• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?

Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 88.4%
  • No

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Total voters
    43
That's a highly debated statistic. What they are not saying is that they're lumping insurance underpayment in with those figures. Also they ignore any cost recouping from debt collection.

Got it. Are ERs then a money losing proposition for hospitals? I've also heard that for whatever reason the cost of caregiving through an ER is higher than going to your doctor.


If you don't a somewhat related question. My mother in law recently spend two and a half weeks in the hospital for congestive heart failure and some related liver issues. No surgery or anything like that. Just a stay with nursing care and daily visits by several different doctors. When I got the bill from the hospital the bottom line figure was something like $198,000, though her insurer, Emblem, only paid something like $13,000. Is that 198,000 a "real number"? Is it what I would have had to have paid for her stay if she didn't have insurance? I know hospital stays are expensive but even accounting for the various doctor visits 10 grand a day seems a bit much.
 
Of course. The answer is when you can bundle and resell that loan to some sucker for another commission by lying about its safety and then place bets (called CDS's) that the loan will fail and make even more money when it does. You do realize that bankers took RECORD bonuses during the boom and now they are paying fines for there misdeads that don't begin to dent the profits they made? You also must know the GW. Bush sold $440 Billion of those stinkers to Fannie Mae in 2002 to kick off the housing bubble?

Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres ole GW himself with the bit about Fannie in 2002


And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)

Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode.
LOL. Funny though; I don't remember it that way. True, the Fannie Mae debacle snared some Republicans, but blaming it on Bush of all people is about as disingenuous as it gets - inasmuch as all he did was ignorantly spew the Democrat line, falling for their trap, much like his father did who promised "no new taxes" (naivete runs deep in that family); it's been a rotten democrat plum of a social experiment practically from the beginning, then once Franklin Raines took the reins of Fannie Mae, it became the all-out social experiment democrats had been wanting all along - particularly with the help of the Dodd-Frank bill.

No, the list is long and scurrilous of those Democrats who are are to blame for the housing bubble. As far as Republicans are concerned, once the alarm was sounded and they attempted to rein in government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae - BECAUSE of the risks they were not only promoting but sponsoring, they were soundly excoriated.

And since you won't answer the question honestly, I will - when the government, through whatever means forces Americans to do something against their better judgment, against common sense and long-standing principles, things they would otherwise never do on their own (hence the need for force) Americans will respond in ways the central planners and social enforcers couldn't - for all their abject, myopic naivete (to be kind) - envision. Put differently, if you force me into doing something against my better judgment, something that not only puts me, my family, my business even society at risk - and you force me to do it under the threat of penalty or punishment, I will comply in such a way as to minimize those risks however possible, not caring in the least what your "good intentions" may have been for threatening me thus.

I accept you're going to blame Bush for everything; I've come to expect no less since B.O. took office - but it doesn't change the truth.
 
China is not Communist. China is unregulated capitalism. that is why all the capitalists in USA are going there...................
Oh my... I think I have this month's signature.
 
I would bet in the end the taxpayers will pay more in subsidies than they do now to cover uninsured people. Many people without insurance pay their bills, and they seem to ignore that fact. I agree they need to change the law to put the hospital in control of who will receive what care without payment.
 
LOL. Funny though; I don't remember it that way. True, the Fannie Mae debacle snared some Republicans, but blaming it on Bush of all people is about as disingenuous as it gets - inasmuch as all he did was ignorantly spew the Democrat line, falling for their trap, much like his father did who promised "no new taxes" (naivete runs deep in that family); it's been a rotten democrat plum of a social experiment practically from the beginning, then once Franklin Raines took the reins of Fannie Mae, it became the all-out social experiment democrats had been wanting all along - particularly with the help of the Dodd-Frank bill.

No, the list is long and scurrilous of those Democrats who are are to blame for the housing bubble. As far as Republicans are concerned, once the alarm was sounded and they attempted to rein in government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae - BECAUSE of the risks they were not only promoting but sponsoring, they were soundly excoriated.

And since you won't answer the question honestly, I will - when the government, through whatever means forces Americans to do something against their better judgment, against common sense and long-standing principles, things they would otherwise never do on their own (hence the need for force) Americans will respond in ways the central planners and social enforcers couldn't - for all their abject, myopic naivete (to be kind) - envision. Put differently, if you force me into doing something against my better judgment, something that not only puts me, my family, my business even society at risk - and you force me to do it under the threat of penalty or punishment, I will comply in such a way as to minimize those risks however possible, not caring in the least what your "good intentions" may have been for threatening me thus.

I accept you're going to blame Bush for everything; I've come to expect no less since B.O. took office - but it doesn't change the truth.

I gave you the truth about the housing bubble, why the banks did it and the truth about Bush's involvement backed up with one of his speeches. I am not surprised that you refuse to believe the truth, it is not pretty for Republicans.
 
All insurance is crap, but thats the nature of socialist institution whether ran by government or privately.


Those who buy insurance (of any type) are a collective. The point of this collective is by pooling their money together the people with more can pay expenses for the people with less. Its wealth redistribution. Of course everyone in this collective is paying something, but not everyone is paying the same amount based on the level of coverage that they bought. What it comes down to is that health insurance is a private tax paid to private citizens rather than to the government. Every problem that can be thought of about a government ran health insurance can be applied to the private health insurance sector. My insurance company wont pay for certain procedures if I want them I have to pay out of my pocket. I have zero voice in the matter other than shopping for a new insurance company. But without the hated ABA (I dont like it either) I am screwed if I have a preexisting health problem.
 
Got it. Are ERs then a money losing proposition for hospitals? I've also heard that for whatever reason the cost of caregiving through an ER is higher than going to your doctor.


If you don't a somewhat related question. My mother in law recently spend two and a half weeks in the hospital for congestive heart failure and some related liver issues. No surgery or anything like that. Just a stay with nursing care and daily visits by several different doctors. When I got the bill from the hospital the bottom line figure was something like $198,000, though her insurer, Emblem, only paid something like $13,000. Is that 198,000 a "real number"? Is it what I would have had to have paid for her stay if she didn't have insurance? I know hospital stays are expensive but even accounting for the various doctor visits 10 grand a day seems a bit much.

Here is a good place to find that info (the AHA). You'll see most hospitals are non-profit. In my youth I know hospitals stayed afloat with a combination of state and community (charitable contributions) funding, some federal and the remainder in fees.

From the hospital admins I know, the financing and billing are the most complex, multilayered, and math intense positions I've ever seen. Took me three months to write the code just to calaculate standard resident GME reimbursement. It's not a job I'd ever want. So I suppose the answer to your last question is - I don't know. ;)
 
I gave you the truth about the housing bubble, why the banks did it and the truth about Bush's involvement backed up with one of his speeches. I am not surprised that you refuse to believe the truth, it is not pretty for Republicans.
Pffft. :doh
 
Buyer beware. Read the fine print.


 
The OP is wrongly worded. It should be "do you have am right to NOT buy crap?" (ie Obamacare).

The answer is yes, but you have to pay a penalty/bribe if you don't, unless you can buy/bribe you're way into Obama personally giving you legal exemption.
 
It has n0othign to do with this is about government preventing people form making stupid decisions that hurt the rest of us.

You're not involved. It doesn't affect you at all.
 
A lot of times they don't pay too, and then we all foot the bill. Don't forget the ones that have insurance but are bankrupted because their insurance won't pay. The mandate eliminates all insurers excuses to deny payment.

Wow, I DON'T THINK SO! There is the $12,700 deductible thing.
 
Wow, I DON'T THINK SO! There is the $12,700 deductible thing.

Not with ACA plans. There is a $6350 yearly maximum out of pocket with the Bronze plan. Other more expensive plans are even less.
 
Back
Top Bottom