The text walls in this thread are starting to make the health care bill text wall look like a brisk read.

12/27/2009 8:45:00 PM

i know, right?

12/27/2009 8:57:47 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I'll translate it for you. It's "You're being a fucking a troll, so I'm not going to waste my time with you." it's one thing to say "you aren't interested in having a real conversation. It's another to say "you are too stupid to understand.""

Oh, ok aaronburro. I guess I'll use this here then:

Last post to you and then I'm done with you because clearly you're not interested in having a real conversation / debate about this.

Don't worry, the translations the same for you too.

Quote :

"Yes, and that is NOT equivalent to "Medicaid works.""

No, what I said was:

Quote :

"Bullshit. People on medicaid don't seem to have a problem getting access to life saving treatments, now do they?"

That's NOT THE SME THING AS, "Medicaid works." I was strictly speaking about access to life saving medical care.

And that was after he said,

Quote :

"Yes, they would be more likely to use the service, but they still wouldn't have that access on the same scale that privately insured people would."

If you think I said something to the contrary, man up and post it!

Quote :

"dude, I did. How is me posting WHAT YOU SAID "taking it out of context?" You said, and I'll quote, "you are asking the same questions." Is that, not the same as saying "you are asking the same questions"?"

*Sigh.* I'll explain it for your dumbass.

You can ask two different questions and yield the same response. If I ask you to name the first president of the US and I then ask you to tell me who said, "I cannot tell a lie," you'll get the same response. Perhaps my wording may not have been clear enough to your stupid ass. And for that I apologize.

Quote :

"what people need is not relevant. ARE THEY BOTH INSURANCE? YES!!!"

WHAT PEOPLE NEED IS FUCKING RELEVANT YOU DUMB PRICK! WHAT ALSO MAKES YOUR COMPARISON IRRELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THEY BOTH FUCKING WORK DIFFERENTLY! HOME OWNER'S INSURANCE DO NOT HAVE TO FUCKING WORRY ABOUT PAYING FOR LONG TERM, OR EVEN LIFE LONG, COSTS THAT HEALTH INSURANCE DOES!

YOU'RE FUCKING COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES!

Quote :

"So, you aren't going to back up what you are fucking saying?"

Nope. I also won't get into religious discussions either, because that always leads to asking people to backup their beliefs. Some beliefs just can't be backed up. It's an ideological thing. You obviously have a different ideological thinking than I do. There's nothing to debate on that, as it will just keep going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round.

Quote :

"It must have been Vermont, then. This I KNOW I heard on NPR."

Now you're moving the goalposts. Besides, Vermonts plan is ALSO very similar to Massachusetts plan:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7723.pdf

Quote :

"To ensure that this coverage is affordable for low and moderate-income residents, the state subsidizes the cost of the premiums for individuals and their dependents with incomes below 300 percent FPL. "

And here's the chart:

Income*
Monthly Premium Cost
Below 200% FPL
$60.00
200-225% FPL
$90.00
225-250% FPL
$110.00
250-275% FPL
$125.00
275-300% FPL
$135.00
Over 300% FPL
Full cost: $393/Individual
$1,100/Family**

Not to mention, companies are penalized per employee for employees who do not even want to take up coverage with the employer.

Quote :

"Yes, because the potential savings are now massively more. Right now, I potentially save 10,000 bux before they drop me. With the proposal, I potentially save millions because they couldn't "drop me.""

Instead of typing out what I already posted, I'll just quote myself:

Quote :

"I already conceded to you that it's only an incentive to people who don't choose not to get coverage at fear of being dropped if they lose their job (no matter how dumb a reason that might be, after all, temporary coverage is better than NO coverage)."

Just because YOU see it as an incentive FOR YOU, it doesn't mean that it's an incentive for everyone.

Quote :

"No, we corrected your "English" because you did something that plenty of other people do: conflate insurance with health care. That's more than just "English." if anything, it's probably a Freudian slip."

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to one of the posts where he fixed a minor typo in the quote and made sure to point it out.

Additionally, regardless of what you might think, health care and health insurance are connected at the hip. There's a reason why they use them interchangeably. But if you have a such a problem with people doing so, you should go up to Washington and insist that they stop referring to this as Healthcare Reform, but rather to Health Insurance Reform. As they too seem to be making a "Freudian slip."

Quote :

"Again, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT, THEN? If nothing we do affects anything, then shut the fuck up! I feel like I am repeating myself. OH, I AM!!! Why? BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME FUCKING THING."

Because, I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT! HE BROUGHT UP HIS PLAN SO I FUCKING COMPARED IT TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL! YOU FUCKING NOBODY. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME TO SHUT THE FUCK UP? NOW GO CHOKE ON YOUR DAD'S DICK.

Quote :

"Yes, but you HAVEN'T explained why plan C is going to charge person A less simply for being sick. It was all predicated upon the notion that the healthy people in plan B were going to pay more than the sick person in plan C. But, you haven't shown why person A in plan C is paying less than a healthy person IN PLAN C."

Where did I even mention anything about person A being in plan C? I SAID THAT PLAN C IS OFFERED THROUGH THE COMPANY, AND UNDER THAT PLAN, HE WOULD PAY THE SAME AS THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. THE PROBLEM ARISES WITH PLAN B! THEY'RE PAYING FOR HIS MEDICAL COSTS, SO TO KEEP HIM ON, after all, "50 bux is better than 100 bux," THEY'RE GOING TO OFFER A LOWER RATE FOR HIM TO PAY THAN PLAN C! HEALTHY PEOPLE WON'T GET THAT! THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THE COMPANIES TO OFFER THE HEALTHY PEOPLE THE LOWER RATE. DO YOU WANT A FUCKING PICTURE?

Quote :

"You were just being "cute" again. Shut up, troll."

Only as "cute" as you, cum dumpster.

Quote :

"Who is talking exclusively about premiums. I'm talking about competition, which includes far more than merely premiums."

It's all I care about.

Quote :

"Right, and they are also getting much better tax-breaks on it than you and I do."

And? Your point?

Quote :

"bullshit. You said diabetes wasn't correlated with socio-economic status. We showed that it was. Then YOU tried to play semantics and say you were talking about one specific type of diabetes. That aint "semantics" on our part. That's you moving the goalposts."

AND YET YOU STILL DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THE FUCKING POINT! GG.

Quote :

"What's hard for YOU to understand is that we're saying the plan is bad because there are BETTER WAYS to solve the problem than the plan in congress. Just because some lobbyist-paid shill in DC isn't bringing it up doesn't mean that an idea isn't a good one. And this thread isn't limited to "let's discuss only what people in DC are talking about and not allow introduction of other ideas.""

I'm fucking aware of that! Otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did. And while I'm aware of the scope of this thread, all I'm pointing out is that we're doing nothing but bullshitting around by trying to come up with other plans. Can't take what I said? Go cry to mommy.

Quote :

"ANd you've said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and never offered one bit of substantial proof that this will occur."

IT'S HIS FUCKING PLAN! I DON'T NEED TO OFFER SHIT! I've backed up my belief as to why I think it will occur. You guys want to dick around and play dumb. Even after giving into your whims, you still want to dick around. Seems to me that you're the one who's trolling now.

Quote :

"And both are fatally flawed, which you refuse to admit, despite those flaws being thrust in your face."

Just because you say it, it doesn't mean it's true.

Quote :

"And you have failed to explain why people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their stupid decisions, other than liberal panty-twisting."

And you can't offer why they should, asides from conservative panty-twisting. People fucking make mistakes! There's plenty of times where people make far larger mistakes in their lives, and yet they get a second chance. But nope, not this one.

You can kill a man and get out on parole in 5 years, you can drop out of HS and get your GED later on life and go to college, but by God, when it comes to health insurance, we're going to fuck you to the wall.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 10:07:38 PM

^I think that is the longest reply I have seen in awhile.....

[Edited on December 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : w]

12/28/2009 2:13:05 PM

Quote :

"You can ask two different questions and yield the same response."

Yes, but you didn't accuse me of that at first. You said "you keep asking the same questions." you fucking said it. then you denied you said it. do you need me to link to the fucking post where you said it? is that how obstinate you are going to be?

Quote :

"WHAT PEOPLE NEED IS FUCKING RELEVANT YOU DUMB PRICK!"

not to whether insurance is acting like insurance or not.

Quote :

"Some beliefs just can't be backed up. It's an ideological thing. "

yes, an ideology that is spot wrong. if you can't defend you beliefs, then you are a fool.

Quote :

"Now you're moving the goalposts."

Not at all. I'm correcting a mistake that I made. The ultimate point still stands.

Quote :

"Just because YOU see it as an incentive FOR YOU, it doesn't mean that it's an incentive for everyone."

yes, but that doesn't mean it won't be an incentive to anyone else, either.

Quote :

"Additionally, regardless of what you might think, health care and health insurance are connected at the hip."

and that is a bad thing. they shouldn't be.

Quote :

"Because, I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT!"

so, even though you admit that talking about it makes no difference, you are going to talk about it anyway, cause you feel like it. Do you like banging your head into a wall? I'm just curious, troll...

Quote :

"I SAID THAT PLAN C IS OFFERED THROUGH THE COMPANY, AND UNDER THAT PLAN, HE WOULD PAY THE SAME AS THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. THE PROBLEM ARISES WITH PLAN B! THEY'RE PAYING FOR HIS MEDICAL COSTS, SO TO KEEP HIM ON"

I asked this before, and you didn't respond. So, I'll ask it again: how can the person stay on plan B when he is not employed at the company that provided it to him?

Quote :

"It's all I care about."

So, you don't care about better plans, more personalized plans, anything like that? No wonder you think this bill is congress is so good. One size fits all, right?

Quote :

"AND YET YOU STILL DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THE FUCKING POINT! GG."

No, I'm calling you out for talking out of your ass.

Quote :

"IT'S HIS FUCKING PLAN! I DON'T NEED TO OFFER SHIT! I've backed up my belief as to why I think it will occur."

I'm not asking you to back up his plan. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that companies will charge sick people less. WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DONE. If you make an assertion, you have to back it up.

Quote :

"Just because you say it, it doesn't mean it's true."

And, just because you deny it, doesn't make it false. You could, you know, defend your assertion, rather than just keep repeating it. You could defend your example, instead of arguing semantics with me.

Quote :

"And you can't offer why they should"

I don't have to. You are the one arguing against a system that has served humanity and nature pretty fucking well for the past couple billion years. Namely that organisms suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Quote :

"People fucking make mistakes! There's plenty of times where people make far larger mistakes in their lives, and yet they get a second chance. But nope, not this one."

And what deterrent is there to making the mistake if you don't actually suffer the consequences of making said mistake? What is there to keep other people from doing the same stupid thing?

12/28/2009 7:25:36 PM

(What a circle jerk this has become.)

12/28/2009 8:06:14 PM

Quote :

"not to whether insurance is acting like insurance or not."

Glad you're going to leave the rest of this unaddressed:

Quote :

"WHAT ALSO MAKES YOUR COMPARISON IRRELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THEY BOTH FUCKING WORK DIFFERENTLY! HOME OWNER'S INSURANCE DO NOT HAVE TO FUCKING WORRY ABOUT PAYING FOR LONG TERM, OR EVEN LIFE LONG, COSTS THAT HEALTH INSURANCE DOES! YOU'RE FUCKING COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES! "

Quote :

"yes, an ideology that is spot wrong. if you can't defend you beliefs, then you are a fool."

Keep trollin' trollin' trollin'. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is. You're just mad because I'm not going to get into that issue with you.

Quote :

"Not at all. I'm correcting a mistake that I made. The ultimate point still stands. "

What point was that? I bulldozed over your "facts." You made a claim and threw out numbers. I disproved them. You've exaggerated the problems in those states to fit your own agenda against the bill that's being debated on in Congress.

Quote :

"yes, but that doesn't mean it won't be an incentive to anyone else, either."

Glad you see what I'm saying.

Quote :

"and that is a bad thing. they shouldn't be."

And yet, they are.

Quote :

"so, even though you admit that talking about it makes no difference, you are going to talk about it anyway, cause you feel like it. Do you like banging your head into a wall? I'm just curious, troll..."

Believe it or not, I enjoy discussing this. I know it doesn't make a fucking difference. I also enjoy playing games as well, yet that doesn't do anything more than just waste time and gives me enjoyment.

Quote :

"I asked this before, and you didn't respond. So, I'll ask it again: how can the person stay on plan B when he is not employed at the company that provided it to him?"

Can the insurance company not offer that insurance to him independent from his past employer? I thought that was the entire point of the other guy's plan. To create competition for the sick, so that if a sick person does leave a company, the insurance company will still offer them insurance, because they're paying for their medical expenses.

Quote :

"No, I'm calling you out for talking out of your ass."

Yup, you sure did call me out on whether type 2 diabetes was correlated to socio-economic status. Ok, I was wrong. Regardless, many disease are still not correlated to socio-economic status. "The ultimate point still stands."

Quote :

"I'm asking you to back up your assertion that companies will charge sick people less. WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DONE. If you make an assertion, you have to back it up."

Ergo, the picture.

Quote :

"You could, you know, defend your assertion, rather than just keep repeating it. You could defend your example, instead of arguing semantics with me."

I did defend it. You have yet to offer a sizable challenge to my assertion, asides from cussing and accusations over semantics. Go ahead, debunk the picture. Point to me what's wrong with the picture that I painted for you. Humor me. Dumb it down if you have to. Draw on it if you care to.

It is worth noting that in the picture, Plan A and Plan B are offered by 2 different insurance companies. I'm using your notation, as in my original example, I used insurance company A and insurance company B to note two different insurance companies.

This is why this argument keeps dragging on. Because either you don't fully understand the point or because you like cherry picking what I say, while leaving other stuff not addressed.

Quote :

"You are the one arguing against a system that has served humanity and nature pretty fucking well for the past couple billion years. Namely that organisms suffer the consequences of their own actions."

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a punishment. I just don't think the punishment should be a denial of health insurance and millions of dollars of debt and bankruptcy. That's like having your hands cut off because you stole an apple from Food Lion. The punishment doesn't fit the mistake.

Quote :

"And what deterrent is there to making the mistake if you don't actually suffer the consequences of making said mistake? What is there to keep other people from doing the same stupid thing?"

And if everyone got health insurance from the state, then the discussion of a deterrent would be a non-issue. Would it not?

But you're right, there is not deterrent under the senate's plan. But there's a punishment for sick people who get laid off and lose their coverage. I've already admitted that the senate bill and other's guy's bill addresses that. The way I see it, is to pick your poison.

I know you have this belief that everyone should be responsible for themselves. Yet how come we have public schools? Why not get rid of those and make parents responsible for getting their children their own education? We both know that there are parents and children out there that don't put much value into education. They'd rather have their kids work on a farm or in a factory. Where in the Constitution does it grants people the right to education? Where in the Constitution does it FORCE kids to go to school?

Yet the investment into education has been one that has proved very successful, with people able to do more than they could 100s of years ago. Medicine is continually getting better, technology is getting better.

Yet people want to throw up the Constitutional flag on a national health insurance plan, or on "forcing" people to get insurance. Providing insurance to every citizen is something that can not only increase the quality of life, it can help reduce downtime at jobs, as people will be more inclined to get help before an illness becomes a serious issue. People won't hesitate to go to doctors because it'll cost them thousands of dollars. And yes, it means that the same stupid people who choose to make a stupid decision won't be able to anymore.

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .]

12/29/2009 12:31:00 AM

Quote :

"Ergo, the picture."

All your picture proves is that you can barely use mspaint. It still doesn't show why companies would continue to offer a service to someone for less than they would charge someone else.

Quote :

"Point to me what's wrong with the picture that I painted for you."

I already have. you are assuming that nobody moves from company B to company A. durrr. That was easy.

Quote :

"I used insurance company A and insurance company B to note two different insurance companies."

It's splitting hairs, but I think you used plan B and plan C. not important, though. :p

Quote :

"I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a punishment. I just don't think the punishment should be a denial of health insurance and millions of dollars of debt and bankruptcy."

Well, what should the punishment be? Why is the natural punishment not good enough? Why does the legislature have to come in and give a punishment for an action that already has one?

Quote :

"And if everyone got health insurance from the state, then the discussion of a deterrent would be a non-issue. Would it not?"

Maybe, but that's not what we are talking about, is it?

Quote :

"Yet how come we have public schools?"

Maybe because we know the value of specialization? Why doesn't everyone grow their own food and make their own clothes?

Quote :

"Providing insurance to every citizen is something that can not only increase the quality of life, it can help reduce downtime at jobs, as people will be more inclined to get help before an illness becomes a serious issue. People won't hesitate to go to doctors because it'll cost them thousands of dollars."

And these things could be accomplished without forcing everyone to buy insurance.

12/29/2009 6:34:39 PM

Quote :

"All your picture proves is that you can barely use mspaint. It still doesn't show why companies would continue to offer a service to someone for less than they would charge someone else."

I used Gimp, and no, I don't know everything about it, and yes, I am quite bad at drawing pictures like that.

Anyway, how do you not see what I'm saying?

If a SICK person is having THEIR coverage paid for by A DIFFERENT insurance company that used to THEY HAVE, then wouldn't the insurance company PAYING for THEIR treatment want them as a customer? Isn't THAT the ENTIRE purpose of the other guy's plan? Are you going based off having employer subsidized healthcare being gotten rid of, because I'm not considering that in this scenario?

If an insurance company is paying for a person's medical bills, isn't it natural that the insurance company will want still want them as a customer? BUT, if they can get insurance cheaper from another insurance company (either through the employer or independently), then it's natural that there will be competition. Right? So either the insurance company paying for the treatment will give them up as a customer or broker a cheaper deal than what other insurance companies who aren't paying for their treatment can.

So, where are you getting lost? Do you care to explain why they would get the same cost? Perhaps I can explain it best, and perhaps you can illustrate your point best if you explain. You might have to explain it using more than the 1-2 lines that you're accustomed to using.

Quote :

"I already have. you are assuming that nobody moves from company B to company A. durrr. That was easy."

HURR DURRRR. The picture clearly shows sick people moving. The moving of healthy people is a non-issue, as it can be approximated that the flux of healthy people between multiple insurance companies within a state is about the same.

Quote :

"It's splitting hairs, but I think you used plan B and plan C. not important, though. :p"

Yeah, that's why I drew the picture and changed to just using A and B, as it was just getting too confusing with A, B, C, and D.

Quote :

"Well, what should the punishment be? Why is the natural punishment not good enough? Why does the legislature have to come in and give a punishment for an action that already has one?"

Honestly, I really don't know what the punishment should be. But in my opinion, the current punishment does not fit the bill for making a mistake or being stupid.

Not only that, this bill does have a penalty for people who go without insurance. Now, I don't think that it's stiff enough. I think a higher penalty would be better. But that's just me.

Quote :

"Maybe because we know the value of specialization? Why doesn't everyone grow their own food and make their own clothes?"

Specialization? I'm not talking about colleges. I'm talking about HS and below, which provides you anything BUT a specialized education. And the last time I checked, food production and clothes production is done through private companies/entities, not through the government. I haven't seen any government made clothes or food yet. I've seen it contracted out to private companies...

Yet, you still left the issue of where does the government get the authority to force parents to school their children? Where do they get the authority to dictate the number of days they have to be in school? Even if I didn't read into what you meant by "specialization," it still doesn't change the fact that the government DOESN'T have the authority to do any of that. Just like they don't have the authority to create the FDA which regulates what food and drugs can or cannot be sold to us. There's also federal laws that mandates accessibility for certain public buildings. Again, where does such authority derive from, because it sure as hell isn't in the Constitution. Yet they're all things that we don't bitch about or point to as being wrong. I sure as hell don't.

There's A LOT that we, as a society, value that the government provides. There's a lot that we don't value as well. But I would think that health care/insurance would be in the top 10. Even though there's nothing in the constitution that permits them from imposing such a penalty, it's not only for the people's own good, but also for the insurance company's own good.

Do I think it's the BEST plan? Fuck no. I think you already know where I stand on healthcare reform. But I'm also a realist. What I want isn't on the table by EITHER party. Sometimes you just have to pick the best of both evils. How do you think Bush got re-elected in 2004?

12/29/2009 9:26:15 PM

Quote :

"Isn't THAT the ENTIRE purpose of the other guy's plan?"

Absolutely not. The entire purpose of the other guy's plan is to force insurance companies to cover what they say they will cover.

Quote :

"If a SICK person is having THEIR coverage paid for by A DIFFERENT insurance company that used to THEY HAVE, then wouldn't the insurance company PAYING for THEIR treatment want them as a customer?"

There's no telling. The loss has already occurred. I actually see no incentive for the insurance company to keep or get rid of them, other than the normal market forces. They've already lost the bet.

Quote :

"HURR DURRRR. The picture clearly shows sick people moving. The moving of healthy people is a non-issue, as it can be approximated that the flux of healthy people between multiple insurance companies within a state is about the same."

Healthy people moving is irrelevant. it's the SICK people who move that matter. And you haven't taken those guys in to account. Like I've consistently said.

Quote :

"But in my opinion, the current punishment does not fit the bill for making a mistake or being stupid."

But, isn't it the natural punishment that arises?

Quote :

"Specialization? I'm not talking about colleges. I'm talking about HS and below, which provides you anything BUT a specialized education."

I'm talking about specialization of labor, you know, a basic fundamental concept of economics. That is why people don't teach their children, because someone else can do it better. it doesn't, however, mean that the gov't is the only one that can do it.

Quote :

"Yet, you still left the issue of where does the government get the authority to force parents to school their children? Where do they get the authority to dictate the number of days they have to be in school? Even if I didn't read into what you meant by "specialization," it still doesn't change the fact that the government DOESN'T have the authority to do any of that."

State gov'ts most certainly have the authority to do so. That's why they are the ones dictating such policies.

Quote :

"Just like they don't have the authority to create the FDA which regulates what food and drugs can or cannot be sold to us. There's also federal laws that mandates accessibility for certain public buildings. Again, where does such authority derive from, because it sure as hell isn't in the Constitution. Yet they're all things that we don't bitch about or point to as being wrong. I sure as hell don't. "

And, as I've said before, just because one thing is unConstitutional doesn't make another equally unConstitutional thing all of a sudden OK. It's called the "tu quoque" fallacy. Look it up.

Quote :

"How do you think Bush got re-elected in 2004? "

Cause the Democrats ran a guy that sucked even harder Which takes a lot of fucking talent

12/29/2009 10:12:59 PM

Quote :

"Absolutely not. The entire purpose of the other guy's plan is to force insurance companies to cover what they say they will cover."

Here's what he said:

Quote :

"Yes, now make the final connection here. If you force insurance companies to pay for these losses, they will do it the only way they can, which is jacking up the rates on healthy people. They'll do the exact same thing under my proposal. The only difference is they have an incentive to keep their own sick people and to keep the rates for those sick people low, which in turn provides an incentive to keep the rates for healthy people low, lest they become a magnet for sick people only"

Here's what I said:

Quote :

"What I'm asking is what's to stop someone from dumping a plan that is paying for a condition that developed under that insurance companies care to another one that offers lower premiums, or because they simply have to due to a job change."

Here's what he said in response:

Quote :

"Nothing. And nothing should. There should be no barriers that prevent competition between companies, and nothing that prevents consumers from jumping insurers for better rates. That's half the problem now."

Here's what I said:

Quote :

"The only competition I see with your plan is competition to cover the sick."

Here's what he said in response:

Quote :

"As opposed to now where there's no competition for the sick, and under the proposed plan, where there still isn't any competition for the sick. Isn't that one of the problems we're trying to solve?"

It reads to me that his plan is supposed to create competition amongst the sick.

My beef is with what's in bold. I don't think it will work out that way. There's nothing to stop the companies from discriminating between sick and healthy individuals. His plan will most certainly generate competition for sick people.

His plan is to get insurance companies to cover what they said they will pay. No doubt about that. What I don't like is the effect.

Quote :

"There's no telling. The loss has already occurred. I actually see no incentive for the insurance company to keep or get rid of them, other than the normal market forces. They've already lost the bet."

"Losing 50 bux is preferable to losing 100 bux."

Yes, a loss has already occurred. They lost the bet. But it's a matter of how big a loss it is that matters.

Quote :

"And you haven't taken those guys in to account. Like I've consistently said."

I have. If you multiply my example by a million and add in a few more companies, you'll see that you'll have nothing but a web. Either sick people will stick with their insurance companies and get better rates than healthy people or move to another one leaving their previous insurer with the debt. Yes. ALL of the insurance companies will be hit by this. I haven't denied this.

My point is the competition to cover the sick will drive their premiums lower while driving the healthy people's higher. And I don't like that.

And again, you haven't explained how this won't happen. You keep saying that I haven't taken the sick people into account. Yet in the picture, the people who I illustrate ARE the sick people. What am I not taking into account exactly? Are you saying that it's too scaled down to be an effective example? If you scale it up, what will change?

Please, elaborate. If there's something I am CLEARLY not seeing, then please go on. But so far you haven't exactly addressed my concern, nor was it something the other guy could either.

Quote :

"But, isn't it the natural punishment that arises?"

I don't see it as "natural punishment." It's a man made system with man made punishments. Regulations and what not determines what the punishments should be. All I'm talking about is changing the regulations so that the punishment doesn't perpetually bone someone in a massive way.

Quote :

"I'm talking about specialization of labor, you know, a basic fundamental concept of economics."

I don't recall K-12 contributing much of anything to specialization of labor. You don't need formal education as provided in K-12 schools for specialization of labor to take place. It certainly isn't anything new, or even brought out from schools.

I'm not trying to trivialize the impact of schools on society. On the contrary, I view it as essential in any modern country. But again, my point still remains. The people arguing against the fine on people to "force" them to get insurance over constitutionality of it, seem to forget that many of the things they take for granted are technically "unconstitutional."

Quote :

"State gov'ts most certainly have the authority to do so. That's why they are the ones dictating such policies."

The state governments are the ones who do enforce the federal laws onto the people. But it's the federal government who threatens to withhold funds for schools who do not conform to what the feds say. So while it is up to the state government, ultimately, it's the federal government who creates many of the "big" policies that you see, and who then enforce it with a threat of , "Do it for don't get paid, your choice." To me, that's just a bad and unconstitutional as what many of the people who claim unconstitutionality of the tax on uninsured.

Quote :

"And, as I've said before, just because one thing is unConstitutional doesn't make another equally unConstitutional thing all of a sudden OK. It's called the "tu quoque" fallacy. Look it up."

You're missing the point. If people bitch up about taxing the uninsured being unconstitutional, then how come they don't bitch about education, the FDA, as just a few examples off the top of my head? I think we both know the answer to that. It's because people only point to the constitution when someone does something they don't like, regardless of the benefits involved. Many of the Republicans who make the arguments do it to look self-righteous. All I'm pointing out is the irony of the situation. The irony in the same people who champion the Constitution when things don't go their way, yet tear it to shreds to suit their own agenda.

12/29/2009 11:38:11 PM

Quote :

"Blue state govs. rip Senate health bill The governors of the nation’s two largest Democratic states are leveling sharp criticism at the Senate health care bill, claiming that it would leave their already financially strapped states even deeper in the hole. New York Democratic Gov. David Paterson and California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are urging congressional leaders to rework the Medicaid financing in the Senate-passed bill, warning that under that version their states will be crushed by billions in new costs. After the Senate passed the bill in a Christmas Eve vote, Paterson said the expansion would leave New York $1 billion in the lurch. The state faces a $6.8 billion budget shortfall heading into the 2010 fiscal year. “[I] am deeply troubled that the Senate version of the bill worsens what was already an inequitable situation for New York and I will continue to be an advocate on behalf of New Yorkers to ensure we are treated fairly by this critical federal legislation,” Paterson said in a statement."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31032.html#ixzz0bC83zPeq

12/30/2009 12:36:22 PM

Unfortunately, I imagine their idea of fair treatment by "this critical federal legislation" is having the fed pay more, and not reducing the insane spending that is going on.

12/30/2009 1:36:44 PM

Quote :

"You're missing the point. If people bitch up about taxing the uninsured being unconstitutional, then how come they don't bitch about education"

You're missing the point. it's a logical fallacy.

Quote :

"It reads to me that his plan is supposed to create competition amongst the sick."

It may be supposed to do that, but that's not the only point of it.

Quote :

"Yes, a loss has already occurred. They lost the bet. But it's a matter of how big a loss it is that matters."

Yes, but they aren't going to necessarily increase the loss by dropping the rate below the cost just to keep the person on.

Quote :

"My beef is with what's in bold. I don't think it will work out that way."

I wouldn't 100% agree with the way you are interpreting it, which is certainly a valid interpretation. I would view the situation ultimately that the insurance companies have incentive to continue competing for the sick, as opposed to now where they just 100% ignore them.

Quote :

"Yet in the picture, the people who I illustrate ARE the sick people"

No, you've only accounted for one sick person, while ignoring the rest who are also increasing premiums at other companies. In your example, you have one insurance company with a sick person and one without. It's not like that at all.

Quote :

"I don't see it as "natural punishment." It's a man made system with man made punishments. "

You know what I mean, though. It is the punishment that "naturally" or logically derives from the decision that was made.

Quote :

"Regulations and what not determines what the punishments should be."

And how does the regulation better derive what the consequence should be than the actual act itself and the consequence that occurs from it?

Quote :

"I don't recall K-12 contributing much of anything to specialization of labor."

Jesus, dude. You said "why don't we teach our own kids?" I said because of specialization. namely, my time is better spent writing computer programs than teaching my kid. Don't be obtuse.

Quote :

"But it's the federal government who threatens to withhold funds for schools who do not conform to what the feds say. So while it is up to the state government, ultimately, it's the federal government who creates many of the "big" policies that you see, and who then enforce it with a threat of , "Do it for don't get paid, your choice." To me, that's just a bad and unconstitutional"

I agree 100%. That is wrong, and it's a beef I've had for a long time. It is a way that the federal gov't gets away with forcing things on the states that it normally would have no jurisdiction over.

12/30/2009 8:27:38 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but they aren't going to necessarily increase the loss by dropping the rate below the cost just to keep the person on."

But that's the only way to compete with other companies to keep their loss as low as possible.

It might not work out like that, but to me, I see there being a pretty big chance for it to.

Quote :

"I would view the situation ultimately that the insurance companies have incentive to continue competing for the sick, as opposed to now where they just 100% ignore them."

I definitely agree and see that it will create competition for the sick. I would just prefer it if the sick had the same rates for the same plans as the rest of us. But I think this competition for the sick will drive down their rates below that of the healthy.

Quote :

"No, you've only accounted for one sick person, while ignoring the rest who are also increasing premiums at other companies. In your example, you have one insurance company with a sick person and one without. It's not like that at all."

I'm now referring to the picture, in which there are two companies and two sick people.

But even if I were to expand it to multiple companies and thousands of sick people, what exactly would change?

Quote :

"It is the punishment that "naturally" or logically derives from the decision that was made."

To me, logically, the punishment isn't logical. So they were stupid? They should be forced into bankruptcy, suffer stipend paychecks, possible be denied any loans or funding to cover the cost of the treatment? If a person with HIV/AIDS doesn't get coverage before they get sick, how are they going to get treatment? Yeah, they'll be able to get treatment for a while, until they run out of money. They might be able to get a loan, they might be able to get some funding help. But what happens when they've declared bankruptcy? How will they afford the treatment?

To my knowledge, they won't be able to. They will eventually die from it (sooner) without the treatment. You can substitute cancer in for HIV/AIDS or any treatable but life long condition that requires medication or pro-longed treatment.

I don't see that punishment as being logical. Rather, I see a punishment for refusing to get insurance as being more logical.

Quote :

"Jesus, dude. You said "why don't we teach our own kids?" I said because of specialization. namely, my time is better spent writing computer programs than teaching my kid. Don't be obtuse."

And I said "why don't we teach our own kids" to refer to parents taking responsibility for their children's education. There will always be private schools. If you feel that your time is better spent writing computer programs than teaching your kids, then you could send them to a private school, or have your wife do it. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

12/31/2009 1:18:24 AM

Quote :

"But that's the only way to compete with other companies to keep their loss as low as possible."

Not at all. It stands to reason that the cost from one company to another is going to be comparable. Thus, with a minimum cost, there will be a minimum price.

Quote :

"They should be forced into bankruptcy, suffer stipend paychecks, possible be denied any loans or funding to cover the cost of the treatment?"

When the risk they made was not being able to cover that expense, absolutely!

Quote :

"If a person with HIV/AIDS doesn't get coverage before they get sick, how are they going to get treatment? Yeah, they'll be able to get treatment for a while, until they run out of money. They might be able to get a loan, they might be able to get some funding help. But what happens when they've declared bankruptcy? How will they afford the treatment? To my knowledge, they won't be able to. They will eventually die from it (sooner) without the treatment. You can substitute cancer in for HIV/AIDS or any treatable but life long condition that requires medication or pro-longed treatment."

Not my problem. Should have purchased insurance when they could have. Then there is no problem.

Quote :

"I don't see that punishment as being logical. Rather, I see a punishment for refusing to get insurance as being more logical."

Isn't that what this is? They didn't get insurance. They got sick. They got punished. Really simple.

1/4/2010 6:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Not my problem. Should have purchased insurance when they could have. Then there is no problem."

I know this has been posted in this thread before, and probably multiple times, but it's not surprising that you simply seemed to have ignored it:

Quote :

"Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0bgt15xWy "

1/4/2010 6:50:06 PM

too bad we aren't talking about that particular instance, my friend. We're talking about someone going bankrupt because they didn't buy insurance. You want to talk about people having insurance and still being fucked? Hey, let's talk about that.

1/4/2010 6:58:34 PM

Quote :

""Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy."

See what I read from this is exactly what I've been saying for this entire thread: More insurance isn't the answer to our problems.


On the topic of solving problems, here's a new one I came across. I had an appointment with a specialist in the Duke system. A few days before my appointment, I get a letter in the mail confirming my appointment and also "reminding" me that because the specialist's office is at one of the hospitals, in addition to the office visit, I will also be charged a "hospital clinic fee" in a separate billing. Essentially, I'll be charged an office visit to talk to the specialist, and billed as a hospital outpatient for any actual procedures or lab work the specialist performs. Talked to the insurance company, they said it's something Duke does all the time, and there isn't anything they can do about it (after all, they just deny it as inappropriate or unauthorized procedures and Duke sticks me with the bill). Got nowhere with Duke either. This is the sort of bullshit that makes medical care so expensive, but most people don't even notice because they don't pay attention because their insurance company pays their part and then the patient gets a non itemized bill of charges the insurance didn't pay. Incidentally, I'm not the only one who's been bitten by this crap: http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/1498995/. UNC and others do this crap too: http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2009/07/06/story9.html

There's nothing in the current proposals that will solve problems like this.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 8:32 PM. Reason : dfg]

1/4/2010 8:29:39 PM

Quote :

"Not at all. It stands to reason that the cost from one company to another is going to be comparable. Thus, with a minimum cost, there will be a minimum price."

I think you're missing the aspect of group insurance plans. I think for sick people who aren't under a group plan, the price of insurance will be the same for sick people as it is for healthy people. But what I haven't seen you address is the that sick people who switch companies may end up paying less in premiums. Because the employer ends up paying for a good portion of the health insurance, an insurance company who wants to retain a sick person to minimize the loss and keep a sick person who switches to a company who offers insurance with a different company, they (the old insurance company) will have to offer a reduction in premiums that is the same or greater than the percentage of coverage that the employer will pay for.

If an insurance company does not do this, then there's nothing to keep them on as a customer. I concede that such an affect will hit all insurance companies, and I've also conceded that it will force premiums to rise, as will the senate/house bill. I don't see any way under 1337 b4k4's plan to keep sick and healthy people's premiums the same if they're under a group plan.

Quote :

"When the risk they made was not being able to cover that expense, absolutely!"

And that's where we differ on ideologically. And honestly, I don't see us ever agreeing on that subject. I can call you heartless and you can call me a bleeding-heart. I think in our own minds there's probably nothing that will change.

Quote :

"There's nothing in the current proposals that will solve problems like this."

I don't agree with Duke or UNC double dipping practices. I don't know if this has been asked before or addressed earlier, so sorry if it has, but what could the federal government do to prevent this, without overstepping any constitutional bounds? Obviously the state isn't going to do anything, especially since I do believe that the UNC's hospitals are run by the state.

1/4/2010 9:21:05 PM

Quote :

"The health care debate resumes in earnest on Tuesday after more than a week of quiet following Senate passage of its landmark bill on Christmas Eve. The four relevant House chairmen will meet with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team at 1 o'clock in the speaker's Capitol office to start setting the parameters for negotiations with the Senate. Then, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Nev.) will head to the White House for an early-evening meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss the final bill, according to Democratic officials. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and party Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will participate in the meeting via conference call because neither has returned to Washington from the holiday break. House negotiators have their work cut out for them because Reid – and his wavering moderates – will be reluctant to make any changes that would upset the fragile accords that paved the way for last month's historic, hard-fought, party-line vote to approve the Senate bill. This spells trouble for the public option, but there are plenty of other substantive differences between the two bills that could give House leaders a foothold to make other changes."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31152.html#ixzz0biBXM9So

1/5/2010 12:11:44 AM

Quote :

"I don't agree with Duke or UNC double dipping practices. I don't know if this has been asked before or addressed earlier, so sorry if it has, but what could the federal government do to prevent this, without overstepping any constitutional bounds? Obviously the state isn't going to do anything, especially since I do believe that the UNC's hospitals are run by the state."

Well for starters, axe the public option. All its going to do (like medicare) is provide guaranteed revenue to abusive providers.

As long as the actual cost of healthcare is obscured by insurance the problem will never be fixed. Medical insurance needs to disapear.

1/5/2010 1:30:49 AM

Quote :

"Medical insurance needs to disapear."

How do you propose that people pay for procedures?

1/5/2010 1:42:51 AM

Hopefully, he means that medical insurance for routine/maintenance procedures needs to disappear. It would be stupid for catastrophic insurance to disappear. That's like saying we shouldn't have home or car insurance. Obviously, there's nothing with paying a premium in order to protect against rare (or expensive to treat) conditions.

As far as how would people pay for routine services...that would be out of pocket. That's how people used to pay for things like that. There wasn't insurance for colds and broken fingers. You just went to the doctor, paid a relatively low price (because doctors actually had to compete). If we want to go back to the system we had at one time, which was pretty good, we need to scrap all the "reforms" we've done to "reform" past failed "reforms." Everytime we try to legislate solutions for problems that the government has caused, we end up creating more problems that have to be dealt with at a later time.

Get rid of the "minimum services floor" for comprehensive coverage.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM. Reason : ]

1/5/2010 8:42:41 AM

Quote :

"How do you propose that people pay for procedures? "

THe same way they pay for thier cell phone bill, gas, food, etc.



Apparently my defintion of "transparency" and the O administration's vary widely.

1/5/2010 9:30:33 AM

Catastrophic insurance is so different from current medical insurance. Even something like cancer shouldn't be covered by an insurance because its a fixed cost.

For general care it should be an out of pocket system w/ some kind of catastrophy insurance to handle actual emergencies. Patients would be free to pick whatever docs they want and dont need to have a job to get care. You can then control costs one of two ways. The first is price controls. The fed mandates certain prices for certain procedures ensuring everyone can afford them. The other way is through competition on prices. Healthcare would become like every other market. In either system lower prices are going to mean lower incomes for healthcare professionals. There is no posisble way around it, and no one wants to talk about it. Thats why we're all hung up on the insurance thing. Insurance provides a real nice scapegoat. Its much easier to blame the faceless corporations instead of the providers who actually set the costs.

Along with this you setup a welfare safety net to cover the poor and those with expensive chronic conditions (ex: cancer, maybe diabeetus).

The fact that people cant comprehend a healthcare system where someone else doesn't pay for everything is pretty much why we're in trouble.

1/5/2010 9:51:36 AM

^exactly.

I saw some coffee shop owner in california talking about how the bill he wanted and what is being discussed now arent the same thing. He wanted free health care for all through the public option. (his words) But now he is pissed that he is going to have to pay for insurance. They then asked him if he bought insurance for his employees, he did not. LOL, the people are the damn problem. I dont know where this mindset came from.

1/5/2010 10:21:49 AM

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

i found this by searching for healthcare on a sight someone else posted in another thread and i think its pretty amazing how far we are from a free market.

1/5/2010 11:27:16 AM

^ While I agree with the basic premise, there are a number of details that I don't agree on. The best example is the complete elimination of licensing. While I agree that opening up licensing and certification would help, there is one specific area where a government standard certification would be helpful if not necessary, emergency facilities.

A free market works best only when the actors can make informed decisions, however, at the time of an accident when you are being rushed to a hospital with a broken neck, it is highly unlikely that you will be capable of making an informed decision as to which facility has the certifications you like best. In these situations, the harm done by having a mandatory standard that emergency facilities must conform to is clearly outweighed by the benefit to society in knowing that each emergency facility conforms to a standard.

1/5/2010 12:20:37 PM

C-SPAN CEO to Democrats: Televise the Health Care Reform Negotiations
January 05, 2010

Quote :

"C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb last week wrote to Congressional leaders asking that they 'open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage' as the House and Senate work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care reform bills. 'The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of these sessions LIVE and in their entirety,' Lamb wrote. 'We will also, as we willingly do each day, provide C-SPAN's multi-camera coverage to any interested member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool.' Lamb reminded the leaders that 'President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.' Specifically, then-Sen. Obama said on the campaign trail that 'we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.'"

http://tinyurl.com/ybgeurn

1/5/2010 3:18:07 PM

Quote :

"'we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their iconstituents healthcare companies and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.'""

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM. Reason : [i]]

1/5/2010 3:22:47 PM

From C-SPAN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6iyqpo36c

1/5/2010 3:43:02 PM

end result: none of this shit causes costs to decrease or makes things more affordable for me

1/5/2010 3:44:00 PM

Brian Lamb C-SPAN: "..we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

Nancy Pelosi responds: "There has never been a more open process for any legislation."

Will Brian Lamb may be the next target of democrat smear-mongering?

1/5/2010 6:00:23 PM

Quote :

"But what I haven't seen you address is the that sick people who switch companies may end up paying less in premiums."

I have addressed that. You are saying that companies will charge sick people less because they want to keep their business. Why would a company want to keep a sick person more than they would want to keep a healthy person? it makes no sense. The company has already lost the bet. They will simply want to keep the sick person in the same way they want to keep a healthy person. As a result, the prices for the two should remain about the same.

Quote :

"And that's where we differ on ideologically. And honestly, I don't see us ever agreeing on that subject. I can call you heartless and you can call me a bleeding-heart. I think in our own minds there's probably nothing that will change."

Fine. just explain why someone should not face the actual normal consequence of their actions and maybe you can sway me. Because that is what it ultimately comes down to. In every other case of insurance, that is the question raised. Why should it be any different in this case?

Quote :

"Nancy Pelosi responds: "There has never been a more open process for any legislation." "

And that is still pretty scary, when you consider how long the backroom deals were going on before the Senate finally came out with their version. Too bad Nancy didn't address the call for full access not just "more access than usual."

1/5/2010 7:48:26 PM

Quote :

"I have addressed that. You are saying that companies will charge sick people less because they want to keep their business. Why would a company want to keep a sick person more than they would want to keep a healthy person? it makes no sense. The company has already lost the bet. They will simply want to keep the sick person in the same way they want to keep a healthy person. As a result, the prices for the two should remain about the same"

You're right in that they lost the bet. But what it ultimately comes down to is how much of the bet should they lose. In your own words, you said "losing 50 bux is better than losing 100 bux." So doesn't the same logic work here?

Quote :

"Fine. just explain why someone should not face the actual normal consequence of their actions and maybe you can sway me."

I'm really not interested in swaying you when it comes to this. People see the world differently. You see it differently than I do in this aspect. I feel that a person shouldn't be risk losing their life because of something as silly as going without insurance. I don't think that's the "normal" consequence.

Quote :

" Because that is what it ultimately comes down to. In every other case of insurance, that is the question raised. Why should it be any different in this case?"

Every other case of insurance is different from each other. Health insurance is the only insurance where people's lives are truly at risk IMO. A person gets cancer and they chose not to get insured? Unless they have money coming out of their ass, they probably won't be able to afford many treatments of chemotherapy. Banks won't give out loans based on charity and the hope that the person survives. Ultimately, it would come down to relying on charitable organizations or hoping that they lose their job and in a years time become eligible for medicaid.

You're free to sit on your pedestal and shrug your shoulders saying, "Meh, they should have gotten coverage when they had the chance." But in a country that's supposed to be one of the best in the world, it seems pretty dumb that we let people get into that situation. I understand that we're a society based on being responsible for ourselves. But there are certain areas where I do think the government needs to step in and try to keep people from being complete fucktards. We already have areas where the government keeps us from being idiots, like education and suicide (just 2 examples off the top of my head where the government either forces us to do something or outlaws a choice that has no physical impact on anyone but ourselves). You can even argue drug control as well, like crystal meth being illegal (and no, I don't agree with the illegality of marijuana).

People make stupid decisions, and yes, sometimes I do think the government does have to step in and protect people from themselves.

1/6/2010 12:13:08 AM

Quote :

"Obama to Congress: Pass health bill quickly WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is prodding House and Senate Democrats to get him a final health care bill as soon as possible, encouraging them to bypass the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed. They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting. "

This bill stinks to high heaven. Obama knows it. Pelosi and Reid knows it. The democrats and republicans know it. The American People are getting to know it.

To have one party shove through legislation that will affect so many people and transfer huge amounts of new power and control to the federal gov't is so wrong on so many levels.

We need to stop this crap bill and start over after the 2010 election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/obama-prods-congress-pass-health-bill-quickly/?feat=home_headlines

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 9:32:30 AM

all O cares about is his sound bite he can use in 2012. "I passed comprehensive health care reform that SO MANY have failed to do before me." Who gives a shit how bad it is, or what it actually does, he just wants teh sound bite, and needs the remaning dems to fall on the grenade as they are prob going to get killed in nov. So DO IT NOW.

1/6/2010 9:42:10 AM

Anytime they tell us that a bill "needs to get passed fast," we know that something underhanded is going on.

1/6/2010 9:47:16 AM

Quote :

"Anytime they tell us that a bill "needs to get passed fast," we know that something underhanded is going on."

Not true at all, the PATRIOT ACT is a perfect example of finely crafted legislation being passed with utmost haste to the benefit of all. In years to come it will be hailed as a milestone of efficient, well thought, reasonable non-partisan legislation that we should aspire every law to be.

1/6/2010 1:26:29 PM

Quote :

"DRAIN THE SWAMP"

1/6/2010 1:42:22 PM

Quote :

"You're right in that they lost the bet. But what it ultimately comes down to is how much of the bet should they lose."

The should lose the whole bet. It's the bet they made. Why should it be any different?

Quote :

"In your own words, you said "losing 50 bux is better than losing 100 bux." So doesn't the same logic work here?"

No, absolutely not, since I believe I was commenting on something else. They should lose the bet they made when they actually lost it.

Quote :

"I don't think that's the "normal" consequence."

Well, then, what is the "normal" consequence of not having insurance. It's, well, NOT BEING INSURED.

Quote :

"Health insurance is the only insurance where people's lives are truly at risk IMO."

That's why it's health insurance and not home-owner's insurance. That someone's life is at risk should give people far more incentive to actually get that insurance.

Quote :

"You're free to sit on your pedestal and shrug your shoulders saying, "Meh, they should have gotten coverage when they had the chance." But in a country that's supposed to be one of the best in the world, it seems pretty dumb that we let people get into that situation."

It's dumb that we let people face the consequences of their actions?

Quote :

"We already have areas where the government keeps us from being idiots"

tu quoque, again. That we do some stupid things is NOT reason enough to do more stupid things.

Quote :

"all O cares about is his sound bite he can use in 2012. "I passed comprehensive health care reform that SO MANY have failed to do before me." Who gives a shit how bad it is, or what it actually does, he just wants teh sound bite, and needs the remaning dems to fall on the grenade as they are prob going to get killed in nov. So DO IT NOW."

There is another reason he wants to pass this legislation. A lot of the effects don't really kick in until 2014, after the 2012 election. In other words, we won't even be able to judge if this monster is actually working when Obama will be touting it as something historic.

1/6/2010 6:01:50 PM

1/7/2010 2:46:35 AM

Quote :

"The should lose the whole bet. It's the bet they made. Why should it be any different?"

So are you saying that the government should mandate that anyone they lost the bet on, they can't cover them, or they can't offer lower rates to keep them on board? Because I'm talking about what the insurance companies will probably do with people they lose the bet on, to keep them on board.

Quote :

"Well, then, what is the "normal" consequence of not having insurance. It's, well, NOT BEING INSURED."

Well, actually, what you mean to say is, "It's well, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET INSURANCE IF YOU GET SICK." And no, I don't think that's a "normal" consequence. You won't convince me that there is even such a thing as a "normal" consequence in a man made system such as this, where we can change the rules however we see fit. I think the consequence should be a 20% penalty on someone's income if they choose not to get insurance. The current penalty isn't stiff enough.

Quote :

"That's why it's health insurance and not home-owner's insurance."

Thank you for helping me disprove your previous comparison.

And I don't think that someone's life should be at risk for failure to get insurance, whether by choice or because they couldn't. I don't think that such a system should even be supported.

Quote :

"It's dumb that we let people face the consequences of their actions?"

No, it's dumb that this is the consequence of their actions. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a consequence. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the consequence. The consequence in this system does NOT fit the mistake made. It would be like having the consequence, or penalty, for speeding being a suspension of your license permanently and the impoundment of your car. Even for something as small as 1 MPH over the speed limit. Shouldn't that be the "natural" consequence?

No, because that penalty or consequence doesn't fit the mistake made. But that's what the current consequence of going uninsured now is like.

Quote :

"That we do some stupid things is NOT reason enough to do more stupid things."

So, those are stupid things that the government does, or are you just taking that position because you don't want to concede to my point.

1/7/2010 3:26:56 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying that the government should mandate that anyone they lost the bet on, they can't cover them, or they can't offer lower rates to keep them on board?"

Why in the fuck would you ask that? That's absurd. it's clear when I say "they lost the bet" that I mean they should have to pay out for the covered condition, cause that's only what we have been talking about. Don't be obtuse.

Quote :

"Well, actually, what you mean to say is, "It's well, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET INSURANCE IF YOU GET SICK.""

No, not based on what that quote was in reference to, which was people going bankrupt when they didn't purchase insurance.

Quote :

"Thank you for helping me disprove your previous comparison. "

Yes, when you take it out of context. The context is "someone might die because..." That someone might die makes health-insurance no less of an insurance.

Quote :

"No, it's dumb that this is the consequence of their actions."

You are going in circles. You still can't explain why someone should not not be insured when they fail to get insurance.

Quote :

"So, those are stupid things that the government does, or are you just taking that position because you don't want to concede to my point."

I need concede nothing because it is a logical fallacy. It's called "tu quoque," and you've used it numerous times, and I've called you out on it every time.

1/7/2010 6:42:12 PM

Quote :

"That someone might die makes health-insurance no less of an insurance."

Who gives a shit? They're not insurance NOW. They're able to drop anyone now, so that's not insurance. I've explained why I don't like the other person's idea, whether you agree or even understand it or not.

So while YES, they lost the fucking "bet." They'll still want to KEEP that person on to minimize what they fucking lose! Are you telling me that won't happen?

Besides, after the "reform," they won't be any less insurance than they are now, but instead of screwing the consumer, they're getting screwed.

Quote :

"You are going in circles. You still can't explain why someone should not not be insured when they fail to get insurance."

They should be allowed to get insurance so that they can pay their medical expenses so that they won't die or be ruined financially. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Disagree with it all you want. Offer your reasoning about it not being the "natural" consequence. I don't give a shit. The health care system shouldn't be setup to screw people over. The way it is now, the system screws everyone over. And yes, even after this "reform," people will still get screwed.

Quote :

" need concede nothing because it is a logical fallacy. It's called "tu quoque," and you've used it numerous times, and I've called you out on it every time"

That's a cop out and you know it. You just don't want to explain what makes this situation different from the ones I've listed.

Do you support the laws in place on education from the Federal Governemnt?
Do you support the laws in place on drug enforcement (to some extent, without getting into the marijuana legalization debate)?
Do you support the laws in place on food production and distribution?

These are all very simple questions. They are all analogous to the proposed penalty for being uninsured.

I'm not saying that your claim is false about the constitutionality of such a penalty. And I'm not dismissing your claim about the constitutionality of such penalty. I'm simply asking you why you aren't vocal, or seemingly care about the constitutionality of such other laws? I admit that such a penalty could be unconstitutional. I'm not trying to divert attention from that. I'm asking for your very own justification of why you seemingly support other unconstitutional acts, while opposing others?

But every time you're asked for justification, you want to claim that you don't have to justify. You (or someone else) as well as the GOP have charged that such a penalty is unconstitutional. I now concede that it is entirely possible that it is. I now can't be accused of "Tu Quoque" if I'm not trying to use other examples of inconsistency to dismiss your accusation or their accusation. Instead, I concede to your accusation. At the same time, I point out that if such a penalty is found to be unconstitutional, then why isn't anyone making such charges towards the laws that I mentioned?

In other words, I'm charging that you're doing nothing but cherry picking on what to enforce the constitution on to.

1/7/2010 7:35:53 PM

Quote :

"They're able to drop anyone now, so that's not insurance."

Car-insurance can drop you. Home-owner's insurance can drop you. Life insurance can drop you.

Quote :

"I've explained why I don't like the other person's idea, whether you agree or even understand it or not."

No you haven't. You made an assertion that something would happen and then failed to support that assertion.

Quote :

"They'll still want to KEEP that person on to minimize what they fucking lose! Are you telling me that won't happen?"

Yes, because they still lose the money either way. As I stated before, their only motivation to keep that person is the motivation to keep any person: having a paying customer. My 10 bux are no different than your 10 bux.

Quote :

"They should be allowed to get insurance so that they can pay their medical expenses so that they won't die or be ruined financially. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that."

And that is NOT what you were saying before. Pick one. Then argue from it consistently. You can argue from both sides, yes. But don't apply arguments from one towards quotes intended to address the arguments for the other.

Quote :

"The health care system shouldn't be setup to screw people over."

It's NOT set up to do that. The choice is simple: buy insurance AND BE INSURED.

Quote :

"That's a cop out and you know it."

No it's not. A logical fallacy IS A FALLACY IN LOGIC. Ergo, I need only point out the fallacy. This keeps people from having to address points that are fallacious by their very nature. Fallacious, as in, NOT VALID.

Quote :

"I now can't be accused of "Tu Quoque" if I'm not trying to use other examples of inconsistency to dismiss your accusation or their accusation. Instead, I concede to your accusation."

That is precisely what tu quoque is.


Edit. It may be the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It is still fallacious, though.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 7:51:45 PM

Quote :

"Car-insurance can drop you. Home-owner's insurance can drop you. Life insurance can drop you."

I never said they can't drop you. What I meant to say was that as it stands now, even after being diagnosed while covered, they can drop your coverage. If you get into a car wreck, sure, you can be dropped. But they're still going to pay the bills.

So as it stands now, the health insurance companies don't act like insurance. While 1337 b4k4's plan would make them cover it, I don't like the ramifications of such plan.

Quote :

"No you haven't. You made an assertion that something would happen and then failed to support that assertion."

I've supported it over and over again. You have yet to convince me that my assertion is incorrect, even after providing numerous examples and explanations. You're either trolling, an idiot, or both.

Quote :

"Yes, because they still lose the money either way."

So, you're telling me that insurance companies are going to try to minimize HOW MUCH money they lose, even if it means a reduction in rates to keep a sick person on as a customer? It sounds to me that they're even MORE motivated to keep a sick person, as they're paying for their expenses.

Quote :

"And that is NOT what you were saying before."

It's what I've been saying. It's been my entire reason why I'm in favor of penalizing an uninsured person while disallowing insurance companies to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. I may not have stated what my reason has been before, but I don't think you're in any position to tell me what I do or don't think. If you think differently, provide a quote. I'll gladly choose a position.

Quote :

"It's NOT set up to do that. The choice is simple: buy insurance AND BE INSURED."

I'm talking about the entire health care system. I said health care, I meant health care. Not health insurance.

Quote :

"That is precisely what tu quoque is."

Quote :

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

If I concede that penalizing someone for being uninsured is potentially unconstitutional, when how is it "Tu Quoque?"

Quote :

"Edit. It may be the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It is still fallacious, though."

I'm not saying that the unconstitutionality of education or drug laws makes penalizing someone for being uninsured makes it right.

I'm simply asking you why are you throwing out the "Constitution flag" when you ignore other unconstitutional laws? I haven't said the education is wrong, or that drug laws are wrong or that penalizing the uninsured is wrong. No, I've stayed fairly consistent about that stance.

And again, you seem to not wish to address:

Quote :

"In other words, I'm charging that you're doing nothing but cherry picking on what to enforce the constitution on to."

The entire purpose of using "Tu Quoque" and "two wrongs make a right" fallacy is to try to discredit someone's point. It's a diversionary tactic.

You seem to just dislike being put on the defensive. You'd rather be the one being on the offensive. Now stop being a pussy and address my point:

Quote :

"Do you support the laws in place on education from the Federal Governemnt? Do you support the laws in place on drug enforcement (to some extent, without getting into the marijuana legalization debate)? Do you support the laws in place on food production and distribution? These are all very simple questions. They are all analogous to the proposed penalty for being uninsured. I'm not saying that your claim is false about the constitutionality of such a penalty. And I'm not dismissing your claim about the constitutionality of such penalty. I'm simply asking you why you aren't vocal, or seemingly care about the constitutionality of such other laws? I admit that such a penalty could be unconstitutional. I'm not trying to divert attention from that. I'm asking for your very own justification of why you seemingly support other unconstitutional acts, while opposing others? But every time you're asked for justification, you want to claim that you don't have to justify. You (or someone else) as well as the GOP have charged that such a penalty is unconstitutional. I now concede that it is entirely possible that it is. I now can't be accused of "Tu Quoque" if I'm not trying to use other examples of inconsistency to dismiss your accusation or their accusation. Instead, I concede to your accusation. At the same time, I point out that if such a penalty is found to be unconstitutional, then why isn't anyone making such charges towards the laws that I mentioned? In other words, I'm charging that you're doing nothing but cherry picking on what to enforce the constitution on to."

All I'm trying to show is that you're not a champion of the constitution that you, and others, try to make yourself seem to be.

1/7/2010 10:05:43 PM

Quote :

"I never said they can't drop you. What I meant to say was that as it stands now, even after being diagnosed while covered, they can drop your coverage. If you get into a car wreck, sure, you can be dropped. But they're still going to pay the bills. So as it stands now, the health insurance companies don't act like insurance. While 1337 b4k4's plan would make them cover it, I don't like the ramifications of such plan."

1/7/2010 10:15:06 PM

^ Care to expand upon that point?

1/7/2010 10:16:07 PM