Do You Want "Obamacare" to Fail?

Henrin said:

I'm kind of interested why you think your opinion matters on what people consider to be crap or not. It also amazes me that people that are regularly arguing against private monopolies are the same people always arguing for government monopolies.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of interested as to why you feel it's important that insurance companies should be allowed to sell people crap policies. There are standards ...it's not opinion.

Paschendale said:

How exactly does single payer scare you? Are you terrified of communally paid-for roads? Public parks? Are things only okay if there's a higher class profiting from it at the expense of a lower class?

Click to expand...

Roads! That thing only government can do.

Henrin said:

Besides the fact you are being extremely dishonest, no, their job is to make money. The service they provide is to fill the healthcare needs of their customers. Business is not a charity, and no one is going to do something for a living and make nothing doing it. With that mind, can you tell me how government lowers the cost of the services it provides?

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Playing profits with human lives! What a great that is made up of the organization of people, institutions, and resources to deliver health care services to meet the health needs of target populations! Looks like if you aint got that dough then its off to the grave for you...

Really, you're a socialist, so the last time you didn't want the government to run an industry was never.

Click to expand...

Actually im more in favor of a system where the gov does own some key things, but then worker co-ops, and worker self managed industries rule the rest.

I know full well you don't like people profiting from the exchanges they have with you, but the fact will forever remain that people don't much care for transactions they get nothing from.

Click to expand...

I believe in market socialism..

When dealing with the question of government it really doesn't matter. If it's true or not has nothing at all to do with government. :shrug:

Click to expand...

:lamo
Except this is essentially what we are arguing over.. If the gov should run healthcare...

Buck Ewer said:

I'm kind of interested as to why you feel it's important that insurance companies should be allowed to sell people crap policies. There are standards ...it's not opinion.

Click to expand...

Because it's their product and they have the right to decide what it includes and doesn't include. Any more questions?

X Factor said:

Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

Click to expand...

All I wanted - all I still want - is for our government to actually approach problem with 'real, meaningful solutions' in mind. And if they don't, then the healthcare industry should do this.

If we have problems then we need solutions - not politics. How they've approached ACA and so many others things is wrong, off the mark, and doesn't fix diddly squat.

X Factor said:

Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

Click to expand...

The law was rushed to get it passed before Scott Brown took up his senate seat and depriving the Democrats of a filibuster proof senate. So right there is one of the reasons it is having so much problems. Also when passed 38% of Americans were for it, 53% against it per RCP averages. Today, 4 years later RCP shows basically the same averages of the 5 polls, 38% for 52.4 against.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

One other thing, according to Rasmussen poll dated 3 March, it states the new health care law has personally helped 14% of Americans and personally hurt 33%. Yet it seems the democrats don't care.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

For me personally, I am very much against the law. The way it was passed should tell you it certainly wasn't passed on its merits. It took threats, bribes and the whip from the Democratic Leadership on their own members to get this law passed. What ever happened to the Democratic mantra on this thing that as time goes by more and more people will like it. 4 years have passed and the polls and the likability of the ACA is right where it was at the beginning.

Is it too much to hope that at sometime the Democrats will admit they made a mistake. Perhaps not in the idea, the whole idea of every American having health care is a good and moral one. But this law is not the way to accomplish that. If anything it sets that idea back.

X Factor said:

Well, I'm guessing that the million or so people who lost their coverage thanks to Obamacare wish they could go back. If Obamacare was such an improvement, why the need to repeatedly (and falsely) promise that nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to?

Click to expand...

I think you meant "5-6 million or so" ?

Henrin said:

Because it's their product and they have the right to decide what it includes and doesn't include. Any more questions?

Click to expand...

Well you and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that you are an immoral, lawless, anarchist , so...
No, I guess I really don't have any questions for an established anarchist.
Your answers would teach me nothing. You are 100% predictable and without merit..

TheDemSocialist said:

Exactly my point. Playing profits with human lives! What a great that is made up of the organization of people, institutions, and resources to deliver health care services to meet the health needs of target populations! Looks like if you aint got that dough then its off to the grave for you...

Click to expand...

Yes, people provide other people services that are both needed and entirely optional. When people exchange their labor and service to someone they expect something in return to make their efforts worth their time. People have been doing such activities since pretty much forever. If you have a problem with someone benefiting from an exchange that they are involved in than you pretty much have a problem with human interaction itself.

Actually im more in favor of a system where the gov does own some key things, but then worker co-ops, and worker self managed industries rule the rest.

Click to expand...

Ok? So why are these co-ops trustworthy to run the unimportant things, but only the government is wise enough to run the important things?

I believe in market socialism..

Click to expand...

Which is basically a contradiction of terms.

:lamo
Except this is essentially what we are arguing over.. If the gov should run healthcare...

Click to expand...

Yes, and there is no reason they should be.

Buck Ewer said:

Well you and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that you are an immoral, lawless, anarchist , so...
No, I guess I really don't have any questions for an established anarchist.
Your answers would teach me nothing. You are 100% predictable and without merit..

Click to expand...

How is my position immoral?

There are two places in the world for people who have nearly zero concern for the well-being of others:
Psychiatric wards and prisons.

Henrin said:

How is my position immoral?

Click to expand...

You do not care when people are ripped off and taken advantage of and it can ruin their lives.
In fact, I believe you largely enjoy it.

Henrin said:

Yes, people provide other people services that are both needed and entirely optional. When people exchange their labor and service to someone they expect something in return to make their efforts worth their time. People have been doing such activities since pretty much forever. If you have a problem with someone benefiting from an exchange that they are involved in than you pretty much have a problem with human interaction itself.

Click to expand...

Woah woah woah! No way in hell is any of that true. This statement you just made is factually incorrect. What about public goods? You cannot be saying that public goods go against human interaction.... Are you saying this?

Ok? So are these co-ops trustworthy to run the unimportant things, but only the government is wise enough to run the important things?

Click to expand...

I never stated all "important things"...

Which is basically a contradiction of terms.

Click to expand...

Not at all.
“Market socialism” means a proletarian democratic regime in which the mass of the population implements socialist measures within an economy based on commodity production. The market will decide what worker co-ops, or worker owned production facilities fail or proceed.

Yes, and there is no reason they should be.

Click to expand...

Well this is what we are debating. So therefore the role of the gov has and will continue to be in this debate.

Buck Ewer said:

You do not care when people are ripped off and taken advantage of and it can ruin their lives.
In fact, I believe you largely enjoy it.

Click to expand...

How were people getting ripped off?

Phys251 said:

There are two places in the world for people who have nearly zero concern for the well-being of others:
Psychiatric wards and prisons.

Click to expand...

You know Henrin too?

TheDemSocialist said:

Yea i mean these people "benefited" really well from this for profit system: New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

Click to expand...

Egads. How many times are we going to have to debunk this idiotic study?

They asked people if they had - at any time - been uninsured, and then followed them around for years and, if they died, counted it as due to their lack of insurance whether or not the individuals involved were insured at the time of their death. If a guy lost his job, then three years later had a so-called gold Cadillac plan and got hit by a car on the way to work, these fools counted it as a death due to lack of insurance. I could use the same logic to prove that cheering for the U.S. olympic hockey team will cause 15,000 deaths a year even in years when they don't play.

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com
New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last - Grace Rubenstein - The Atlantic

Click to expand...

Or this. Yes. When you value equality of care as much or more than quality of care, yes, under that scoring system, the U.S. does poorly because our Medicaid system runs about as well as our government runs most things, but our private systems such as our high-quality hospitals do very, very, good work. We only do well when you measure, you know, how well people who are sick or injured get taken care of.

TheDemSocialist said:

Woah woah woah! No way in hell is any of that true. This statement you just made is factually incorrect. What about public goods? You cannot be saying that public goods go against human interaction.... Are you saying this?

Click to expand...

Public goods result from theft, and those that provide the public good do so with the prospect of profiting from the work.

I never stated all "important things"...

Click to expand...

I can't imagine what vital thing you wouldn't want managed by the government.

Not at all.
“Market socialism” means a proletarian democratic regime in which the mass of the population implements socialist measures within an economy based on commodity production. The market will decide what worker co-ops, or worker owned production facilities fail or proceed.

Click to expand...

Ok...

Well this is what we are debating. So therefore the role of the gov has and will continue to be in this debate.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to debate. It was nonsense back in the 19th century to be talking of public education, and it's nonsense now to be talking of healthcare.

TheDemSocialist said:

Woah woah woah! No way in hell is any of that true. This statement you just made is factually incorrect. What about public goods? You cannot be saying that public goods go against human interaction.... Are you saying this?

Click to expand...

Well, generally, yes. That is why we require government to break past the incentive structures of Tragedies of the Commons and provide them.

Not at all.
“Market socialism” means a proletarian democratic regime in which the mass of the population implements socialist measures within an economy based on commodity production. The market will decide what worker co-ops, or worker owned production facilities fail or proceed.

Click to expand...

So all businesses are simply owned by their workers?

Phys251 said:

There are two places in the world for people who have nearly zero concern for the well-being of others: Psychiatric wards and prisons.

Click to expand...

If you are committed against your will a psychiatric ward is essentially a prison. I can't even think of a difference really.

MaggieD said:

I don't know why they didn't just fold everyone into Medicare.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. The infrastructure was already there and already went through the tweaking process. It would have prevented the debacle of re-inventing the wheel.

I think a part of the Affordable Care Act allowed states to expand Medicaid to capture some of the pockets of uninsured persons. North Carolina is one state that gave the federal government and the citizens of North Carolina the middle finger on that option.

I have my suspicions this was disguised as a way to solve the health care crisis but was a law comletely written by insurance lobbiest to explode the profits for insurance companies in the short run.

Who knows? I am just looking forward to the point where time passes and we find out what this law is. This could be 10 years from now.

Henrin said:

How were people getting ripped off?

Click to expand...

Someone with a net worth of $1,000 was paying $400 a month to protect that $1,000. However, they chose to pay $4,800 a year to insurance $1,000 so I guess it can be argued either way.

Insurance is a product for the rich. Poor people and most middle class people have no business purchasing health insurance.

If you choose to get ripped off, are you really getting ripped off? It's a mystery but no clear answer exist.

Beaudreaux said:

I vehemently appose single payer, and I'm scared as hell that that's where this is headed. I also feel that single payer was and is the end goal of the PPACA and its shortfalls. I feel that many of the shortfalls were intentional to help force the single payer issue to the forefront.

Click to expand...

What scares you about it? You are a small business owner and an individual. The only problem with single payer is that taxes will be higher. Taxes were high in our country back in 1993. Nobody died from higher taxes. People do die and/or live miserable lives due to the emotional stress of medical bills exceeding twice the lifetime income of a healthy 20 year old. Imagine if you are 50 and disabled as a result of your medical issue. You'll never pay it back. In a nation full of honest people this is a problem. When honest people are unable to pay a bill that they are obligated to pay, this causes great emotional strain. Over time emotional stress causes more medical problems. Those medical bills won't be paid either. Which adds stress on the impacted individual and stress to the overall medical system.

Beaudreaux said:

As a small business owner, I've had to make painful choices due to the PPACA.

Click to expand...

With single payer the unpredictable cost of health insurance will no longer be the problem of your small business. This will allow you the chance to focus on running your business in the most effective way possible. You will no longer have to alter your business due to some retarded industry that has a completely perverted business model where the customer tries to screw the service provider and the service provider is trying to screw the customer. Real businesses doesn't operate that way. Health insurance is a retarded product.

Beaudreaux said:

As a private citizen, the PPACA has cost me a tremendous amount of money; more than I paid for the same health care before the PPACA.

Click to expand...

With single payer you will not have to pay for health insurance any more. You will simply pay higher taxes. You will have the satisfaction of knowing that every single person in your country will receive the medical treatment they need. This may cause you to be lessed pissed off about the higher taxes.

Why are you scared of single payer? Is it a principle thing? Because it really makes no sense to me why you would oppose a system that most countries already use. Some Republicans are considering this as a strategy of combatting Obamacare. They probably won't but it is being considered as a plank to the Republican Party platform.

Buck Ewer said:

You know Henrin too?

Click to expand...

No. Plus, my comment was not a call-out post but to people in general who show sociopathic tendencies.

Henrin said:

If you are committed against your will a psychiatric ward is essentially a prison. I can't even think of a difference really.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. But I don't wanna stray too far off topic here--Feel free to start a debate on that subject, as it honestly sounds like it can be a good one.

vasuderatorrent said:

Someone with a net worth of $1,000 was paying $400 a month to protect that $1,000. However, they chose to pay $4,800 a year to insurance $1,000 so I guess it can be argued either way.

Insurance is a product for the rich. Poor people and most middle class people have no business purchasing health insurance.

If you choose to get ripped off, are you really getting ripped off? It's a mystery but no clear answer exist.

Click to expand...

Insurance is an illusion of cost, much like government is the illusion of protection. It could be argued that in either case you are not actually better off. There are those that argue that without government we could be killed, enslaved, imprisoned, and a long series of crimes that I will not mention here, but it can also be argued that government is guilty of all those crimes and has sanctioned them into law and has sold them as protection itself. As for insurance, when people talk of it all they will care to notice is that the end costs of care are lower than it otherwise would be without that coverage. However, they forget in an odd fashion that the only way am insurance company can make a profit is if you pay more than what you are paying for in care. Therefore, the very existence of insurance does not lower cost at all, but simply moves the cost of the service to a bill that is paid to the insurance for a higher cost over a longer period of time for the care that you could receive. You also have to imagine that getting a stable supply of people that can afford ever increasing cost due to such a system would in fact increase the cost of care faster than it would otherwise increase. In fact, the very existence of a collective system such as insurance for healthcare should be counterproductive as it displaces the price of the care from the individual to a larger group that expands the ability to receive care, and thus, defeats itself by causing increased prices.

Just my opinion of course, but I don't think I made any mistakes in my assessment.

Henrin said:

Just my opinion of course, but I don't think I made any mistakes my assessment.

Click to expand...

Probably not. Health Insurance was marketed very well in the past. Higher education and real estate are other industries that were perverted via a successful marketing strategy in past generations.

Health insurance is supposed to protect wealth. If you don't have wealth it doesn't function properly.

College education is supposed to provide you specialized knowledge. When you expect college education to provide a higher income, the education system malfunctions.

Houses are buildings where people live. When you expect it to be an ATM machine or an investment, the real estate market becomes artificially inflated.

I think Health Insurance takes the first place blue ribbon in terms of misrepresented products in the American landscape.