Obamacare is Dead - Long Live Healthcare!

[Fungus Gnat]

I'm a person that doesn't believe in intiating force upon others. Which sometimes puts me at odds with those who worship government, both "lefties" and "righties" depending upon the prayer they want answered via government force, be it to sustain the warfare or the welfare state.
You a "lefty" and "righties" both believe in the same methods, you want government to TAKE from somebody to fulfill YOUR vision of how others should live. I don't.


My objection to the "mandate" is simple. The "health care plan" is an advancement of government FORCE over individual choice. Right now I can have insurance or not, it's MY choice. I like to make MY choices, it's called freedom.

How is a health insurance mandate forcing someone into a vision of how I want them to live? In order for reform to work through private insurance you must increase the pool of people on insurance.

I'm not really in favor of the private plan, I'd rather have universal healthcare (oh no socialism) which is a much more efficient use of money. That will go to actually providing healthcare not shareholder dividends.

 

[upnorth2505]

iam a professional. i live in a rich suburb. i am self-employed. i buy health insurance on the individual market for myself and my wife. it costs $13,200 per year for a $5,000 deductible with no co-insurance. in other words, i need to spend $5000 per year, first, before insurance pays 1 cent. so if my insurance pays anything, that means i have spend $18,200 that year on healthcare. /////////////////////////////////////////////////

You deserve a better deal Jeff. If my math is not wrong, you spend $758 per person per month without using any benefits. Why? Because politicians that are concerned with maintaining outrageous profits for the healthcare industry are making sure that things won’t change.

Regarding a mandate that requires all to have health insurance? Yes, if there is to be no public option that is only fair. That is part of the reason now your premiums are so high. Why should lower income republican rednecks be allowed to not carry insurance, so you have to pay more?

The other major problem here is the extreme selfishness of the right. They do not want to see one cent of their money "subsidizing" anyone else. The problem is, is that we all get sick: Rich, poor, middle income. It is true of course, that over-weight, older men suffer many heart attacks. These are usually poor low income "rednecks" who do not pay insurance or wealthy individuals.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but here goes. Preemies (premature births) and birth defects are phenomenally expensive. A premature birth can easily cost in excess of $100,000. If you factor in birth defects, say Down’s syndrome, you are talking about insurance costs in excess of $1,000,000 during the life of the individual.

Why do I mention this? Because Christian and wealthier conservatives are more likely than the average working class family to require these services.

So what is fair? Any insurance is based on averages. They employ many actuaries to figure this stuff out. I say spread the risk out as far as possible by not only allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, but requiring them to do so. Do more to level the playing field.

There always have been and there always will be system leaches. With insurance reform we stand some chance of controlling that factor.

But truth be told, the single payer option makes the most sense. Works fine for many countries, why not ours?

 

[ChChoda]

You deserve a better deal Jeff. If my math is not wrong, you spend $758 per person per month without using any benefits. Why? Because politicians that are concerned with maintaining outrageous profits for the healthcare industry are making sure that things won’t change.

Regarding a mandate that requires all to have health insurance? Yes, if there is to be no public option that is only fair. That is part of the reason now your premiums are so high. Why should lower income republican rednecks be allowed to not carry insurance, so you have to pay more?

The other major problem here is the extreme selfishness of the right. They do not want to see one cent of their money "subsidizing" anyone else. The problem is, is that we all get sick: Rich, poor, middle income. It is true of course, that over-weight, older men suffer many heart attacks. These are usually poor low income "rednecks" who do not pay insurance or wealthy individuals.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but here goes. Preemies (premature births) and birth defects are phenomenally expensive. A premature birth can easily cost in excess of $100,000. If you factor in birth defects, say Down’s syndrome, you are talking about insurance costs in excess of $1,000,000 during the life of the individual.

Why do I mention this? Because Christian and wealthier conservatives are more likely than the average working class family to require these services.

So what is fair? Any insurance is based on averages. They employ many actuaries to figure this stuff out. I say spread the risk out as far as possible by not only allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, but requiring them to do so. Do more to level the playing field.

There always have been and there always will be system leaches. With insurance reform we stand some chance of controlling that factor.

But truth be told, the single payer option makes the most sense. Works fine for many countries, why not ours?

You're like the eloquent(er) version of medicineman...

Well put.

 

[upnorth2505]

You're like the eloquent(er) version of medicineman...

Well put.

Thank you? I respect medicineman: a guy with values. A rare person in our selfish world that actually cares about people other then himself.

So are you agreeing with this assesment? Judging by your LOL, I would say no.

 

[ChChoda]

Thank you? I respect medicineman: a guy with values. A rare person in our selfish world that actually cares about people other then himself.

So are you agreeing with this assesment? Judging by your LOL, I would say no.

In all seriousness, I couldn't caricature the Democrat party any better if I tried. I thought it was a brilliant performance.

 

[upnorth2505]

To those who advocate FORCED healthcare...where should our decisions end and the governments begin? What other choices of MINE and yours would you legislate away? Are you willing to incarcerate me, when I refuse to pay for something I don't want forced on me? How will that help me?

I'm betting nobody will answer my questions...unless insults are considered answers.

Say you refused to carry health insurance coverage. You are FORCING me to pay more. Incarcerate you? No.

The government just makes sure when you do your tax return that you have paid one way or the other.

This is fair and makes sense.

 

[ChChoda]

Say you refused to carry health insurance coverage. You are FORCING me to pay more. Incarcerate you? No.

The government just makes sure when you do your tax return that you have paid one way or the other.

This is fair and makes sense.

What if you refused to carry health insurance, too? And you didn't want to pay the governments tax?

 

[upnorth2505]

In all seriousness, I couldn't caricature the Democrat party any better if I tried. I thought it was a brilliant performance.

Well thank you sooo much.

You know what would be really unfortunate? If someone who shared your political beliefs lost their health insurance through no fault of their own. Say they got in a car wreck and were permenately disabled becase the insurance company did not want to pay for treatments. At that point, the whole family would be on welfare.

No wait. They do not deserve it. Let them eat cake!

 

[ChChoda]

What if you refused to carry health insurance, too? And you didn't want to pay the governments tax?

You want insurance. Or else you'd pay the tax.

 

[Fungus Gnat]

What if you refused to carry health insurance, too? And you didn't want to pay the governments tax?

I suspect we'll have to pay the medical bill that you skip out on when you eventually end up in an ER room and cannot pay.

 

[ChChoda]

You know what would be really unfortunate? If someone who shared your political beliefs lost their health insurance through no fault of their own. Say they got in a car wreck and were permenately disabled becase the insurance company did not want to pay for treatments. At that point, the whole family would be on welfare.

So I got in a car wreck because of the insurance company? I'm starting to see your point! Those selfish, evil bastards!

 

[ChChoda]

I suspect we'll have to pay the medical bill that you skip out on when you eventually end up in an ER room and cannot pay.

No, I'll walk the streets of New York panhandling and giving blowjobs to Democrat governors...and then I'll pay! You'll see! You'll see!

 

[upnorth2505]

No, I'll walk the streets of New York panhandling and giving blowjobs to Democrat governors...and then I'll pay! You'll see! You'll see!

Well, I'm ready for a knob job now. I've got 8" of man steel ready to shoot a gallon. Get ready to swallow bitch.

 

[Rob Roy]

nothing is perfect. if a mandate is needed to complete a better good, then compromise can be the best answer.

all societies incorporate this fundamental tenet of individual sacrifice for the greater good. you pay taxes, not because you want to, but because the people you elected tell you too. in exchange, the government provides services valued by the majority of the voters.

that is the way it works. there will be things you like and things you don't.

in that sense, i agree. you have a right not too like it.

the individual mandate is an economic necessity in obama's bill. if it passes, then it was passed by a democratic process.

I think you give too much credit to a "democratic process".

If a group of people decide that they want your money, it is okay for them to take it because there were more of them
than you? That sounds like institutionalized theft to me.

You say "everybody does it" as if that makes it okay to do.

What if a group of men that constitute a majority, decide to use force to gang rape a woman, but their decision was arrived at by a democratic vote and they decided the rape served their "greater good" ? Would that be acceptable to you?


You speak of a greater good, where a majority makes the rules. So you would accept a government edict to execute Marijuana smokers, if the decision were arrived at democratically?

You say I have a right "not to like it" (healthcare) You imply that I have no right not to accept it. How is this? Isn't it my right to live by my own accord as long as I harm nobody? Why can "government" decide my fate, how much they will steal from me and what I can and cannot do? Do you call this freedom? I thought government was intended to protect individual liberty, not steal it.

I reiterate, YOU should own you, I should own ME. Don't you agree with that?

 

[beardo]

their going to make you work 3 jobs live in a little place with a bunch of people and eat crap thats unhealthy and breath in unhealthy air untill you get sick they will take anything you have and youll die....whats our REAL final tax rate..aft income sales then resale income again if your in resale of things like cars? death tax. whats our debt? whats social security looking like? think were in trouble...the international food CODEX is coming to make us sick and nationalise healthcare

 

[jeffchr]

I think you give too much credit to a "democratic process".

If a group of people decide that they want your money, it is okay for them to take it because there were more of them
than you? That sounds like institutionalized theft to me.

You say "everybody does it" as if that makes it okay to do.

What if a group of men that constitute a majority, decide to use force to gang rape a woman, but their decision was arrived at by a democratic vote and they decided the rape served their "greater good" ? Would that be acceptable to you?


You speak of a greater good, where a majority makes the rules. So you would accept a government edict to execute Marijuana smokers, if the decision were arrived at democratically?

You say I have a right "not to like it" (healthcare) You imply that I have no right not to accept it. How is this? Isn't it my right to live by my own accord as long as I harm nobody? Why can "government" decide my fate, how much they will steal from me and what I can and cannot do? Do you call this freedom? I thought government was intended to protect individual liberty, not steal it.

I reiterate, YOU should own you, I should own ME. Don't you agree with that?

You have to admit that I described a democracy correctly. Because I did.

Citing examples such as gang rape and marijuana regulation bring questons of the degree to which the individual rights are exploited for the benefit of the majority.

Either you are on-board with the democratic process or you are not, in which case, as the saying goes, "love it or leave it".

I don't call it freedom, I call it democracy. And I'm not trying to claim it is perfect or really, today, even all that good. I agree with 86% of the country, in a recent CNN poll, who think government is broken.

Democrats are liberal; Republicans are conservative. They have, in the past, been able to legislate. Lately, they have not. Why? Because they no longer represent the people. They represent themselves and corporate America, to a large degree, and they have become ineffective legislators.

The "news" media, liberal and conservative, is in the business of ratings, not news. The result is an uninformed or misinformed electorate incapable of deciphering the real political truth. An informed electorate is a critical necessity in a democracy.

I think the only way out of this mess is to elect legislators who recognize the problems and want to fix them.

For instatnce, I don't agree with Ron Paul's social platform, I do agree that his economic policies are sound, ie I think they would result in an economy that would thrive. But, there would be chaos and suffering during the transition through a radical change in how America functions economically.

I also like Ron Paul because I think he is honest and believes what he says, and he does not cater to lobbyists.

I am totally disgusted by the Democrats for their postion on tort reform. It is contrary to their stated values and it is one of the issues at the core of the healthcare debate and, really, at the core of the lobbyist issue. Shame on them.

In summary, I think it is a bit more practical to talk about specifics that are relevant today, and leave the Democratic theory debate to the philosphers.

 

[undertheice]

Either you are on-board with the democratic process or you are not, in which case, as the saying goes, "love it or leave it".

a true and complete democracy is nothing more than mob rule. this country was set up to alleviate the injustices of that mob mentality with a judicial and legislative system designed to insure the rights of the individual. those rights are nowhere codified, they are assumed to be total except where our constitution allows government to infringe upon them or they overlap with the rights of other individuals. your concept of "the democratic process" is nothing more than a reversion to mob rule and a denial of the self-determination of the individual. this hive mentality is a step backward in the ethical development of man, a surrender to our animal instincts and an acceptance of the power of strength of numbers over the higher nature of mankind. there is no charity or compassion in the mob, there is only greed and jealousy.

 

[RickWhite]

You deserve a better deal Jeff. If my math is not wrong, you spend $758 per person per month without using any benefits. Why? Because politicians that are concerned with maintaining outrageous profits for the healthcare industry are making sure that things won’t change.

The median profit margin for the health care industry is 2.2% - not even close to that of other industries.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

Regarding a mandate that requires all to have health insurance? Yes, if there is to be no public option that is only fair. That is part of the reason now your premiums are so high. Why should lower income republican rednecks be allowed to not carry insurance, so you have to pay more?

The other major problem here is the extreme selfishness of the right. They do not want to see one cent of their money "subsidizing" anyone else. The problem is, is that we all get sick: Rich, poor, middle income. It is true of course, that over-weight, older men suffer many heart attacks. These are usually poor low income "rednecks" who do not pay insurance or wealthy individuals.

Black men are 30% more likely to die from heart disease than white men.

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3018

I know I'll get flamed for this, but here goes. Preemies (premature births) and birth defects are phenomenally expensive. A premature birth can easily cost in excess of $100,000. If you factor in birth defects, say Down’s syndrome, you are talking about insurance costs in excess of $1,000,000 during the life of the individual.

Why do I mention this? Because Christian and wealthier conservatives are more likely than the average working class family to require these services.

Black women are twice as likely to have pre-mature births.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/10651_13893.asp

And you just finished arguing the opposite. It is the poor who are more likely. They eat worse, exercise less are less concerned with their health and with prevention in general.

So what is fair? Any insurance is based on averages. They employ many actuaries to figure this stuff out. I say spread the risk out as far as possible by not only allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, but requiring them to do so. Do more to level the playing field.

There always have been and there always will be system leaches. With insurance reform we stand some chance of controlling that factor.

But truth be told, the single payer option makes the most sense. Works fine for many countries, why not ours?

It works in other Countries because they have much smaller populations and or homogeneous cultures. Many of these Countries have staggering tax burdens and subsequent unemployment. It is a well established fact that the success of collective policies such as socialism is inversely proportionate to size. Unlike the small populations in other Countries, we have the third largest population in the World.

According to Obama, we have as many people lacking health care as Canada has people. According to the freedom index below, France rates 64th.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx

Most of us are in favor of health care reform. What we are not in favor of is Government takeover of more of the private sector. Our Government has never done a good job of managing anything - it isn't reasonable to expect they would do a good job with this.

 

[Dragline]

No, I'll walk the streets of New York panhandling and giving blowjobs to Democrat governors...and then I'll pay! You'll see! You'll see!

Might want to try airport mens rooms. Word on the street is its popular with Republican Senators.

 

[jeffchr]

a true and complete democracy is nothing more than mob rule. this country was set up to alleviate the injustices of that mob mentality with a judicial and legislative system designed to insure the rights of the individual. those rights are nowhere codified, they are assumed to be total except where our constitution allows government to infringe upon them or they overlap with the rights of other individuals. your concept of "the democratic process" is nothing more than a reversion to mob rule and a denial of the self-determination of the individual. this hive mentality is a step backward in the ethical development of man, a surrender to our animal instincts and an acceptance of the power of strength of numbers over the higher nature of mankind. there is no charity or compassion in the mob, there is only greed and jealousy.

i assume you must think that some form of government is necessary. maybe i'm wrong with that assumption. but if i am correct, what form of government do you think is appropriate?