Author Topic: ObamaCare Implosion  (Read 64733 times)

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #150 on: August 24, 2016, 11:17:01 AM »
I see plenty of people on Medicaid that are pretty high income.  They know how to play the system and have their AGI below the threshold.

By play the system, you mean they qualify for the program like they're supposed to? Asset tests were done away with for Medicaid and I assume that was on purpose. Medicaid is also highly dependent on which state you live in. Unless I misread the eligibility guidelines, if you're an able bodied adult with no kids in Mississippi, you do not qualify for Medicaid. Period.

2buttons

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #151 on: August 24, 2016, 11:22:54 AM »
Oh good. Another debate/argument about healthcare where right meets left and where both sides rant and backup arguments with studies that fit their perspective.

This will absolutely be a good use of time and most definitely will end well.   

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #152 on: August 24, 2016, 11:27:03 AM »
I just find it amusing (in a sad way) that there is even an argument against a system where everyone can be assured access to a reasonable level of health care.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #153 on: August 24, 2016, 11:30:46 AM »
Unless I misread the eligibility guidelines, if you're an able bodied adult with no kids in Mississippi, you do not qualify for Medicaid. Period.
Yep.  Republicans don't give a $%## about the poor, they can all go to the ER and go bankrupt. 
That is the Republican plan in a nutshell "go to the ER and go bankrupt".

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #154 on: August 24, 2016, 11:34:22 AM »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #155 on: August 24, 2016, 11:34:47 AM »
Both the house and the senate have been controlled by Republicans since 2014.
Also, it's worth noting that many of the states where Obamacare "isn't working" are also Republican controlled, and have instituted state laws blocking the health exchanges.
Here, cross reference the list in this article of states blocking Obamacare: http://watchdog.org/225114/state-obamacare-exchanges/ against the Wikipedia list of which party controls which states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

I wouldn't call blocking a state-run Exchange the same thing as "blocking Obamacare." There is still a Marketplace, it's just the Federal Marketplace, and Obamacare is a hell of a lot more than a website. Not expanding Medicaid or continually extending Transitional Policies which screwed up the risk pool were far more harmful than not having your Marketplace be run by the state.

I wouldn't even call it "blocking a state-run Exchange."  States had to decide whether to set up state exchanges or not.  I assume that for the large majority of states (certainly under my state's constitution and existing laws), an exchange couldn't be set up without legislation, so a law "forbidding" the establishment of an exchange is just a decision to not establish a state exchange, until a different determination is made by the legislature.  If a state passed a constitutional amendment forbidding the establishment of a state exchange, that's a little different.   

Rocket

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #156 on: August 24, 2016, 11:37:09 AM »
this is what I think too.

I just find it amusing (in a sad way) that there is even an argument against a system where everyone can be assured access to a reasonable level of health care.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 03:18:36 PM by Rocket »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #157 on: August 24, 2016, 11:37:32 AM »
Rubio helped to cut the risk corridor payments and undermine the ACA.  Republicans have constantly tried to break the ACA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html

Pretty sure Rubio didn't cut the risk corridor payments.  They were sold as being revenue neutral with payments flowing from insurance companies that had profits falling outside of/above the risk corridor and flowing to insurance companies that had losses outside of/below the risk corridor.  Rubio's legislation was just a way to ensure that general funds weren't used to supplement payments through the risk corridor policy. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #158 on: August 24, 2016, 11:42:25 AM »
Stop trying to be cute. You know exactly what I'm talking about. They've done everything they can to try to convince the public that it's a terrible idea. That has effects. Conservatives launched an ad campaign trying to convince young people not to sign up. If you don't think that's sabotage you're just being willfully ignorant. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96O0EJ20130725

You glossed over refusing to expand Medicaid. Yes, states have the option to do that. But expansion was part of the ACA. It was assumed states would expand and more people would be covered. So now Republicans can tell people who fall into the gap between medicaid and subsidy eligibility "See, Obamacare is bad. It didn't even get you coverage! REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL!".

The option to expand was part of the ACA.  But the state's not expanding medicaid doesn't sabotage Obamacare.  It obviously matters to the people that would be covered by an expansion, but it's more or less irrelevant to the functioning of the exchanges. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #159 on: August 24, 2016, 11:50:15 AM »

(1) is silly. Being rural is partially to blame, but far more because you commonly have smaller insurers there who can't afford to lose money, who then lost money because of the effed up risk pools. The effed up risk pools are partly because of shoddy ACA rollout backed by the Dems, and partly because of actions taken by the GOP to make it worse (no Medicaid expansion, Transitional Policies, etc.). It wasn't because "the way the exchanges are set up."

You're going to have to explain how no medicaid expansion effect up the risk pools.  The people that would have been covered by the medicaid expansion are largely not buying policies on the exchanges either way.  Aside from that, I'm not sure they are particularly unhealthy even if they are participating in the pool, as they are people that are generally working, just at low wage jobs.  The effed up risk pools are just a natural result of what happens when you have guaranteed issue and community rating.  Maybe when the mandate/tax ramps up it will solve that problem, but with the tax relatively low right now, it makes sense that healthy people would tend to roll the dice.   



(2) Talk about begging the question. "Things suck here because they were great before and things changed, things don't suck there because their rules were already ridiculous."

Or you could address my actual statement, that was aimed at the negative impacts from Obamacare.  If you force all jurisdictions to adopt policies that drive up the cost of insurance (like coverage mandates, guaranteed issue, and community rating), the jurisdictions that have already adopted those policies are obviously not going to be impacted as much, if at all.  That's not hard to understand and certainly anybody that doesn't/can't understand it shouldn't be making snarky comments. 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #160 on: August 24, 2016, 12:16:34 PM »
Stop trying to be cute. You know exactly what I'm talking about. They've done everything they can to try to convince the public that it's a terrible idea. That has effects. Conservatives launched an ad campaign trying to convince young people not to sign up. If you don't think that's sabotage you're just being willfully ignorant. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96O0EJ20130725

You glossed over refusing to expand Medicaid. Yes, states have the option to do that. But expansion was part of the ACA. It was assumed states would expand and more people would be covered. So now Republicans can tell people who fall into the gap between medicaid and subsidy eligibility "See, Obamacare is bad. It didn't even get you coverage! REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL!".

The option to expand was part of the ACA.  But the state's not expanding medicaid doesn't sabotage Obamacare.  It obviously matters to the people that would be covered by an expansion, but it's more or less irrelevant to the functioning of the exchanges.


What are you talking about? Medicaid expansion was/is a key component of Obamacare. Medicaid expansion AND the exchanges were both supposed to reduce the uninsured population. The court opened up the ability for states to reject it.  Those that do are actively sabotaging the law by reducing its effectiveness.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #161 on: August 24, 2016, 12:21:08 PM »
What are you talking about? Medicaid expansion was/is a key component of Obamacare. Medicaid expansion AND the exchanges were both supposed to reduce the uninsured population. The court opened up the ability for states to reject it.  Those that do are actively sabotaging the law by reducing its effectiveness.

I'm hearing two conflicting things in this thread (I have no opinion / input).  Do you have a link or court case?

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #162 on: August 24, 2016, 12:39:35 PM »
What are you talking about? Medicaid expansion was/is a key component of Obamacare. Medicaid expansion AND the exchanges were both supposed to reduce the uninsured population. The court opened up the ability for states to reject it.  Those that do are actively sabotaging the law by reducing its effectiveness.

I'm hearing two conflicting things in this thread (I have no opinion / input).  Do you have a link or court case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius

The states didn't have to expand but if they didn't they might loose Federal funding for existing Medicaid.  So most likely they would all expand.  They ruled this to be "coercive".

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #163 on: August 24, 2016, 12:39:52 PM »
I just find it amusing (in a sad way) that there is even an argument against a system where everyone can be assured access to a reasonable level of health care.

Define reasonable.

And the argument is pretty obvious IMO. A right to healthcare is fundamentally different from a right to clean air or water. Nobody can own the water table or the air and thus we're all equally entitled to it. And anything someone does to pollute or restrict access to one of these things is an obvious wrong.

Healthcare almost universally involves the time and effort of other human beings. In that sense, it can never be a fundamental human right. Compelling someone to administer healthcare without payment, or the more likely scenario of compelling third parties to pay for the healthcare of others just doesn't pass any first principles test of right or wrong in my opinion.

I think it would be fantastic if we could all agree to collectively pay for the healthcare of the less fortunate, but there will always be disagreement, and I think justice, or right and wrong, or whatever, probably favors that dissension.

If I were in control of everything, I would probably force everyone to buy into a universal system, but I would do this knowing that it is a fundamentally bad thing to do.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #164 on: August 24, 2016, 12:52:58 PM »
I just find it amusing (in a sad way) that there is even an argument against a system where everyone can be assured access to a reasonable level of health care.
And the argument is pretty obvious IMO. A right to healthcare is fundamentally different from a right to clean air or water. Nobody can own the water table or the air and thus we're all equally entitled to it. And anything someone does to pollute or restrict access to one of these things is an obvious wrong.

Healthcare almost universally involves the time and effort of other human beings. In that sense, it can never be a fundamental human right. Compelling someone to administer healthcare without payment, or the more likely scenario of compelling third parties to pay for the healthcare of others just doesn't pass any first principles test of right or wrong in my opinion.

If I were in control of everything, I would probably force everyone to buy into a universal system, but I would do this knowing that it is a fundamentally bad thing to do.

This argument always comes up and it's complete nonsense. When people talk about right to healthcare they don't mean people could literally force a physician or nurse to perform a procedure. Americans have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean anyone is being forced to manufacture one.

It's pointless anyway because you can have a universal healthcare system without calling healthcare a right if the wording is too upsetting for people to handle.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #165 on: August 24, 2016, 12:55:52 PM »
This argument always comes up and it's complete nonsense. When people talk about right to healthcare they don't mean people could literally force a physician or nurse to perform a procedure. Americans have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean anyone is being forced to manufacture one.

Okay but really what is the point in discussing the right to something that is unavailable?

It's pointless anyway because you can have a universal healthcare system without calling healthcare a right if the wording is too upsetting for people to handle.

Cool. Let's drop the "right" terminology.

We're back at square, "compelling people to render services for free or compelling people to pay for others to get service." then.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #166 on: August 24, 2016, 12:56:52 PM »
The USA does have a base floor of healthcare, the Emergency Room.  Legally no one can be denied treatment in an emergency, even if they can't pay.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #167 on: August 24, 2016, 12:57:36 PM »
Stop trying to be cute. You know exactly what I'm talking about. They've done everything they can to try to convince the public that it's a terrible idea. That has effects. Conservatives launched an ad campaign trying to convince young people not to sign up. If you don't think that's sabotage you're just being willfully ignorant. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96O0EJ20130725

You glossed over refusing to expand Medicaid. Yes, states have the option to do that. But expansion was part of the ACA. It was assumed states would expand and more people would be covered. So now Republicans can tell people who fall into the gap between medicaid and subsidy eligibility "See, Obamacare is bad. It didn't even get you coverage! REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL!".

The option to expand was part of the ACA.  But the state's not expanding medicaid doesn't sabotage Obamacare.  It obviously matters to the people that would be covered by an expansion, but it's more or less irrelevant to the functioning of the exchanges.


What are you talking about? Medicaid expansion was/is a key component of Obamacare. Medicaid expansion AND the exchanges were both supposed to reduce the uninsured population. The court opened up the ability for states to reject it.  Those that do are actively sabotaging the law by reducing its effectiveness.

If you want to claim that the uninsured population would be lower if every state were forced to expand medicaid, that seems like it would almost certainly be true.  But not expanding medicaid isn't having a huge (or any?) impact on the individual exchanges, participation in those exchanges by insureds and insurance companies, or rates or policies available on the exchanges. 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #168 on: August 24, 2016, 01:00:45 PM »
We're back at square, "compelling people to render services for free or compelling people to pay for others to get service." then.

We already do this. We take money from people and use it on stuff like roads and weapons and teachers and judges and healthcare (for specific groups).

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #169 on: August 24, 2016, 01:01:41 PM »
We already do this. We take money from people and use it on stuff like roads and weapons and teachers and judges and healthcare (for specific groups).

How many wrongs make a right?

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #170 on: August 24, 2016, 01:05:42 PM »
Obamacare would be doing swimmingly well if the GOP didn't purposefully set out to sabotage it because they hate poor people. (Sorry if that's blunt, but it's the truth.)

Yep.  Republicans don't give a $%## about the poor, they can all go to the ER and go bankrupt. 
That is the Republican plan in a nutshell "go to the ER and go bankrupt".

The above statements -- completely stereotyping that a particular half of the country "hate poor people" and "don't give a $%## about the poor" -- are false and inflammatory.  There's no progress to be made in debate with people who start from such a delusional premise.  Are there some Republicans who fit that?  I'm sure there are.  But the whole party?  Not a snowball's chance in hell.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #171 on: August 24, 2016, 01:07:47 PM »
Stop trying to be cute. You know exactly what I'm talking about. They've done everything they can to try to convince the public that it's a terrible idea. That has effects. Conservatives launched an ad campaign trying to convince young people not to sign up. If you don't think that's sabotage you're just being willfully ignorant. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-idUSBRE96O0EJ20130725

You glossed over refusing to expand Medicaid. Yes, states have the option to do that. But expansion was part of the ACA. It was assumed states would expand and more people would be covered. So now Republicans can tell people who fall into the gap between medicaid and subsidy eligibility "See, Obamacare is bad. It didn't even get you coverage! REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL!".

The option to expand was part of the ACA.  But the state's not expanding medicaid doesn't sabotage Obamacare.  It obviously matters to the people that would be covered by an expansion, but it's more or less irrelevant to the functioning of the exchanges.


What are you talking about? Medicaid expansion was/is a key component of Obamacare. Medicaid expansion AND the exchanges were both supposed to reduce the uninsured population. The court opened up the ability for states to reject it.  Those that do are actively sabotaging the law by reducing its effectiveness.

If you want to claim that the uninsured population would be lower if every state were forced to expand medicaid, that seems like it would almost certainly be true.  But not expanding medicaid isn't having a huge (or any?) impact on the individual exchanges, participation in those exchanges by insureds and insurance companies, or rates or policies available on the exchanges.

Not sure what that has to do with...anything. I said the GOP has done everything they can to sabotage Obamacare. You said they haven't. I've given examples of how they've done so. Not expanding Medicaid is one of those. Telling people not to sign up for exchange plans is another. What part of this is not clear?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #172 on: August 24, 2016, 01:13:10 PM »
BTW, i priced out insurance for my family, the minimum payment is 1200 a month with 10k deductable.
That has copays after that too. 
Who can afford that?
Odd, because all ACA plans have a max OOP of $6,850 for an individual plan and $13,700 for a family plan.

Try to get that. Seriously. Somewhere, something is broken and it is not always possible to get those rates.

Even there, $13,700 is expensive.
My mom has a bronze plan and her OOP is less than $6850 and there were multiple silver and platinum plans with lower ones.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #173 on: August 24, 2016, 01:14:43 PM »
It doesn't even cost these states to expand.  The Feds pay 100% in 2014-2016 and phases down to 90% in 2020 on out.  Once it is all netted out it costs them almost nothing.  But they will block it anyway.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #174 on: August 24, 2016, 01:15:24 PM »
We already do this. We take money from people and use it on stuff like roads and weapons and teachers and judges and healthcare (for specific groups).

How many wrongs make a right?

You must be a Sovereign Citizen.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #175 on: August 24, 2016, 01:22:36 PM »
You must be a Sovereign Citizen.

No. I've benefited a ton from public spending. Roads, taxes, schools, etc. And I happily took the hit to my income for ACA and would happily take another hit for universal coverage.

We draw lines all the time on this stuff, and they're all equally arbitrary. Today, a vast majority of Americans have access to excellent healthcare while the 30 million are left uninsured still have access to emergency rooms. That is the line we've drawn.

If tomorrow, we adopt universal healthcare, we will have drawn a broader line. One that encircles everyone living within our borders. That line is no more or less arbitrary and someone could reasonable question at that point, why we're not covering people who live in Mexico or South America.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #176 on: August 24, 2016, 01:29:19 PM »
If I ever lose my employer provided health insurance and have to get one from the exchange, it would cost my wife and me a grand total of $720/mo  for the two of us for more than adequate coverage and that's the price without any subsidies. I wonder if all these people quoting ridiculous prices are heavy smokers or something. Obamacare works perfectly fine when people are purposefully trying to sabotage it for political reasons.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #177 on: August 24, 2016, 01:29:38 PM »
We already do this. We take money from people and use it on stuff like roads and weapons and teachers and judges and healthcare (for specific groups).

How many wrongs make a right?

Which wrongs are you referring to?

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #178 on: August 24, 2016, 01:30:58 PM »
Which wrongs are you referring to?

Taking money from people to spend it on things that they had only a very marginal say in.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #179 on: August 24, 2016, 01:55:15 PM »
Which wrongs are you referring to?

Taking money from people to spend it on things that they had only a very marginal say in.

Isn't that sort of how our system of government works? Representative democracy means you elect people to vote on things. You don't get to vote on every single policy proposal.

With regards to healthcare, wasn't it debated quite a bit during the 2008 election? I think it was pretty clear during the campaign that Obama wanted to do universal healthcare. Then he won. Got something (even if it wasn't really universal) passed. Then won again after 2 years of people screaming about death panels and the end of America. Dems also lost pretty badly in the midterms, mainly due to GOP running on the idea of repeal. They didn't get enough to make it happen, but again isn't all of this basically how our system is supposed to work?

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #180 on: August 24, 2016, 02:00:15 PM »
Which wrongs are you referring to?

Taking money from people to spend it on things that they had only a very marginal say in.

Isn't that sort of how our system of government works? Representative democracy means you elect people to vote on things. You don't get to vote on every single policy proposal.

With regards to healthcare, wasn't it debated quite a bit during the 2008 election? I think it was pretty clear during the campaign that Obama wanted to do universal healthcare. Then he won. Got something (even if it wasn't really universal) passed. Then won again after 2 years of people screaming about death panels and the end of America. Dems also lost pretty badly in the midterms, mainly due to GOP running on the idea of repeal. They didn't get enough to make it happen, but again isn't all of this basically how our system is supposed to work?

Republicans want America to be a totalitarian dictatorship where a small number of elites lord it over a large number of peasants. They hate when representative democracy is enacted. That's why they love Vladimir Putin so much.

goatmom

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #181 on: August 24, 2016, 02:09:29 PM »
Well, I am in New York.  I see plenty of uninsured people.  Uninsured by choice because it is better to pay the penalty than to purchase insurance.  I see plenty of people on Medicaid that are pretty high income.  They know how to play the system and have their AGI below the threshold.
You contradict yourself "that are pretty high income" against "their AGI below the threshold".  The threshold of 138% FPL is not high at all, especially in New York.  So they are committing fraud by lying about true income??

I know people personally that own their own business - they don't take a salary in order to reinvest moneyin the company.  Little or no salary.  Technically, below the cutoff.  So, no fraud. Rich people tend to be pretty good at finding loopholes. 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #182 on: August 24, 2016, 02:11:03 PM »
Isn't that sort of how our system of government works? Representative democracy means you elect people to vote on things. You don't get to vote on every single policy proposal.

With regards to healthcare, wasn't it debated quite a bit during the 2008 election? I think it was pretty clear during the campaign that Obama wanted to do universal healthcare. Then he won. Got something (even if it wasn't really universal) passed. Then won again after 2 years of people screaming about death panels and the end of America. Dems also lost pretty badly in the midterms, mainly due to GOP running on the idea of repeal. They didn't get enough to make it happen, but again isn't all of this basically how our system is supposed to work?

Sure. But even representative democracy assumes that everyone buys into the social contract. They don't though. If you don't want to pay taxes, you get thrown in jail. Even moving on to unincorporated land still subjects you to Federal taxes, notwithstanding that the government tends not to look favorably on this anyway. http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/dn10304191919.grid-6x2.jpg

The government wins every time because they have most of the guns.

What this all means is that there is a perfectly rational first principles argument to be made against universal healthcare. People don't like being told what what to do. People don't like having their money taken from them to be spent on things that they don't care about.

So any lines about people who oppose healthcare hating the poor or any other nonsense like that (which we've had plenty of in this thread) is bullshit.

Look, I like it when the powers that be with all the guns use those guns to make people pay for my pet causes too. One of my pet causes is access to healthcare even.

I'm not going to pretend like that isn't what happens though, and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to deride people who don't want their money spent on my pet causes.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #183 on: August 24, 2016, 02:14:04 PM »
Which wrongs are you referring to?

Taking money from people to spend it on things that they had only a very marginal say in.

Societies that do this have outcompeted the ones that didn't, hence all developed countries take money from their citizens to promote the common welfare as a matter of course. Philosophically, there's nothing different about taking money to use for everyone's health care than doing the same for roads or an army or whatever.

So in essence, there is not a "wrong" here, though you can disagree about how effective/practical different levels of taxation/service are.

-W

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #184 on: August 24, 2016, 02:20:21 PM »
Societies that do this have outcompeted the ones that didn't, hence all developed countries take money from their citizens to promote the common welfare as a matter of course. Philosophically, there's nothing different about taking money to use for everyone's health care than doing the same for roads or an army or whatever.

So in essence, there is not a "wrong" here, though you can disagree about how effective/practical different levels of taxation/service are.

-W

Joe Individual is under no obligation to care about how the society he lives in stacks up against its contemporaries, or any other society from history.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #185 on: August 24, 2016, 02:26:41 PM »
Societies that do this have outcompeted the ones that didn't, hence all developed countries take money from their citizens to promote the common welfare as a matter of course. Philosophically, there's nothing different about taking money to use for everyone's health care than doing the same for roads or an army or whatever.

So in essence, there is not a "wrong" here, though you can disagree about how effective/practical different levels of taxation/service are.

-W

Joe Individual is under no obligation to care about how the society he lives in stacks up against its contemporaries, or any other society from history.

Sure, but that's not relevant here. If he chooses to remain a citizen of said country/take advantage of those services, he is agreeing to the terms. If he doesn't like the terms, there are plenty of other places on earth to live with much less government. They just tend to suck more.

-W

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #186 on: August 24, 2016, 02:27:47 PM »

What this all means is that there is a perfectly rational first principles argument to be made against universal healthcare. People don't like being told what what to do. People don't like having their money taken from them to be spent on things that they don't care about.

So any lines about people who oppose healthcare hating the poor or any other nonsense like that (which we've had plenty of in this thread) is bullshit.

Look, I like it when the powers that be with all the guns use those guns to make people pay for my pet causes too. One of my pet causes is access to healthcare even.

I'm not going to pretend like that isn't what happens though, and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to deride people who don't want their money spent on my pet causes.

This is less of a logic than a philosophy discussion.  Generally - modern societies have decided it is a moral obligation to, to some extent, take care of it's citizens.  Not only does this have economic benefits -- it applies a universal morality.

The argument you are making is that your freedom (to spend your money, to not be encumbered upon) is being taken away.  It's a Hobbisian argument.  That your freedom is somehow worth more than a greater good.  You seem to be less burdened, however, that you money is used say, for building an unnecessarily large military machine or to support Iowa corn farmers.  So there's that contradiction.

From an efficiency standard and a MMM view it's easy to get on board with a single payer system.  It would greatly reduce unnecessary redundancies of the health care system, provide all citizens with health care, and lower the cost of delivery.  The losers of course, are a cabal of insurance executives. 

In this case it appears clear that the greater efficiencies and coverage for all would outweigh the relatively minor issue of profit.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #187 on: August 24, 2016, 02:34:23 PM »
And then we can throw this into the mix:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/business/high-drug-prices-explained-epipen-heart-medications.html

Not sure if a single-payer system would fix this or not (depends on where the "privitizing" line is drawn).

*popcorn*

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #188 on: August 24, 2016, 02:36:47 PM »

Sure, but that's not relevant here. If he chooses to remain a citizen of said country/take advantage of those services, he is agreeing to the terms. If he doesn't like the terms, there are plenty of other places on earth to live with much less government. They just tend to suck more.

-W

Sure it is relevant. Why is he the one who has to move? Because the people with the guns said so. I'd say that is a fundamental wrong.

Look. I'm no anarchist. I wouldn't even describe myself as a libertarian. I've said many times in this thread that I like it when the government uses its power to force people to pay for things I like, because like everyone else, I'm a selfish being who likes to see my own priorities advanced.

I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.


mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #189 on: August 24, 2016, 02:41:34 PM »
The argument you are making is that your freedom (to spend your money, to not be encumbered upon) is being taken away.  It's a Hobbisian argument.  That your freedom is somehow worth more than a greater good. 

Define greater good.

You seem to be less burdened, however, that you money is used say, for building an unnecessarily large military machine or to support Iowa corn farmers.  So there's that contradiction.

How the hell did you figure that?

I've said that I support expanded healthcare a number of times, including in the post you quoted. I've offered no opinion on anything else the government does with tax dollars other than on the fundamental wrong that is required for them to collect those dollars to begin with.

Point of fact I think it is fucking disgusting that US taxpayers were made to support the last decade's worth of military excursions that needlessly killed 100,000+ middle eastern people.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #190 on: August 24, 2016, 02:41:58 PM »
I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.

Yeah, me too.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #191 on: August 24, 2016, 02:45:16 PM »
I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.

Yeah, me too.

The first half and the second half of the sentence are related, as is usually the case.

Let me know if you need help.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #192 on: August 24, 2016, 02:47:21 PM »
I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.

Yeah, me too.

The first half and the second half of the sentence are related, as is usually the case.

Let me know if you need help.

Yes, they are.

Let me know if you need help.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #193 on: August 24, 2016, 02:59:42 PM »
Yes, they are.

Let me know if you need help.

Okay I'll break it down for you. I know you think you won the game of "spot the logical inconsistency", but you didn't. Here's why.

My statement:

Quote
I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.

For it to be hypocritical (at least in the manner towards which you're nudging), calling the seizure of assets under the threat of imprisonment a "fundamental evil" has to pass the following criteria:

1.) Uses colorful language.
2.) Ascribes that colorful language to people who oppose the government using it's taxation authority to advance a given agenda.

Let's put it to a test.

"The seizure of assets under threat of imprisonment is a fundamental evil."

Quote
fundamental evil

Pretty clearly checks one of the boxes.

[X] Uses colorful language

which leaves the subject that the colorful language is being ascribed to. Remember that it's gotta be a person who opposes the government taxing to advance an agenda. In this thread, that agenda has been healthcare, but I broadened it, so really any agenda should work.

Quote
The seizure of assets under threat of imprisonment

Hmm. No dice.

Final score

[X] Uses colorful language
[ ] Ascribes that colorful language to people who oppose the government using it's taxation authority to advance a given agenda

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #194 on: August 24, 2016, 03:16:53 PM »
I think we can leave it to the 19 year olds who just finished Atlas Shrugged now, guys. :)

-W

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3619
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #195 on: August 24, 2016, 03:28:19 PM »
Fuck Aetna. I'm leaving them in the next FEHB open season over the games they're playing. Should have done my homework and found a better plan in the first place, but reading about the way they dealt with DoJ over this antitrust thing got me off my ass.

I'd like to congratulate whatever lawyer wrote that letter to make it say that they were going to pull out because of costs incurred, while still making it clear that it was just a quid pro quo threat. That little piece of doubletalk was some of the most masterful bullshit I've seen in years.

Look. I'm no anarchist. I wouldn't even describe myself as a libertarian.
Would you settle for "sociopath"? I mean...
Quote
I've said many times in this thread that I like it when the government uses its power to force people to pay for things I like, because like everyone else, I'm a selfish being who likes to see my own priorities advanced.
Most of us at least pretend to support a broader view of things that takes into account the total benefit to a group - be it our town, our nation, our human race, etc. Society would break down if everyone tried to live by your outlook. Just look at the modern-day Galt's Gulch... xD
Quote
I just think it is bullshit when people ascribe negative words or colorful language like, "xyz hates poor people" to anyone who doesn't want the government to use the guns and the threat of imprisonment to advance any given agenda (this time it is healthcare) when a fundamental evil needs to be done to accomplish those things.
I think it's funny that someone talking scornfully about "colorful language" would use the phrase "fundamental evil" in literally the same sentence, when the "evil" in question is a time-honored tradition accepted by a probable majority of humans, and a large plurality at a minimum. Hell, even some animals have a sense of collectivized resources, and some enforce it within social groups. I'm not claiming to settle once and for all whether your view is right or wrong, but I do assert that painting it as an obvious, universal truth is as colorful as anything else up-thread.

I won't bother claiming that it's hypocritical to call something a "fundamental evil" but make exceptions when it benefits you... some things just don't deserve arguments. Let's just call that added humor.

I think we can leave it to the 19 year olds who just finished Atlas Shrugged now, guys. :)

-W
Teehee...

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #196 on: August 24, 2016, 03:31:09 PM »
I think we can leave it to the 19 year olds who just finished Atlas Shrugged now, guys. :)

-W

I only ever read The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged was too long so I never even tried. =D

But it is possible to accept the fact (and if anyone wants to volunteer arguments that it isn't a fact, I'm certainly all ears) that it's wrong to seize someone's assets under the threat of imprisonment without being a dyed in the wool objectivist.

I must sound like a broken record at this point, but I like when the government uses this wrongdoing to advance causes that I'm interested in. More healthcare access for the poor, public education, the Internet, and animal welfare just to name a few.

That doesn't mean I can't admit that what they're doing is at least, in some part, wrong.

It's like being a mid-2000s Yankees fan. You can admit that A Rod is cheating while still cracking a smile when his homers get you one step closer to a pennant.

Saying someone hates poor people because they don't support universal healthcare is silly. Do the people of Finland hate Mexicans because they (implicitly) don't support funding healthcare for the people of Mexico?

Being amused that someone can hold an argument against universal healthcare when that argument is birthed by such a fundamental principle (taking stuff from people is bad) is in itself amusing.
 


Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #197 on: August 24, 2016, 03:38:41 PM »

That doesn't mean I can't admit that what they're doing is at least, in some part, wrong.


By what definition is "wrong"???   Ethically, morally?   Or just not ascribing to your vision of the "greater good" -- meaning, your greater good.  Pretty shakey ground there.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #198 on: August 24, 2016, 03:40:45 PM »
Would you settle for "sociopath"? I mean...

That's a pretty serious charge. I'm honestly not sure where it's coming from. I'm a sociopath because I think a reasonable argument against universal healthcare can be made?

Most of us at least pretend to support a broader view of things that takes into account the total benefit to a group - be it our town, our nation, our human race, etc. Society would break down if everyone tried to live by your outlook.

Did you read the part where I said I support a number of welfare measures up to and including universal healthcare? If everyone was like me then we'd all freely give our money to support these causes.

Society would break down if everyone tried to live by your outlook.

I don't agree but we'll likely never find out. To believe this is to believe that no one would do the noble thing unless they're forced to.

I think it's funny that someone talking scornfully about "colorful language" would use the phrase "fundamental evil" in literally the same sentence, when the "evil" in question is a time-honored tradition accepted by a probable majority of humans, and a large plurality at a minimum. Hell, even some animals have a sense of collectivized resources, and some enforce it within social groups. I'm not claiming to settle once and for all whether your view is right or wrong, but I do assert that painting it as an obvious, universal truth is as colorful as anything else up-thread.

I won't bother claiming that it's hypocritical to call something a "fundamental evil" but make exceptions when it benefits you... some things just don't deserve arguments. Let's just call that added humor.

Yeah yeah, we already went over this a couple of posts above. I'm really surprised that multiple people are struggling with this. This is ostensibly a forum full of educated and intelligent people right?

If I had said, "I think it is bullshit when people use colorful language. Full stop." You'd have a point. But I didn't. There were qualifiers that anyone who read and comprehended the sentence would understand. Goodness.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: ObamaCare Implosion
« Reply #199 on: August 24, 2016, 03:44:52 PM »
By what definition is "wrong"???   Ethically, morally?   Or just not ascribing to your vision of the "greater good" -- meaning, your greater good.  Pretty shakey ground there.

I think making someone give up their property or give up their freedom is as fundamental as it gets.

My definition of "greater good" would certainly include providing for the welfare of those who can't figure it out for themselves. I can envision a multitude of ways in which people would disagree with that though. The fundamental statement above though, it's tough to envision anyone having a moral compass under which that isn't at the very least, shady.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 04:09:30 PM by mathlete »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!