• 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
Carjosse

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,504
Reaction score
8,170
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:
Obama and his Democrats are responding that these new rules are to protect people from "crappy" or "lousy" policies.

But this is America. A lot of people treasure their right to buy lousy crap.

"Why do you get to decide what's lousy?" Fox News's Megyn Kelly asked a Democratic member of Congress recently. "Why can't the American people say 'It's lousy for you. To me, I like it?'"

And there it is. The great American question. Should the government protect people, nanny-like, from their own bad judgment?

The conservative view here is no. Republicans despise anything they see as interfering with the free market, from industrial inspections to bank reforms to President Obama's Consumer Protection Bureau, with its powers to get between citizens and debt collectors, banks and credit card companies.

If someone wants to pay 30-per-cent-plus interest, basically for life, to a credit card company based in a state with no anti-usury laws, that's his or her right. No one's forcing them to borrow the money, right?
Click to expand...

The core premise of Obamacare is collective responsibility, a notion that underpins laws in most Western countries to one extent or another, but which is regarded with great suspicion by American conservatives. This, to American conservatives, is socialism, even though the principles behind Obamacare are essentially a lift from earlier conservative thinking. But conservatives here have moved far to the right in recent years.
Click to expand...

All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
 
Horse**** spin is still horse**** spin. Many people got the insurance plans they wanted, that worked for them, and they were perfectly happy with them. Including as it turns out, a fair amount of democrats. Now, the administration spin machine is hard at work covering the "you can keep it" lies and bull****.

 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...

Mighty big paintbrush there.

Many people's insurance is absolutely fine, meets their needs and fits their budget. What the 'meets the ACA criteria' means is that the government thinks all people are too stupid to know what they need.

Of course there are going to be shyster insurance policies, but caveat emptor is the personal responsibility of people knowing what their buying. You can't protect all people from their own ignorance, and the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for that.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...


It's rather remarkable to view people who are excited about the government deciding how healthy they will be allowed to be, and how much money they will be required to spend to maintain it.

Just hope they don't find you obsolete at some point and cancel you for a better version available represented by some other citizen.
 
The question really doesn't apply to healthcare because if you do buy a crap policy and then need care that you're not covered for and can't afford you go to the ER, which by law can't turn you away, and someone else - taxpayers, owners of the hospital - pay for your care, and ER's are a horribly expensive way to dispense healthcare. If you want to do away with that requirement then I'm good with it. Buy a policy that doesn't meet your needs and live with the consequences. Otherwise I don't have a huge problem with mandating minimum standards for health insurance.

Doesn't necessarily mean I agree with Obamacare btw. I really don't. In the case of Obamacare the point of the minimum standards are more to artifically inflate the policyholder pool to spread costs around to people who aren't liable to use particular coverages and thus subsidize the cost for other policyholders.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If your auto insurance policy does not cover worn tire replacement, spark plug replacement, front end alignment, oil changes, tune-ups and periodic detailing that does not make it a "crap" policy.

Insurance is for the rare, unexpected and expensive events in life - it is not intended for covering every conceivable routine maintanence expense related to what is covered. The guaranteed additional "goodies" that PPACA mandates to be covered (with no added out of pocket costs) are what makes it crap and unnecessarily expensive. These things are not free, they are simply added to the PPACA compliant policy premium cost, meaning that you have paid for them whether you ever use them or not.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...

I think people have a right to buy what ever they want to buy. That goes for almost everything to include insurance. If one wants to buy a Yugo, they should have every right, if a Cadillac same thing. Same goes if I want to buy some cheap watch made in China or Timbuktu or a fancy one made in Switzerland. As long as it is legal, a person should be able to buy what he wants. I do not think government has the right to tell you outside of legality how one spends his money.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...

That is the Obama talking point for sure. It also is a lie.
 
The U.S. government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.




"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your poll seems wrong.

Government did not remove our right to buy crap insurance.
Government removed the right of insurance companies to sell what you are terming "Crappy insurance".

Does a company have the right to sell anything it wants without government interference? The answer should be "no".
The devil is in the details.

And your notion that it's only "crap insurance" that they prohibited seems silly. My powers of determining what's best for me often, but not always, is superior to "the masses" idea of what is best for me. I assume that's the same for most people. People I know read ****ty books, have ****ty houses, hang out with ****ty people, have ****ty jobs, watch ****ty shows. Good grief, where does it end?
 
GottaGo said:
Mighty big paintbrush there.

Many people's insurance is absolutely fine, meets their needs and fits their budget. What the 'meets the ACA criteria' means is that the government thinks all people are too stupid to know what they need.

Of course there are going to be shyster insurance policies, but caveat emptor is the personal responsibility of people knowing what their buying. You can't protect all people from their own ignorance, and the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Well that si what happens we end up paying for the stupid mistakes of others.
 
ocean515 said:
It's rather remarkable to view people who are excited about the government deciding how healthy they will be allowed to be, and how much money they will be required to spend to maintain it.

Just hope they don't find you obsolete at some point and cancel you for a better version available represented by some other citizen.
Click to expand...

It has n0othign to do with this is about government preventing people form making stupid decisions that hurt the rest of us.
 
Perotista said:
I do not think government has the right to tell you outside of legality how one spends his money.
Click to expand...

That is the point made it illegal to prevent people from making decisions in the future. It is why we have regulation.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...
No. What is crap is your premise. They are only "substandard" because the government conveniently uses arbitrary euphemisms so that suckers such as yourself can be more easily led.

Here is a prime example of a person who is getting royally screwed by this so-called "better" system: "I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled."
 
The very premise of this thread is crap.

Perhaps we need to get government involved, to establish some minimum standards for a forum discussion to meet, and to make it illegal to start a discussion based on a crap premise.

Or perhaps we could allow consumers to judge for themselves what products and services do or do not meet their needs, and allow them to buy those products and services regardless of someone else's opinion that the specific products or services they are choosing are “crap”.
 
Perotista said:
I think people have a right to buy what ever they want to buy. That goes for almost everything to include insurance. If one wants to buy a Yugo, they should have every right, if a Cadillac same thing. Same goes if I want to buy some cheap watch made in China or Timbuktu or a fancy one made in Switzerland. As long as it is legal, a person should be able to buy what he wants. I do not think government has the right to tell you outside of legality how one spends his money.
Click to expand...

Do you have the right to buy a coronary bypass from an unlicensed provider, because I could always use some extra cash?

We're not talking about Yugos or a cheap watch. We're talking about health care, which has a long history of regulation.
 
There's really nothing wrong w/the policy my company offers, but because the deductible for families is over the limits set in ACA and because it doesn't cover birth control pills w/no deductible, it'll have to be revised next year, which likely means our premiums will increase as well. I certainly wouldn't call our policy "crap"...it covers a hell of a lot more than other policies, and the copays are set in such a way that unless you have a seriously ill dependent, you're really rather unlikely to ever hit the deductible in any given year. And $7,500 in deductibles followed by 100% coverage on in-network care isn't really all that bad, either.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Do you have the right to buy a coronary bypass from an unlicensed provider, because I could always use some extra cash?

We're not talking about Yugos or a cheap watch. We're talking about health care, which has a long history of regulation.
Click to expand...

I understand that. your coronary bypass might cost you only a quarter of what one does here if you go to Thailand. I know of several people who have had a bunch of different surgury done over there because of the cheapness of it. Most of their doctors were trained and educated in the U.S., Canada, Europe or Japan. A lot of them have come to the U.S. to practice.

But I think I know what I want in an insurance policy. I think I have enough brains to decide that myself and I am sure you do too. Insurance is an operation, it may cover one or not, but it isn't an operation. The question is, do I want to fly with the hogs and chickens or fly up front in the playboy section with Uncle Hugh or somewhere in-between. That should be my choice.

But knowing me, I would probably bitch if something was regulated and bitch just as bad if it weren't. That all comes with being a crusty old military man.
 
Perotista said:
I understand that. your coronary bypass might cost you only a quarter of what one does here if you go to Thailand. I know of several people who have had a bunch of different surgury done over there because of the cheapness of it. Most of their doctors were trained and educated in the U.S., Canada, Europe or Japan. A lot of them have come to the U.S. to practice.

But I think I know what I want in an insurance policy. I think I have enough brains to decide that myself and I am sure you do too. Insurance is an operation, it may cover one or not, but it isn't an operation. The question is, do I want to fly with the hogs and chickens or fly up front in the playboy section with Uncle Hugh or somewhere in-between. That should be my choice.

But knowing me, I would probably bitch if something was regulated and bitch just as bad if it weren't. That all comes with being a crusty old military man.
Click to expand...

That is probably true of both you and I, but statistics show that half the population has a below average IQ. And experience shows that the american people, as a whole, are not equipped to make the right decision, as demonstrated by how their preference for crappy insurance has foisted their health care expenses on those of us smart enough to purchase good insurance. As a result of their stupidity, health care costs have escalated to the point where they threaten our economy and our well-being.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.
Click to expand...

I genuinely think that liberals are motivated by good intentions, but they miss the point entirely. The problem with health care wasn't insurance, it was the cost of health care (what is charged for health care). If you go to the auto shop to get something fixed on your car, the prices are the same and reasonable whether you use insurance to pay for it or not. Not true in the health care industry, and that is the real problem. Obama would have had better success nationalizing hospitals than overhauling the insurance industry.

Chargemaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf
 
sangha said:
That is probably true of both you and I, but statistics show that half the population has a below average IQ. And experience shows that the american people, as a whole, are not equipped to make the right decision, as demonstrated by how their preference for crappy insurance has foisted their health care expenses on those of us smart enough to purchase good insurance. As a result of their stupidity, health care costs have escalated to the point where they threaten our economy and our well-being.
Click to expand...

Obamacare is threatening every working American that had great insurance and our well being.
 
Carjosse said:
It has n0othign to do with this is about government preventing people form making stupid decisions that hurt the rest of us.
Click to expand...
First you have to define what you consider to be a health plan that is crappy, then explain why someone is stupid for buying such a plan and then explain how doing so hurts anyone else. All you are demonstrating here is a statist reflex to defend anything the government commands you to do
 
sangha said:
That is probably true of both you and I, but statistics show that half the population has a below average IQ. And experience shows that the american people, as a whole, are not equipped to make the right decision, as demonstrated by how their preference for crappy insurance has foisted their health care expenses on those of us smart enough to purchase good insurance. As a result of their stupidity, health care costs have escalated to the point where they threaten our economy and our well-being.
Click to expand...

By definition half the population will have a below average IQ and it doesn't follow from that that simply because one has a below average IQ one is incapable of sound decision making.

What makes for a bad insurance policy? And is the policy bad or is it that people are buying policies that are ill suited for their needs? Those are I think two completely different things.
 
Carjosse said:
It has n0othign to do with this is about government preventing people form making stupid decisions that hurt the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Well, I would think you had better hope the government doesn't one day decide some of your stupid decisions are no longer allowed because they've decided they hurt others.

Like what kind of clothes you wear, or what kind of food you eat? Maybe where you chose to live, or what profession you chose to follow?

Why is it that history shows slippery slopes are so hard for some to see.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I would think you had better hope the government doesn't one day decide some of your stupid decisions are no longer allowed because they've decided they hurt others.

Like what kind of clothes you wear, or what kind of food you eat? Maybe where you chose to live, or what profession you chose to follow?

Why is it that history shows slippery slopes are so hard for some to see.
Click to expand...

Technically all those things already exist for example if I lived in Qubec it is technically illegal to possess and sell soy butter now that is stupid but making things such as the incredibly stupid beer made form jet fuel I agree with. I would love to see sagging pants in public laws. Though for the places you can live unlike Americans we have a right to it. We also limit professions such as we do not allow voodoo healers. So far we haven't slid down that slippery slope. Many other countries have already done it by eliminating health insurance. We have things called regulations if you have a right to buy crap why do we need food inspectors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom