RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law?

RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:26:20 AM)
Sorry, that is only murkier, with no actual answer, or even realistic proposals on affordable heathcare without federal intervention.

kalikshama -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:30:16 AM)
quote: If I have to stay in a hospital or to undergo a course of medical treatment, I want the primary purpose of those providing that health care to be my welfare and health, not their business interests. I want my health to be the first priority of all involved. [sm=applause.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:51:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The government mandates that you must have liability insurance if you drive. Why shouldn't they mandate that I don't have to pay for someone's treatment who doesn't want to buy insurance? Um, the difference here, is three-fold. First, you are asking about a State policy with regards to auto insurance and a Federal policy with regards to health insurance. That, right there, is the difference. Has anyone complained about the MA mandate to purchase health insurance? Only with rhetoric from Romney's Presidential Candidacy opponents. And, the Supreme Court Justices are taking a look at the Federal ability mandate it. If that goes down, I'm almost willing to bet that someone challenges the MA mandate. I'd also be almost willing to bet that if that case got to the Supreme Court, it would be upheld. Secondly, you don't have to have insurance if you don't drive. Third, you aren't taxing one group of Citizens to pay for the auto insurance of another group of Citizens. Simple.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:56:45 AM)
but you are, it is called uninsured motorist.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 11:23:51 AM)
quote: Sorry, that is only murkier, with no actual answer, or even realistic proposals on affordable heathcare without federal intervention. I never claimed that I had all the answers to the health care problems... as I said, that is not the issue for me. The issue is extent of government power.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 11:47:57 AM)
You do not want extended government power. Understandable. As a country, we waited for the health care industry and local (state) governments to provide solutions for the now over 40 million people in this country with no insurance. The bubble that burst only brought the issue home hard for both the government and the people. How much did insurance pay to fight it? 100's of millions... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform What could they have done with that money instead? They couldnt find the money to lower rates, to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but they sure found it to fight a law designed to cover those they would not cover themselves. Why are these people scaring so many? Those who no one wants to insure? Those who cant get insurance because of health or finances. What about this segment is it that is scaring so many? Medicare covers 45 million people. Roughly 15% http://www.kff.org/medicare/h08_7821.cfm Those who are covered lined up in droves demanding congress keep government out of Medicare. Sort of hypocritical, dont you think? 29 Million children and 15 Million Adults are INSURED under Medicaid according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured in 2010. Roughly 14% Roughly 60% were covered by employer sponsored insurance... of which many are underinsured. 10% was privately purchased. Realizing that many are carrying more than one form of insurance... for example... military and employer for those families in the military, or private and Medicare for those retired... About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families. 82 million people. When was the last time anything in this country affected that many people at once? Gas? and everyone is bitching, because it affects everyone. Interest? everyone bitches because it affects every aspect of finances. But, health insuarnce? If you dont have any, then die, because "I have mine". So are we supposed to wait for the insurance companies and health care corporations to give a damn about nearly 1/3 of the country? Not going to happen. So, since you believe the federal government has no business in this situation, you should come up with possible solutions. Have any?

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 11:50:23 AM)
quote: I don't get it. That's because your fundamental premise is flawed. Your position that all government is inherently abuse of power ignores the many common goods we enjoy through governmental action and regulation. Every time you drive, every time you go outside, every time you sleep peacefully, every time you buy food without worrying it will kill you, you are trusting government and enjoying the benefits we share by creating government.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 12:59:05 PM)
I think that is a valid concern. But in this case, the only other possibility, besides some sort of mandate or mandating that hospitals provide certain services to indigents, is for the Feds to get out of healthcare altogether. Every man for himself, and if you don't have insurance, you die. I'm a "have" so that would work for me, except that I truly believe it is against our values as a country to have people dying in the streets. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Well, I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the mandate but for myself it has nothing to do with health care or insurance or whether such things are a good idea or not. It has to do with how much power we are willing to give to the government. When does it end? It seems as if for some people the solution to every problem is increased government power. History has shown us time and time again how governments abuse power... why then are some people seemingly so eager to grant even more power to the government?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:03:02 PM)
Do you truly not get that you are already paying for other people's health care? It is true you don't have to have auto insurance if you don't drive. But unless the uninsured are willing to refuse or be denied health care if they need it, then it is not the same thing. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The government mandates that you must have liability insurance if you drive. Why shouldn't they mandate that I don't have to pay for someone's treatment who doesn't want to buy insurance? Um, the difference here, is three-fold. First, you are asking about a State policy with regards to auto insurance and a Federal policy with regards to health insurance. That, right there, is the difference. Has anyone complained about the MA mandate to purchase health insurance? Only with rhetoric from Romney's Presidential Candidacy opponents. And, the Supreme Court Justices are taking a look at the Federal ability mandate it. If that goes down, I'm almost willing to bet that someone challenges the MA mandate. I'd also be almost willing to bet that if that case got to the Supreme Court, it would be upheld. Secondly, you don't have to have insurance if you don't drive. Third, you aren't taxing one group of Citizens to pay for the auto insurance of another group of Citizens. Simple.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:14:21 PM)
quote: You do not want extended government power. I believe we should question each proposed extension of such power. IMHO, People tend to focus only on the immediate issue at hand and not on the principle involved... they tend not to consider what precedent is being set. quote: Understandable. As a country, we waited for the health care industry and local (state) governments to provide solutions for the now over 40 million people in this country with no insurance. The bubble that burst only brought the issue home hard for both the government and the people. Is it the responsibility of the insurance industry to provide health insurance for everybody? Insurance companies are a business, their purpose is to earn a profit by providing insurance for their customers. quote: How much did insurance pay to fight it? 100's of millions... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform What could they have done with that money instead? They couldnt find the money to lower rates, to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but they sure found it to fight a law designed to cover those they would not cover themselves. You'll have to ask them. I suspect that they feared losing more money than which they spent on lobbying. quote: Why are these people scaring so many? Those who no one wants to insure? Those who cant get insurance because of health or finances. What about this segment is it that is scaring so many? I think people too often confuse health insurance with health care. People falsely believe that the purpose of health insurance is to protect your health... it is not. The purpose of health insurance, like any insurance, is to protect your assets from extraordinary expenses you would not otherwise be able to afford. Your house burns down and you can't afford to buy a new one? Good thing you have fire insurance. Insurance works like any other business, it has to take in more than it pays out or it can't sustain itself. Most fire insurance is paid for by people whose house will never burn down, leaving more than enough to be paid out to the unfortunates whose house does burn down. Health insurance works the same way... if more is paid out than taken in, the system will collapse. This is why health insurance companies don't like to insure people with preexisting conditions... they are a loosing deal. Yes, that sounds brutal and all social Darwinist and everything but it is the reality we have to deal with. The problem isn't a lack of health insurance, it is a lack of health care. The question isn't how do we get health insurance for everyone but how do we get health care for everyone? quote: Medicare covers 45 million people. Roughly 15% http://www.kff.org/medicare/h08_7821.cfm Those who are covered lined up in droves demanding congress keep government out of Medicare. Sort of hypocritical, dont you think? Take it up with them. quote: 29 Million children and 15 Million Adults are INSURED under Medicaid according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured in 2010. Roughly 14% Roughly 60% were covered by employer sponsored insurance... of which many are underinsured. 10% was privately purchased. Realizing that many are carrying more than one form of insurance... for example... military and employer for those families in the military, or private and Medicare for those retired... About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families. 82 million people. When was the last time anything in this country affected that many people at once? Gas? and everyone is bitching, because it affects everyone. Interest? everyone bitches because it affects every aspect of finances. But, health insuarnce? If you dont have any, then die, because "I have mine". So are we supposed to wait for the insurance companies and health care corporations to give a damn about nearly 1/3 of the country? Not going to happen. All you're doing here is bitching about the problem. I'm not against bitching per say but where have I denied that there is a problem? quote: So, since you believe the federal government has no business in this situation, you should come up with possible solutions. Have any? When did I say that the federal government has no business in the situation? I am certainly not opposed to the federal government prosecuting health insurance fraud, for example. The solution toward the health care problem is simple (which does not mean that it is easy, people have a tendency, I've noticed, to also confuse the concepts of simple and easy as well): a tax supported, government run, health care system. I do however, think this is one area where it would be better run by the states rather than the federal government for several reasons. First, it is questionable that the federal government has the constitutional authority to run such a system. Second, it would be easier to administer such a system for say, 20 million people, than three hundred million people. Third, it preserves freedom and choice. If the people of Massachusetts want a state run health care system, they can have one and if the people of Oklahoma don't want one, they don't have to have one. Fourth, it provides testing grounds for various systems. If Colorado is doing a really shitty job of it, they can look at New York or California and say "hey, look, they seem to be doing it right... we should do what they are doing." Fifth, it makes changing the system easier. As I mentioned earlier, you'll have a better chance of convincing a majority of twenty million than three hundred million. Lastly, if, despite your best efforts, you just don't like the way things are going in your State... you have forty-nine others to choose from! surely one of them must be a good fit. If not, oh well, you can't please everyone.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:23:15 PM)
quote: That's because your fundamental premise is flawed. Your position that all government is inherently abuse of power ignores the many common goods we enjoy through governmental action and regulation. Every time you drive, every time you go outside, every time you sleep peacefully, every time you buy food without worrying it will kill you, you are trusting government and enjoying the benefits we share by creating government. Incorrect. I do not believe that all government is inherently abuse of power. I do believe that government is power and that it is the natural tendency of power is toward expansion and abuse unless we work to limit it. I am getting really sick and tired of people presuming that any criticism of the federal government somehow equates with being some sort of anti-government anarchist and that if I question whether some new proposed government power is a good idea then I must be against traffic laws or whatever. That doesn't make any sense and I don't understand why people think that way. Oh wait, that's not true, I do understand why... it is easier to shoot down someone's argument if you recast it to make it look absurd (and it is always easy to make something look absurd if you push it toward the extremes).

LaTigresse -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:25:18 PM)
As long as people are expecting assistance, people should expect to pay for it.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:28:43 PM)
quote: As long as people are expecting assistance, people should expect to pay for it. But what happens if you can't pay for it... or the fine?

xssve -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:28:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The government mandates that you must have liability insurance if you drive. Why shouldn't they mandate that I don't have to pay for someone's treatment who doesn't want to buy insurance? That's usually a state mandate - but suggests the possibility that states could experiment with single payer (tax), vs. mandate (payment, presumably), or whatever other system they want to try - that is kind of how states rights work in praxis, allowing states to become policy laboratories, e.g., the HMO system currently follows state laws for the most part, and that system works better in some states than it does in others. The hard part of course, is getting reliable data from the states as to how various things might be working: NCLB for instance, was initiated in Texas, and then adopted at the federal level, before it was widely known that they were raising test score by expelling low scoring students and teaching the test to the rest - i.e., it was not a way to teach better, it was a way to whitewash results for political-ideological reasons. Redundant of course, given it's gotten hard to tell when pubs do anything for other than political-ideological reasons, and have been known to cook the books to sell it. Point is, however, it's a more democratic way of doing things (going through the states) even if it's slower, clunkier, and more work in terms of getting reliable data from behind the inevitable political smokescreens.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Do you truly not get that you are already paying for other people's health care? It is true you don't have to have auto insurance if you don't drive. But unless the uninsured are willing to refuse or be denied health care if they need it, then it is not the same thing. You see, what you just did, is prove my point. Auto insurance and health insurance are not the same thing. That was precisely what I was saying. And, if those who are purchasing health insurance are already paying for other people's health care, then wtf is the problem? The problem is, you want to pay less and want someone else to pay more. Period.

xssve -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 1:33:15 PM)
And personally, I'm more comfortable with a tax, it's less paperwork, less hassle than another bill to juggle every month, and amounts to about the same thing - i.e., make everybody, even the 1% pay payroll taxes and fund it out of that. And if that's so onerous they want to quit making money and go live under a bridge, hey - it's a free country.

kalikshama -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 2:18:50 PM)
quote: But what happens if you can't pay for it... or the fine? Lots of waivers / subsidies / help for low income people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act - A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[21][22] requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.[23] - Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process.[24][25] - Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).[26] - Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[27] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).[28] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx Q: I want health insurance, but I can't afford it. What do I do? A: Depending on your income, you might be eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and disabled, which will be expanded sharply beginning in 2014. Low-income adults, including those without children, will be eligible, as long as their incomes didn't exceed 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $14,404 for individuals and $29,326 for a family of four, according to current poverty guidelines. Q: What if I make too much for Medicaid but still can't afford coverage? A: You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance that would be sold in the new state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014. Premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four. The subsidies will be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, will have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level will have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379. In addition, if your income is below 400 percent of the poverty level, your out-of-pocket health expenses will be limited.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 2:21:44 PM)
quote: Lots of waivers / subsidies / help for low income people. Which basically renders the law toothless.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 2:28:46 PM)
Without teeth, the government cannot bite, relegating the abuses of power back into the hands of the people (such as corporations) where it rightly belongs, problem is solved.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 3:01:45 PM)
quote: Is it the responsibility of the insurance industry to provide health insurance for everybody? Insurance companies are a business, their purpose is to earn a profit by providing insurance for their customers. When insurance companies start setting the prices, then yes, they do have that responsibility. If you control both doors.... quote: You'll have to ask them. I suspect that they feared losing more money than which they spent on lobbying. That you will have to explain considering those they fought against were people they would never insure to begin with. quote: I think people too often confuse health insurance with health care. People falsely believe that the purpose of health insurance is to protect your health... it is not. The purpose of health insurance, like any insurance, is to protect your assets from extraordinary expenses you would not otherwise be able to afford. Your house burns down and you can't afford to buy a new one? Expenses set by the same companies denying care. I have no confusion on the issue. I feel insurance companies should be there to protect against the unusual... termites, hurricanes, fires, theft. Seeing a PCP for a well check up isnt an "unusual". quote: This is why health insurance companies don't like to insure people with preexisting conditions... they are a loosing deal. Yes, that sounds brutal and all social Darwinist and everything but it is the reality we have to deal with. Yes, they lose money... while paying it out the back end to the managers and CEOs. Access to physicians is blocked to anyone who is poor and has no health insurance. How many insurance companies are in partnership or own physician groups? How many have invested into hospital systems? Health care is different than health insurance... health insurance has invaded health care. You can no longer separate the two. quote: The problem isn't a lack of health insurance, it is a lack of health care. The question isn't how do we get health insurance for everyone but how do we get health care for everyone? Something Obama is trying to obtain because, without insurance, you cannot obtain health care. Again, its impossible to separate the two. quote: Take it up with them. Yet you arent complaining about the scam of Medicare... not that I think its a scam, I dont. But its government interference, according to you. quote: All you're doing here is bitching about the problem. I'm not against bitching per say but where have I denied that there is a problem? Im not bitching. Posting the facts behind a discussion is now bitching? Interesting. quote: When did I say that the federal government has no business in the situation? I am certainly not opposed to the federal government prosecuting health insurance fraud, for example. The solution toward the health care problem is simple (which does not mean that it is easy, people have a tendency, I've noticed, to also confuse the concepts of simple and easy as well): a tax supported, government run, health care system. I do however, think this is one area where it would be better run by the states rather than the federal government for several reasons. First, it is questionable that the federal government has the constitutional authority to run such a system. Second, it would be easier to administer such a system for say, 20 million people, than three hundred million people. Third, it preserves freedom and choice. If the people of Massachusetts want a state run health care system, they can have one and if the people of Oklahoma don't want one, they don't have to have one. Fourth, it provides testing grounds for various systems. If Colorado is doing a really shitty job of it, they can look at New York or California and say "hey, look, they seem to be doing it right... we should do what they are doing." Fifth, it makes changing the system easier. As I mentioned earlier, you'll have a better chance of convincing a majority of twenty million than three hundred million. Lastly, if, despite your best efforts, you just don't like the way things are going in your State... you have forty-nine others to choose from! surely one of them must be a good fit. If not, oh well, you can't please everyone. So screw the people of one state if its full of Medicare or rich and they dont feel they need a public plan? Im sorry, youc ant please everyone. Guess you will have to suck it up. quote: Fifth, it makes changing the system easier. As I mentioned earlier, you'll have a better chance of convincing a majority of twenty million than three hundred million. Pst... Obama convinced many people with this promise. While it did not deliver what I had hoped it would, its better than the alternative. Unless, of course, you dont mind paying for everyone elses hospital bills.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875