"...As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them ..."
If you believe they should have access to our health care system so that the poor aren't allowed to die , do you believe that access to health care is a fundamental human right?
Fundemental? Absolutely not. The only fundemental rights anyone has are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - paying for it is your business, not mine.
Fundamental rights are the stuff that wars and revolutions are fought for, that entire system of gov't are upended because they don't honor, and tyrants are put to death for; freedom from oppression, liberty, etc. Access to healthcare, in my view, is a luxury - and, much like medicare/medicaid/SS, something desperately in need of reform
Isn't access to healthcare the fundamental right to life, as you stated? If it is not, and is a luxury, and you do not feel obligated for anyone except yourself, then, logically, you should expect the poor to die if they cannot pay.
Very few wars have been fought for "fundamental rights". Nearly every war in human history has been fought for either economic or religious reasons, and usually both, with very few exceptions.
"...As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them ..."
If you believe they should have access to our health care system so that the poor aren't allowed to die , do you believe that access to health care is a fundamental human right?
Fundemental? Absolutely not. The only fundemental rights anyone has are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - paying for it is your business, not mine.
Fundamental rights are the stuff that wars and revolutions are fought for, that entire system of gov't are upended because they don't honor, and tyrants are put to death for; freedom from oppression, liberty, etc. Access to healthcare, in my view, is a luxury - and, much like medicare/medicaid/SS, something desperately in need of reform
Isn't access to healthcare the fundamental right to life, as you stated? If it is not, and is a luxury, and you do not feel obligated for anyone except yourself, then, logically, you should expect the poor to die if they cannot pay.
Very few wars have been fought for "fundamental rights". Nearly every war in human history has been fought for either economic or religious reasons, and usually both, with very few exceptions.
No, it's not a fundamental right - and I detest your assertion about what I should and should not expect.
Fundamental rights are concerned with liberty and freedom, not who pays for your visit to the emergency room - that's pure luxury, not a necessity like freedom is. That said, I don't want the "poor to die if they can't pay" - that's nothing more than a democrat talking point from Nancy Pelosi "Republicans want poor people to die rather than get medical care" - it's the equivalent of that Moveon.org commercial that depicted Paul Ryan pushing a grandma over a cliff
Maybe few wars have been fought over fundamental rights, but every revolution has been fought over them - I've seen plenty of wars fought over religious freedom, freedom from oppression/slavery, and freedom from bondage - I've yet to see a war fought over who pays when a homeless guy winds up in the emergency room with a knife in his gut
My point is that healthcare, like medicaid/medicare/SS, is something only a first world country concerns itself with - it's nowhere near necessary the way freedom from oppression is, but it's merely something that rich countries concern themselves with in an effort to provide for their citizens in an equitable manner.
I find it very funny that people that actually support Obamacare demand answers and solutions from those that question them, yet when given solutions, ignore it and start talking about their feelings again.
I find it very funny that people that actually support Obamacare demand answers and solutions from those that question them, yet when given solutions, ignore it and start talking about their feelings again.
"...No, it's not a fundamental right - and I detest your assertion about what I should and should not expect. ..."
Detest what you choose, but it's only logic. As you stated, we have a fundamental right to Life, etc, etc. If this is true, then access to health care is a fundamental right, unless the fundamental right to life is only for those who can afford it.
I find it very funny that people that actually support Obamacare demand answers and solutions from those that question them, yet when given solutions, ignore it and start talking about their feelings again.
?????????
I'm referring (in this case) to your questioning on how to provide for the poor. Xmacro and I have given possible solutions in previous posts, yet none of those are mentioned in your posts. You started asking (again) and how to fix the system for the poor. Kuzi pointed this out as well and his notice was only given an afterthought. And now you and xmacro are discussing your feelings on what the poor are entitled to again.
As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets (especially through a program that will cost 1 trillion every 2 years and chase 80% of doctors out of the field of medicine). If you choose to confuse that with "the poor can go eff themselves", that's your own fault.
I find it very funny that people that actually support Obamacare demand answers and solutions from those that question them, yet when given solutions, ignore it and start talking about their feelings again.
?????????
I'm referring (in this case) about your questioning on how to provide for the poor. Xmacro and I have given possible solutions in previous posts, yet none of those are mentioned in your posts. You started asking (again) and how to fix the system for the poor. Kuzi pointed this out as well and his notice was only given an afterthought. And now you and xmacro are discussing your feelings on what the poor are entitled to again.
As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets (especially through a program that will cost 1 trillion every 2 years and chase 80% of doctors out of the field of medicine). If you choose to confuse that with "the poor can go eff themselves", that's your own fault.
I am focusing on the basic question that I originally raised. I am sorry if you have confused that with "feelings". For me, the basic question of our health care system begins with how to care for those who are "the least among us" as Jesus said. It isn't about my feelings, it is the basic cause of the economic problem of caring for those without means; that's the crux of the problem, as I see it.
I find it very funny that people that actually support Obamacare demand answers and solutions from those that question them, yet when given solutions, ignore it and start talking about their feelings again.
?????????
I'm referring (in this case) about your questioning on how to provide for the poor. Xmacro and I have given possible solutions in previous posts, yet none of those are mentioned in your posts. You started asking (again) and how to fix the system for the poor. Kuzi pointed this out as well and his notice was only given an afterthought. And now you and xmacro are discussing your feelings on what the poor are entitled to again.
As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets (especially through a program that will cost 1 trillion every 2 years and chase 80% of doctors out of the field of medicine). If you choose to confuse that with "the poor can go eff themselves", that's your own fault.
I am focusing on the basic question that I originally raised. I am sorry if you have confused that with "feelings". For me, the basic question of our health care system begins with how to care for those who are "the least among us" as Jesus said. It isn't about my feelings, it is the basic cause of the economic problem of caring for those without means; that's the crux of the problem, as I see it.
Wwhwang said what I was unable to say, more succinctly than I could.
And you are confusing the economics with feelings; considering Obamacares $2,000,000,000,000 price tag, it's actually cheaper to just treat them in the emergency room with the status quo - to consider healthcare as a "fundamental right" betrays your ideology that healthcare is somehow equivalent with freedom.
As I've said twice already, and for the third time - people have fought and died for religous, economic, and political freedom, the fundamental rights to which all Men are entitled - I've yet to see someone take up arms, fight and die because their hospital charged them too much for their surgery (which the doctor's performed anyway), or because paying back their hospital bills is conflicting with their kids' college payments.
It isn't about my feelings, it is the basic cause of the economic problem of caring for those without means; that's the crux of the problem, as I see it.
And as I mentioned, these problems are addressed and possible solutions given in our (xmacro and I) previous posts. Yet I still have yet to see you address anything he, kuzi, and I have suggested. This leads me to believe that you either don't care to read anything we say or refuse to address the solutions.
As far as I've seen, the main points are being ignored and the discussion about entitlement keeps going around in circles.
"...As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets..."
Then they only have a right to the amount of life (health care) they can pay for? That is the essence of Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest (those with economic means survive, and the poor die, and when they die, society as a whole is benefited, because it is made stronger.)
Personally, I would prefer those of you who oppose the individual mandate to be really honest with yourselves, and recognize that many of you believe that the poor should be allowed to die if they do not have the money to provide for their own healthcare. There aint no Manna from Heaven gonna come down from the sky and provide for the least among us. We either decide that we ALL have a fundamental right to life, and that we are responsible for taking care of the least among us, or we decide that we have a fundamental right to the life (health care) that we can afford, then we should be expected to roll over and die so that nobody else will be inconvenienced by our dying, or suffering.
It really is just that simple. Until we agree on one of those principles, the problem can't be solved.
"...As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets..."
Then they only have a right to the amount of life (health care) they can pay for? That is the essence of Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest (those with economic means survive, and the poor die, and when they die, society as a whole is benefited, because it is made stronger.)
Personally, I would prefer those of you who oppose the individual mandate to be really honest with yourselves, and recognize that many of you believe that the poor should be allowed to die if they do not have the money to provide for their own healthcare. There aint no Manna from Heaven gonna come down from the sky and provide for the least among us. We either decide that we ALL have a fundamental right to life, and that we are responsible for taking care of the least among us, or we decide that we have a fundamental right to the life (health care) that we can afford, then we should be expected to roll over and die so that nobody else will be inconvenienced by our dying, or suffering.
It really is just that simple. Until we agree on one of those principles, the problem can't be solved.
If either of you has a solution regarding how to provide health care for the poor other than one of those two I just listed, I'm all ears.
"...As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets..."
Then they only have a right to the amount of life (health care) they can pay for? That is the essence of Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest (those with economic means survive, and the poor die, and when they die, society as a whole is benefited, because it is made stronger.)
Personally, I would prefer those of you who oppose the individual mandate to be really honest with yourselves, and recognize that many of you believe that the poor should be allowed to die if they do not have the money to provide for their own healthcare. There aint no Manna from Heaven gonna come down from the sky and provide for the least among us. We either decide that we ALL have a fundamental right to life, and that we are responsible for taking care of the least among us, or we decide that we have a fundamental right to the life (health care) that we can afford, then we should be expected to roll over and die so that nobody else will be inconvenienced by our dying, or suffering.
It really is just that simple. Until we agree on one of those principles, the problem can't be solved.
And this is where conversations go to die - someone accuses the other party of wanting poor people to die or wanting to push grandma off a cliff. At this point, JDH, there's nothing more to say to you that hasn't already been said.
"...As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets..."
Then they only have a right to the amount of life (health care) they can pay for? That is the essence of Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest (those with economic means survive, and the poor die, and when they die, society as a whole is benefited, because it is made stronger.)
Personally, I would prefer those of you who oppose the individual mandate to be really honest with yourselves, and recognize that many of you believe that the poor should be allowed to die if they do not have the money to provide for their own healthcare. There aint no Manna from Heaven gonna come down from the sky and provide for the least among us. We either decide that we ALL have a fundamental right to life, and that we are responsible for taking care of the least among us, or we decide that we have a fundamental right to the life (health care) that we can afford, then we should be expected to roll over and die so that nobody else will be inconvenienced by our dying, or suffering.
It really is just that simple. Until we agree on one of those principles, the problem can't be solved.
Lmao. How can you even be serious? Like I wrote multiple times now, you're once again ignoring all solutions and reasoning being handed to you and comparing those that don't agree with you to executioners. I guess those thought-terminating cliches are strong in this one.
Please be honest with yourself and reply when you either learn to read other people's posts, to address the main point as three people so far have asked you to do or when you can honestly equate right to life with the desire to theft without resorting to thought-terminating cliches. Preferably all three.
Sorry about that. My long post was more a response to Pheebs and his assertion that Obamacare is somehow a "cure-all" that will reduce spending by increasing spending. However, if you read about the top 3 causes of the insurance problem and solutions, one can reasonably conclude that by tackling and solving the actual causes of the problem, you can drastically reduce the cost of healthcare across the board.
With the biggest causes taken care of, healthcare will be much cheaper and be at a much more manageable cost whether you go through Medi-care, Medic-aid, or insurance. The reason why people are getting turned away by hospitals is because these three providers can't handle all patients with all conditions with our current insurance system. By handling the problems, less tax dollars will be spent through Medicare and Medicaid. This means that the poor, elderly, and disabled will be more likely to be covered while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
Also, the biggest issue with our current situation is that insurance costs are going up while people ignore the causes. With costs drastically cut across the board, the middle class will be much more likely to be able to afford health insurance. There you go. Poor, elderly, disabled, and middle class can all be covered.
The biggest issue is that most people refuse to tackle the real issues that make insurance costs skyrocket. Most people on the right simply don't consider these issues. Most people on the left don't care about the issues and just want someone else to pay for them. Most civil suit lawyers also adamantly refuse to reform in order to stop frivolous lawsuits (guess where they get their money?) and most leftists simply won't take illegals that are passing all their costs on taxpayers out of the equation.
Sure, there are other problems and some other solutions that can be used. However, creating a system that ignores the problems, causes 80% of doctors to disappear, and costs more than 1 trillion every two years (and that's assuming that that covers everything) in taxes is just ridiculous.
dude I never said that the ACA was a cure all. I personally think the ACA is a bunch of crap, I mean give the insurance companies more business? WTF. I do see that something needs to be done but it is a step in the right direction. You think that health care costs are so high because of lawsuits and illegals? Wow. Most lawsuits are capped and that's even if you can get a case. Healthcare is so expensive in this country for many reasons, just not one. For starters every citizen needs to be apart of it and we need to get rid of a for profit health system. Also the prices for drugs need to be sensible, I mean the cost for aspirins in hospitals are insane. Illegals getting care... sure they go into a hospital and get seen. I could say the same with them driving and getting into a wreck. In fact I have a family member who was hit by a person without insurance and that was a cluster F-ck. So it exists. There are many reasons why costs are so so high. Also the ACA will save money over 10 years according to the CBO some 200 billion or something. It's a start.
My personal feeling is that the ACA though flawed was designed to upstart states into setting up their own single payer type systems. Already Vermont is trying to get a waiver to start up, Oregon is set to do their own thing and I think a few others are as well. I think that one day medicare will be extended to all of us in some way.
If either of you has a solution regarding how to provide health care for the poor other than one of those two I just listed, I'm all ears.
I had to go back through and re-read, in case I missed it, but I don't see where you were "handed...solutions". I saw a lot of rhetoric, pointing out that the big problems need to be addressed and solved, but no solutions. Not any real-world solutions, at any rate. Some of the rhetoric I'm quite sympathetic to, lovely ideals and idealism. No real-world solutions.
I saw where you were castigated, held responsible for ideas you never put forth, cast into categories, in other words all the usual Neo-conservative bloviating, followed by pointing out that there are big problems to be addressed, and vague theories about how this should be handled from on high by private industry, rather than from on high by the democratically elected representatives. No solutions.
Perhaps your adversaries in this conversation have simply not yet had to deal with the "system" in any meaningful fashion, eg. lost their house due to outrageous hospital bills, things of that nature. There's also been a lot of information/misinformation being spread, which makes it hard to figure out what's really going on. For instance, as Phobic Squirrel refers to, one of the advantages of the ACA is that congress / medicare can no longer double bill the taxpayer, then keep the excess billing to use as a slush fund. Cut the taxpayers bill in half, if I remember correctly. But, that was probably something I read in Jim Hightower, who is a progressive, and therefore not to be believed in the same way you would believe a middle-of-the-road commenter like Glen Beck who never exaggerates. .
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
...on a related note, i have yet to see you answer the question that i often raise on this subject on how are we going to fix it without violating rights.
...a task that is way harder to accomplish than it sounds, and also has no simple answer.
Are your rights violated because you are required to carry a drivers license or a government issued ID in order to drive a car or to vote?
driving is not a right. it is a privilege. voting is a right. having an ID to vote upholds those rights by ensuring that everyone's vote counts the same. neither of these are applicable arguments.
JDH:
Are your rights violated because you are required to purchase automobile insurance if you drive a car on the public roads?
that last quote is very much an applicable argument.
in a way they are being violated. in a way they are not. they are because you are forced to a buy a product. they are not because you are not forced to buy a car.
JDH:
I think not. You may disagree, but having these documents do not prevent freedom of movement or the obligation of voting. Being required to purchase your own insurance if your employer does not provide it is much the same, in my view. As it has kept the cost of auto insurance relatively low, this will go a long way to keep costs down, in a market-based solution.
it is A market. but it is not a free market. it is a manipulated market. that is, by definition, a violation of rights. this brings us back to your questions that prompted my questions. the current system violates the rights of some to pay for those who cant. the new system violates the rights of everyone on what kind of insurance they have to buy or face a tax. so... violate some rights or violate all rights? neither is acceptable in my book. and we are brought back to the coin again. gotta see both sides at once.
"...No, it's not a fundamental right - and I detest your assertion about what I should and should not expect. ..."
Detest what you choose, but it's only logic. As you stated, we have a fundamental right to Life, etc, etc. If this is true, then access to health care is a fundamental right, unless the fundamental right to life is only for those who can afford it.
i fundamental right is something that is in itself free. by your logic food is a right as well. if food is a right then that means we can force farmers to produce for free because we have a "right" to eat. there is a right to pursue food, not a right to it.
fundamental rights are free. there are no costs associated with liberty. it costs nothing to have someone not kill you. liberty, it costs nothing to let people do as they please provided they do not violate the rights of others the pursuit of happiness. it costs nothing for you to let others try and enjoy themselves. it costs others nothing to let you do what you want to do (again, provided you do not violate the rights of others)
health insurance/care costs money. it is not a fundamental right, therefore it is a luxury, a very important one to many, but a luxury none the less.
If either of you has a solution regarding how to provide health care for the poor other than one of those two I just listed, I'm all ears.
I had to go back through and re-read, in case I missed it, but I don't see where you were "handed...solutions". I saw a lot of rhetoric, pointing out that the big problems need to be addressed and solved, but no solutions. Not any real-world solutions, at any rate. Some of the rhetoric I'm quite sympathetic to, lovely ideals and idealism. No real-world solutions.
I saw where you were castigated, held responsible for ideas you never put forth, cast into categories, in other words all the usual Neo-conservative bloviating, followed by pointing out that there are big problems to be addressed, and vague theories about how this should be handled from on high by private industry, rather than from on high by the democratically elected representatives. No solutions.
Perhaps your adversaries in this conversation have simply not yet had to deal with the "system" in any meaningful fashion, eg. lost their house due to outrageous hospital bills, things of that nature. There's also been a lot of information/misinformation being spread, which makes it hard to figure out what's really going on. For instance, as Phobic Squirrel refers to, one of the advantages of the ACA is that congress / medicare can no longer double bill the taxpayer, then keep the excess billing to use as a slush fund. Cut the taxpayers bill in half, if I remember correctly. But, that was probably something I read in Jim Hightower, who is a progressive, and therefore not to be believed in the same way you would believe a middle-of-the-road commenter like Glen Beck who never exaggerates. .
Man, Amos. I expected such a reply from JDH or Pheebs, but you too? I suggest you actually re-read the posts of myself, kuzi, and xmaco along with JDH's replies. We listed a few key contributing factors (note that I said a "few key factors", and not the "only factors" as Pheebs would have you believe) that raise insurance costs to what they are today and some suggestions on how to fix them. However, the entire process of identifying the cause of the problem and addressing potential solutions was somehow lost on JDH for the past 4 pages. For the past 4 pages, xmacro, kuzi, and I have only received emotional speeches about ideology about how if we don't like Obamacare, then we're killing the poor. Meanwhile, the main point, which is fixing the system by diagnosing the causes of the current situation was ignored time and time again.
Not only that, how is it fair that you call us Neo-cons when you know full well that the only one spewing extremist talking points such as us hating the poor because we don't want Obamacare is JDH? By that line of logic, if you don't give your kid a brand new plasma TV, then you hate your kid. As far as I know, we haven't resorted to calling anyone that disagrees with us pinko commie, God-hating, blah blah, etc etc. Is this because you simply don't see what both sides have written or is it because you actually believe that Obamacare is the only answer, that there are no alternative solutions, and that all that disagree with it wish death on the poor?
Please keep in mind that no one has yet even addressed the fact that Obamacare is shown by independent projections to cost an additional 500 to 600 billion a year in taxes alone and chase 80% of all doctors out of medicine. I read the articles that Pheebs linked and I still have yet to see how they're "saving" an average of 200-ish billion over ten years or where the cuts are coming from. The fact that the data comes from the CBO also seems suspicious. I tend to not trust data given out by those that supported the passing of such legislation and yet exempt themselves from the system they try to create. If you're the sheep, why ask the wolves what's for dinner?
Macro and ****.....could you two be any more condescending or personally offensive to others? I see no need to comment on the specific topic at this point, but to make comments like "I expect this from Pheebs.... or Destesting someone ideas or feelings...and just the overall downtalk because someone should dare have a different opinion than yours--------wow.
Macro and ****.....could you two be any more condescending or personally offensive to others? I see no need to comment on the specific topic at this point, but to make comments like "I expect this from Pheebs.... or Destesting someone ideas or feelings...and just the overall downtalk because someone should dare have a different opinion than yours--------wow.
Sigh...Vulchor, it is not my intention to offend, yet when I ask that my points to be addressed, all I get is called neo-con, executioner of the poor, etc, over and over instead of actually getting an answer. I find it very difficult to continue to be respectful towards people that will not address anything I say without resorting to mudslinging first.
Now with that point out, if someone would actually like to have a discussion where the points are considered, please let me know. Otherwise, please just let the mudslinging and hurt feelings die out.
the main point, which is fixing the system by diagnosing the causes of the current situation
I have to agree here, this is indeed the crux of the matter.
wwhang:
Please keep in mind that no one has yet even addressed the fact that Obamacare is shown by independent projections to cost an additional 500 to 600 billion a year in taxes alone and chase 80% of all doctors out of medicine. I read the articles that Pheebs linked and I still have yet to see how they're "saving" an average of 200-ish billion over ten years or where the cuts are coming from. The fact that the data comes from the CBO also seems suspicious. I tend to not trust data given out by those that supported the passing of such legislation and yet exempt themselves from the system they try to create. If you're the sheep, why ask the wolves what's for dinner?
I'm not sure I trust any of the sources on either side of this. None of the many doctors I work with daily are anticipating being out of work as a result of this legislation. The additional money? Maybe. only time will tell. I will also admit here that my re-reading (and not finding the answers) was done well before my coffee had time to take effect, so I might have missed something. I'll try again, probably Monday, as I worked all day today and will again tomorrow taking equal care of the insured, and uninsured.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Thank you for addressing some of my points, Amos. That's all I've been asking for. And yes, I do agree that only time will tell as long as Obamacare is involved. People are still going through the 2400+ page bill.
Macro and ****.....could you two be any more condescending or personally offensive to others? I see no need to comment on the specific topic at this point, but to make comments like "I expect this from Pheebs.... or Destesting someone ideas or feelings...and just the overall downtalk because someone should dare have a different opinion than yours--------wow.
Sigh...Vulchor, it is not my intention to offend, yet when I ask that my points to be addressed, all I get is called neo-con, executioner of the poor, etc, over and over instead of actually getting an answer. I find it very difficult to continue to be respectful towards people that will not address anything I say without resorting to mudslinging first.
Now with that point out, if someone would actually like to have a discussion where the points are considered, please let me know. Otherwise, please just let the mudslinging and hurt feelings die out.
Start with one basic premise: There is no free lunch. In the real world as we know it, you may not always get what you pay for, but you do have to pay for what you get. One way or another. Don't blame me. I did not invent it. I wish it were otherwise. It's not. The notion that "We can do anything..." is starry eyed nonsense. Now that that pesky boson has been discovered, perhaps we can enlist the attention of all those skilled mathematicians and physicists, provide them an eighteen billion dollar large megabuck collider, and see if they can't create a free lunch particle. But until they do, until we have demonstrated the feasibility and practical application of a free lunch particle, we must accept the fact that there is none. Neither is there a credit fairy, a money tree, a rich uncle who died. Nor are we the long forgotten heirs of the fabulously wealthy king of Montanopolis.
Alas that accepting this hard fact strangles so many well meaning daydreams.
For example, the daydream that a thoroughly broke and broken government can provide more health care including never before seen wonderful features to more people when they can't afford what little they have now.
No amount of praising the wonderful features and advantages of the Unaffordable Health Care Act makes it affordable. Let me repeat: Praising its features does not pay for it. Features are irrelevant. It's virtues are beside the point. All the wonderful things it can do cannot be done if we can't afford to do them,.
Liberals hate this like the plague, but here goes: How do you do it at home? Do you first listen to the Fisker Karma salesman, pop for a hundred ten grand loan on the spot, and only THEN come home and look at the checkbook? Or do you try to have a sense of the family budget before you go to the dealership? As for me, even after our enlightened gummint for the purpose of "job creation" have subsidized the Karma to the tune of a million bucks per auto sold (that's right) without creating a single job (I'll show you the shuttered plant), I looked at the checkbook, and I know I cannot afford a hundred ten grand for the same car which Justin Beeber got chrome plated for his birthday. It's not in our budget. We are not the Beebers. Now. Let's look at Uncle Sam's family budget with a few zeroes knocked off: Sam brings in $24k and change a year income. He spends $38k a year. So Sam is adding $14k to his credit card tab. But that tab is already up to $170k. Now here's the killer: Let's call unfunded liabilities Sam's mortgage. Sam has a $1,700,000 mortgage. Question: Is this the time for Sam to refinance his house to get cash out to build a chrome plated pool in the back yard? I don't want to hear how much fun the kids will have in the pool, nor how a pool enhances the value of his home, nor how Sam can quickly raise cash by stealing from the rich guy across the street, nor how Sam ought to sell his gun collection, nor even how I am a stingy mean spirited knucklehead because I can't appreciate how Sam's wife and kids truly deserve and can't do without a pool. That isn't the question. None of that. Start here: No free lunch. Now: Can Sam afford it?
The intense irony is that we're doing this in an era when educated, responsible, highly developed and intelligent countries on the other side of the world are going broke and reneging on promises and **** citizens to the wall because they have broken their budgets through schemes like this one. Shift the discussion for a minute by way of analogy: There lies Greece, broke and broken, at the mercy of banksters. One prime example of how Greece got into trouble is an extravagant railway scheme. This week, in broke and broken Kalifornia, we see billions of new debt allocated to the first leg of a new high speed railway scheme. Pet project of a liberal democrat governor. Surprise. The feds are eager to pour debt into the scheme as well. Surprise. That way, I in Dull-Aware get to contribute to "job creation" in Kali. The only leg thus far funded links Chowchilla to Madera. That ought to do it.
How did government get in the business of running the economy? Are they better at it? Why are we in such a hurry to dive into the same troubles afflicting socialist countries around the globe? Do we suppose somehow that, magically, it will all be different here? Are our legislators any more responsible? Less corrupt? More under our control?
It boggles the mind.
Stop it. Stop it right now. I don't want to hear another single word about the wunnerfulness of a new backyard swimming pool until we have dug ourselves out of the cesspool we are already in. And the next liberal to whine "but... we have to do something!" is gonna get the back of my hand.
Tired of it.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
I am sorry that many of you have seen emotion in my questions. I assure you, I am approaching this problem from a logical point of view, as opposed to an emotional one. Please consider the following exercise in logic:
A = B, B=C, therefore C=A
A) If hospitals are not required to provide care for all comers, then the poor and the un-insured will not receive the care they need.
If the poor do not receive the care they need, many will die or become bankrupted because they are denied healthcare.
C) Therefore, if hospitals are not required to provide care for all comers, then the poor and the un-insured will often die or become bankrupted because they are denied healthcare.
A) If hospitals are required to provide healthcare for all comers, then significant costs are incurred because of care provided to the poor and the un-insured. Some of those costs are being shifted to the American Taxpayers.
The costs incurred by the poor and the un-insured must be paid. If they are not, the costs will be absorbed by hospitals and healthcare providers, which will continuously escalate and inflate the cost of healthcare, much of which is borne by the US taxpayer.
Therefore, if the Taxpayers refuse to pay for these costs, healthcare will continue to become more and more and more expensive for everyone, and those who can least afford healthcare will continue to become bankrupted if they become ill.
The fundamental question therefore remains: Do you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care for all comers, even if they cannot pay? If you do not, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to see people die for lack of health care if they are too poor to pay for it.
If you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care to all comers, but do not want universal coverage of the population as a whole (subsidized by tax dollars), or for tax dollars to pay for the costs of covering those who cannot afford insurance, or for those who can afford health insurance to be required to purchase their own health insurance, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act.
If you reject all of those possibilities, what would you suggest to mitigate the costs of the un-insured on We the Taxpayers?
The fundamental question therefore remains: Do you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care for all comers, even if they cannot pay? If you do not, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to see people die for lack of health care if they are too poor to pay for it.
that assumption is incorrect. how about assuming that we are looking for other ways to bring down actual cost to reduce the numbers of people that cant afford it. for the significantly fewer people that still cannot afford it after cost is brought down we can rely more on charity rather than altruistic government programs. your assumption that we want to see people die for lack of health care shows your lack of understanding of the more conservative side of the forum and can easily be seen as offensive.
JDH:
If you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care to all comers, but do not want universal coverage of the population as a whole (subsidized by tax dollars), or for tax dollars to pay for the costs of covering those who cannot afford insurance, or for those who can afford health insurance to be required to purchase their own health insurance, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act.
that is also an incorrect assumption. you have set up two straw men. its not all or none.
this option is also not acceptable. clearly, everyone that has participated in this thread wants some sort of change. there are just many people that see many of the things the "Affordable" Health Care Act as a problem. there can be more than just this Bill or nothing. saying that those are the only options is a gross over simplification of the many, many, many options that could in theory happen.
these two options that you have set up are not the only options. again, we have said this many, many times on this forum: there are other options. i am not sure why you keep glossing over and/or ignoring the many options, ideas, suggestions, bits of solutions that have been presented in this very thread.
JDH:
If you reject all of those possibilities, what would you suggest to mitigate the costs of the un-insured on We the Taxpayers?
"all of those possibilities..." as if those two options are even close to being "all" options.
re-read the thread. the beginnings of the answer are in there. you missed it, or ignored it. im not sure witch and i would never dare put words in your mouth.
Comments
Very few wars have been fought for "fundamental rights". Nearly every war in human history has been fought for either economic or religious reasons, and usually both, with very few exceptions.
Fundamental rights are concerned with liberty and freedom, not who pays for your visit to the emergency room - that's pure luxury, not a necessity like freedom is. That said, I don't want the "poor to die if they can't pay" - that's nothing more than a democrat talking point from Nancy Pelosi "Republicans want poor people to die rather than get medical care" - it's the equivalent of that Moveon.org commercial that depicted Paul Ryan pushing a grandma over a cliff
Maybe few wars have been fought over fundamental rights, but every revolution has been fought over them - I've seen plenty of wars fought over religious freedom, freedom from oppression/slavery, and freedom from bondage - I've yet to see a war fought over who pays when a homeless guy winds up in the emergency room with a knife in his gut
My point is that healthcare, like medicaid/medicare/SS, is something only a first world country concerns itself with - it's nowhere near necessary the way freedom from oppression is, but it's merely something that rich countries concern themselves with in an effort to provide for their citizens in an equitable manner.
Detest what you choose, but it's only logic. As you stated, we have a fundamental right to Life, etc, etc. If this is true, then access to health care is a fundamental right, unless the fundamental right to life is only for those who can afford it.
As a sidenote, xmacro is basically saying that people do have a right to life. However, they do not have the right to pay their doctor's bills by taking what they wish out of everyone else's wallets (especially through a program that will cost 1 trillion every 2 years and chase 80% of doctors out of the field of medicine). If you choose to confuse that with "the poor can go eff themselves", that's your own fault.
And you are confusing the economics with feelings; considering Obamacares $2,000,000,000,000 price tag, it's actually cheaper to just treat them in the emergency room with the status quo - to consider healthcare as a "fundamental right" betrays your ideology that healthcare is somehow equivalent with freedom.
As I've said twice already, and for the third time - people have fought and died for religous, economic, and political freedom, the fundamental rights to which all Men are entitled - I've yet to see someone take up arms, fight and die because their hospital charged them too much for their surgery (which the doctor's performed anyway), or because paying back their hospital bills is conflicting with their kids' college payments.
As far as I've seen, the main points are being ignored and the discussion about entitlement keeps going around in circles.
Then they only have a right to the amount of life (health care) they can pay for? That is the essence of Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest (those with economic means survive, and the poor die, and when they die, society as a whole is benefited, because it is made stronger.)
Personally, I would prefer those of you who oppose the individual mandate to be really honest with yourselves, and recognize that many of you believe that the poor should be allowed to die if they do not have the money to provide for their own healthcare. There aint no Manna from Heaven gonna come down from the sky and provide for the least among us. We either decide that we ALL have a fundamental right to life, and that we are responsible for taking care of the least among us, or we decide that we have a fundamental right to the life (health care) that we can afford, then we should be expected to roll over and die so that nobody else will be inconvenienced by our dying, or suffering.
It really is just that simple. Until we agree on one of those principles, the problem can't be solved.
Please be honest with yourself and reply when you either learn to read other people's posts, to address the main point as three people so far have asked you to do or when you can honestly equate right to life with the desire to theft without resorting to thought-terminating cliches. Preferably all three.
http://cbo.gov/publication/43080
http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/obamacare_will_save_medicare_200_billion_by_2016
My personal feeling is that the ACA though flawed was designed to upstart states into setting up their own single payer type systems. Already Vermont is trying to get a waiver to start up, Oregon is set to do their own thing and I think a few others are as well. I think that one day medicare will be extended to all of us in some way.
I saw a lot of rhetoric, pointing out that the big problems need to be addressed and solved, but no solutions.
Not any real-world solutions, at any rate.
Some of the rhetoric I'm quite sympathetic to, lovely ideals and idealism. No real-world solutions.
I saw where you were castigated, held responsible for ideas you never put forth, cast into categories, in other words all the usual Neo-conservative bloviating, followed by pointing out that there are big problems to be addressed, and vague theories about how this should be handled from on high by private industry, rather than from on high by the democratically elected representatives.
No solutions.
Perhaps your adversaries in this conversation have simply not yet had to deal with the "system" in any meaningful fashion, eg. lost their house due to outrageous hospital bills, things of that nature. There's also been a lot of information/misinformation being spread, which makes it hard to figure out what's really going on. For instance, as Phobic Squirrel refers to, one of the advantages of the ACA is that congress / medicare can no longer double bill the taxpayer, then keep the excess billing to use as a slush fund. Cut the taxpayers bill in half, if I remember correctly. But, that was probably something I read in Jim Hightower, who is a progressive, and therefore not to be believed in the same way you would believe a middle-of-the-road commenter like Glen Beck who never exaggerates.
.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
voting is a right. having an ID to vote upholds those rights by ensuring that everyone's vote counts the same. neither of these are applicable arguments.
that last quote is very much an applicable argument.
in a way they are being violated. in a way they are not. they are because you are forced to a buy a product. they are not because you are not forced to buy a car. it is A market. but it is not a free market. it is a manipulated market. that is, by definition, a violation of rights.
this brings us back to your questions that prompted my questions. the current system violates the rights of some to pay for those who cant. the new system violates the rights of everyone on what kind of insurance they have to buy or face a tax.
so... violate some rights or violate all rights?
neither is acceptable in my book. and we are brought back to the coin again. gotta see both sides at once.
there is a right to pursue food, not a right to it.
fundamental rights are free. there are no costs associated with liberty.
it costs nothing to have someone not kill you.
liberty, it costs nothing to let people do as they please provided they do not violate the rights of others
the pursuit of happiness. it costs nothing for you to let others try and enjoy themselves. it costs others nothing to let you do what you want to do (again, provided you do not violate the rights of others)
health insurance/care costs money. it is not a fundamental right, therefore it is a luxury, a very important one to many, but a luxury none the less.
Not only that, how is it fair that you call us Neo-cons when you know full well that the only one spewing extremist talking points such as us hating the poor because we don't want Obamacare is JDH? By that line of logic, if you don't give your kid a brand new plasma TV, then you hate your kid. As far as I know, we haven't resorted to calling anyone that disagrees with us pinko commie, God-hating, blah blah, etc etc. Is this because you simply don't see what both sides have written or is it because you actually believe that Obamacare is the only answer, that there are no alternative solutions, and that all that disagree with it wish death on the poor?
Please keep in mind that no one has yet even addressed the fact that Obamacare is shown by independent projections to cost an additional 500 to 600 billion a year in taxes alone and chase 80% of all doctors out of medicine. I read the articles that Pheebs linked and I still have yet to see how they're "saving" an average of 200-ish billion over ten years or where the cuts are coming from. The fact that the data comes from the CBO also seems suspicious. I tend to not trust data given out by those that supported the passing of such legislation and yet exempt themselves from the system they try to create. If you're the sheep, why ask the wolves what's for dinner?
Now with that point out, if someone would actually like to have a discussion where the points are considered, please let me know. Otherwise, please just let the mudslinging and hurt feelings die out.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Alas that accepting this hard fact strangles so many well meaning daydreams.
For example, the daydream that a thoroughly broke and broken government can provide more health care including never before seen wonderful features to more people when they can't afford what little they have now.
No amount of praising the wonderful features and advantages of the Unaffordable Health Care Act makes it affordable. Let me repeat: Praising its features does not pay for it. Features are irrelevant. It's virtues are beside the point. All the wonderful things it can do cannot be done if we can't afford to do them,.
Liberals hate this like the plague, but here goes: How do you do it at home? Do you first listen to the Fisker Karma salesman, pop for a hundred ten grand loan on the spot, and only THEN come home and look at the checkbook? Or do you try to have a sense of the family budget before you go to the dealership? As for me, even after our enlightened gummint for the purpose of "job creation" have subsidized the Karma to the tune of a million bucks per auto sold (that's right) without creating a single job (I'll show you the shuttered plant), I looked at the checkbook, and I know I cannot afford a hundred ten grand for the same car which Justin Beeber got chrome plated for his birthday. It's not in our budget. We are not the Beebers. Now. Let's look at Uncle Sam's family budget with a few zeroes knocked off: Sam brings in $24k and change a year income. He spends $38k a year. So Sam is adding $14k to his credit card tab. But that tab is already up to $170k. Now here's the killer: Let's call unfunded liabilities Sam's mortgage. Sam has a $1,700,000 mortgage. Question: Is this the time for Sam to refinance his house to get cash out to build a chrome plated pool in the back yard? I don't want to hear how much fun the kids will have in the pool, nor how a pool enhances the value of his home, nor how Sam can quickly raise cash by stealing from the rich guy across the street, nor how Sam ought to sell his gun collection, nor even how I am a stingy mean spirited knucklehead because I can't appreciate how Sam's wife and kids truly deserve and can't do without a pool. That isn't the question. None of that. Start here: No free lunch. Now: Can Sam afford it?
The intense irony is that we're doing this in an era when educated, responsible, highly developed and intelligent countries on the other side of the world are going broke and reneging on promises and **** citizens to the wall because they have broken their budgets through schemes like this one. Shift the discussion for a minute by way of analogy: There lies Greece, broke and broken, at the mercy of banksters. One prime example of how Greece got into trouble is an extravagant railway scheme. This week, in broke and broken Kalifornia, we see billions of new debt allocated to the first leg of a new high speed railway scheme. Pet project of a liberal democrat governor. Surprise. The feds are eager to pour debt into the scheme as well. Surprise. That way, I in Dull-Aware get to contribute to "job creation" in Kali. The only leg thus far funded links Chowchilla to Madera. That ought to do it.
How did government get in the business of running the economy? Are they better at it? Why are we in such a hurry to dive into the same troubles afflicting socialist countries around the globe? Do we suppose somehow that, magically, it will all be different here? Are our legislators any more responsible? Less corrupt? More under our control?
It boggles the mind.
Stop it. Stop it right now. I don't want to hear another single word about the wunnerfulness of a new backyard swimming pool until we have dug ourselves out of the cesspool we are already in. And the next liberal to whine "but... we have to do something!" is gonna get the back of my hand.
Tired of it.
A = B, B=C, therefore C=A
A) If hospitals are not required to provide care for all comers, then the poor and the un-insured will not receive the care they need.
C) Therefore, if hospitals are not required to provide care for all comers, then the poor and the un-insured will often die or become bankrupted because they are denied healthcare.
A) If hospitals are required to provide healthcare for all comers, then significant costs are incurred because of care provided to the poor and the un-insured. Some of those costs are being shifted to the American Taxpayers.
The fundamental question therefore remains: Do you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care for all comers, even if they cannot pay? If you do not, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to see people die for lack of health care if they are too poor to pay for it.
If you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care to all comers, but do not want universal coverage of the population as a whole (subsidized by tax dollars), or for tax dollars to pay for the costs of covering those who cannot afford insurance, or for those who can afford health insurance to be required to purchase their own health insurance, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act.
If you reject all of those possibilities, what would you suggest to mitigate the costs of the un-insured on We the Taxpayers?
how about assuming that we are looking for other ways to bring down actual cost to reduce the numbers of people that cant afford it.
for the significantly fewer people that still cannot afford it after cost is brought down we can rely more on charity rather than altruistic government programs.
your assumption that we want to see people die for lack of health care shows your lack of understanding of the more conservative side of the forum and can easily be seen as offensive.
that is also an incorrect assumption. you have set up two straw men. its not all or none.
this option is also not acceptable. clearly, everyone that has participated in this thread wants some sort of change. there are just many people that see many of the things the "Affordable" Health Care Act as a problem. there can be more than just this Bill or nothing. saying that those are the only options is a gross over simplification of the many, many, many options that could in theory happen.
these two options that you have set up are not the only options. again, we have said this many, many times on this forum: there are other options. i am not sure why you keep glossing over and/or ignoring the many options, ideas, suggestions, bits of solutions that have been presented in this very thread.
"all of those possibilities..." as if those two options are even close to being "all" options.
re-read the thread. the beginnings of the answer are in there. you missed it, or ignored it. im not sure witch and i would never dare put words in your mouth.