll: oh I see, like most progressives, you rely on playing semantics...I don't have time for that, or for you....Have a nice day.

Boo Radley · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
You seem to pine for an authoritarian state.

Nothing of the kind. You once again leave what is being to said to make a wild leap. This seems to be another one of your tactics when you can't debate the actual issue.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Nothing of the kind. You once again leave what is being to said to make a wild leap. This seems to be another one of your tactics when you can't debate the actual issue.

No, I am just commenting on what I am reading. And with my jaw dropping as you and others seem to speak of other's money like it is yours to dictate how it is spent.

Boo Radley · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
No, I am just commenting on what I am reading. And with my jaw dropping as you and others seem to speak of other's money like it is yours to dictate how it is spent.

No one has said that. Remember, I pay taxes as well. And we both pay for others before reform. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the issue, or how representative government works. So, try to address what is actually said.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

Boo Radley said:
No one has said that. Remember, I pay taxes as well. And we both pay for others before reform. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the issue, or how representative government works. So, try to address what is actually said.

Just read through the thread, and the conversations...I didn't say that you 'said' that. But that is the gist of what you are talking about. As for my understanding of the issue, or how government works, I understand both just fine thanks.

Boo Radley · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
Just read through the thread, and the conversations...I didn't say that you 'said' that. But that is the gist of what you are talking about. As for my understanding of the issue, or how government works, I understand both just fine thanks.

No, it isn't what we're talking about. Not slavery. Not socialism. Not theft. Not spending other people's money. We're. Talking about a cheaper more effective way of providing service we already pay for.

j-mac · Dec 13, 2013

Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't what we're talking about. Not slavery. Not socialism. Not theft. Not spending other people's money. We're. Talking about a cheaper more effective way of providing service we already pay for.

So far though, it isn't cheaper, nor more effective....

OldWorldOrder · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
:lamo You go through life like that?

Thinking you're dumb? Yes.

That is too bad.

Works fine for me. The government agrees.

:roll: oh I see, like most progressives, you rely on playing semantics...I don't have time for that, or for you....Have a nice day.

lol I'm not a progressive.

Boo Radley · Dec 13, 2013

j-mac said:
So far though, it isn't cheaper, nor more effective....

Not sure that's true. It takes a while to dig through all the misinformation and what is really happening. As much as we don't like it, results are rarely instant.

j-mac · Dec 14, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Not sure that's true. It takes a while to dig through all the misinformation and what is really happening. As much as we don't like it, results are rarely instant.

How much evidence are you going to need of premiums at 3 and 4 times higher, as well as deductibles of $12k before you admit you were wrong?

Boo Radley · Dec 14, 2013

j-mac said:
How much evidence are you going to need of premiums at 3 and 4 times higher, as well as deductibles of $12k before you admit you were wrong?

Again, that was happening before ACA. PBS did a good job of pointing out this was going to happen even if no reform was attempted. Your side is taking what has been the practice and blaming it on ACA. You will also see if you look that some states are doing a poor job, and others are doing a good job, and that is why things vary from state to state in what we're seeing. Logically, there is no reason for ACA to be causing any increase. But don't let that sway you. As I've pointed out, years before Obama was elected, we were seeing the same types of increases. Damn Obama must have time traveled in order to make that happen.

BWG · Dec 14, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Again, that was happening before ACA. PBS did a good job of pointing out this was going to happen even if no reform was attempted. Your side is taking what has been the practice and blaming it on ACA. You will also see if you look that some states are doing a poor job, and others are doing a good job, and that is why things vary from state to state in what we're seeing. Logically, there is no reason for ACA to be causing any increase. But don't let that sway you. As I've pointed out, years before Obama was elected, we were seeing the same types of increases. Damn Obama must have time traveled in order to make that happen.

I didn't see the PBS report, but the National Journal had an article the other day that seems that it may be saying the same thing.

Take Two Aspirin and Blame Everything on Obamacare - NationalJournal.com