In the no-wing health care system -- will those who are without healthcare coverage and without means to pay for treatment/care be denied, absolutely, care/treatment ???
Obamacare Saves Consumers $2.1 Billion Since 2011
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
In the no-wing health care system -- will those who are without healthcare coverage and without means to pay for treatment/care be denied, absolutely, care/treatment ???
Yes, based on history before blatant and wide-spread manipulation of markets were second nature.
People have this status quo bias and completely ignore that whatever they've always known didn't always exist. Was America some hell-hole of a country with sick people dying in the streets before the Great Depression or Great Society nonsense? And it was a large social issue that moved the country. No, the reality is HMOs were invented and flooded the politicians with money and the politicians responded with distortionary tax policies to shift money to HMOs.
Just like ACA where the insurance companies supposedly traded smaller margins for greater total profits. Some trade.
The government should be regulating fraud and malicious-and-negligent harm cause by the industry. Why are they shifting cost around to satisfy a lobbyist's whims.
And you're saying too that the standard of living is the same then as it is now ???
So preferring that laws be written is dangerous? I like handshake deals as much as the next guy but I believe in the written word more.
No enforcement mechanism means exactly that. I don't care what random people believe or what they do or don't doubt. You can find a large number of people who don't doubt Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
Don't answer my question with a question. Just say "I don't know, Dave."
My question was pretty straightforward: do you have an alternative? If your alternative is even more lefty than mine, shoot but I was wondering if any solutions existed on the Right side.
There is never an option to not manipulate the health care system because ultimately it's going to come down to sick people either becoming healthier or dying and corporate entities have proven they can't be trusted to handle this mammoth responsibility unchecked.
Drop the rhetorical bullshit Greed and answer this reality based question.
Life expectancy before the Great depression wasn't even 60 so, yeah, America was a hell hole with sick people dying, just not in the streets but in their own homes.
Typical... of the self-deluded who refuse to face facts.
You were the one that said auto insurance WAS NOT IN THE PRIVATE REALM!
Here, I'll help you...
So, why don't you try to explain this nonsense?
You do understand that you don't have to buy automobile insurance if you don't own a car or one that you don't/won't drive on the public roads, right? If I own a vehicle but turn in my tag and never drive it, I'm not required to purchase insurance in NC. It's recommended that I buy some low cost liability "just in case" but not required.
Its not, in the way you tried to imply above, but if you will indulge me, we'll get there. Now, so that we are both speaking the same language, what the fuck do you call public auto insurance??? - - so that neither of us get to play semantic games.
Here is what's wrong with that argument, EVERYONE is a participant in our health care but some don't pay when they can, much in the same way that everyone that drives doesn't mean that they all pay for insurance even though they're supposed to. The freeloaders are the people who aren't paying for health insurance.
Public auto insurance would be insurance provided by the State, not private carriers.
Now, explain how the State forcing people to enter into private contracts with private carriers for auto insurance is not in the private realm.
No, it's greater. Why would you think being wealthier and more productive, with a higher standard of living, lends itself to less access to healthcare than when the country had less?
That's not what you said. What you actually said, "I'm not a big believer in "unwritten rules" or fundamental principles of law..."
The dangerous part is where there are no fundamental principles of law driving legislation unless they are written down.
So you can imagine a situation where you owe and not pay the IRS because of ACA one year but should receive a refund the next year, and the IRS will distribute your refund even though their records show a liability?
Is your statement that the IRS won't seek to collect an ACA penalty claim consistent with a denial of a refund to settle those claims? Because I think keeping your money is more consistent with the actions of the IRS.
I already answered the question and you ignored it because you knew you wouldn't like it or you didn't like it so you ignored it. I said take out every distortionary law that's designed to just shift around money between lobbyist, and the government should only focus on "regulating fraud and malicious-and-negligent harm cause by the industry." You did a thoughtone there and just attributed to me a desire to leave corporations "unchecked."Don't answer my question with a question. Just say "I don't know, Dave."
My question was pretty straightforward: do you have an alternative? If your alternative is even more lefty than mine, shoot but I was wondering if any solutions existed on the Right side.
There is never an option to not manipulate the health care system because ultimately it's going to come down to sick people either becoming healthier or dying and corporate entities have proven they can't be trusted to handle this mammoth responsibility unchecked.
Drop the rhetorical bullshit Greed and answer this reality based question.
What was it 60 years prior to the Depression and what is it 60 years after? Don't use your random position in history as sole justification of what is good or bad.
Dude is out of control. Read the Grapes of Wrath. That was required reading in my high school.
Auto Insurance is not a linear comparison to Managed Care health Insurance.
Although it would be very inconvenient, driving a car is not mandated to function in our society. But you will at some point in your life require some type of medical care.
The average American, to get a job, with an average income, with average access to food, fuel, and shelter, will have a car.
Outside New York City and a few other places with mass transit... to not have a car in the United States means you almost CERTAINLY are poor.
For the State to dictate that you will be poor unless you, as a private individual, enter a private contract, with a private auto insurance company, is a violation of the freedom to contract. It basically makes anyone, who doesn't want to be poor, an involuntary servant of the private insurance companies.
Obama extended this violation with health care. This is a ridiculous solution to a real problem. Every time the government gets involved with health care, access to health care actually DECREASES and costs increase.
Thank you; now that were are using the same language: I am not aware of instances where the state provides auto insurance. State insurance might exist in a state, but I'm not aware of it. More importantly, however, nothing I've said relates to or depends upon the state providing insurance.
Private contracts rarely trump the public's interest. In many jurisdictions, most forms of gambling is illegal, i.e., deemed against "public" policy. Hence, two parties might enter into a gambling contract, i.e., a mere bet or gamble -- but where the state has deemed such contracts illegal, they cannot be enforced through the legal systems. So where one party alleges the other refuses to honor the bet, as Courts tend to say, it leaves those parties where it finds them - without a legal remedy.
The crime of murder is not just committed against the person felled, its committed against the "People" - the public. Hence, no contract, however private it may be, is above the public's interest in punishing such conduct, and severly so.
Private individual's freedom of movement, as inviolate as it is thought to be, is reduced to a mere privilege (no longer a right) when its upon the PUBLIC'S highways. Hence, one has to obtain a license from the state to legally operate a vehicle upon the "Public Ways."
The streets, avenues, roads, etc., built by or dedicated to the public -- are public concerns. Jurisdiction over the public ways is left to the sound discretion of the governing bodies, i.e., legislatures (the federal congress; state legislatures; and city councils) - subject to constitutional protections of due process. The legislative bodies are free to impose reasonable regulations and restrictions upon ALL who use the public ways -- including, but not limited to, automobile liability insurance, to protect the public interest and safety of travel. WHY? - - because the public's interest, at times, trumps private contracts. That is, when otherwise private conduct enters the public domain, the public's interest prevails.
Applied to your private contract theory: generally, (but not absolutely) the government does not regulate purely private conduct -- except, however, where private conduct is deemed to be within the public sphere. Thus, requiring automobile insurance (though entered into by and between private individuals and insurance companies) IS A PUBLIC MATTER.
OK, thank you for proving my point.
And also, get mass transit. The Interstates are the Federal Government. Without them there would be a lot more poor people.
That's exactly what I said, there's more after the "...". Don't do that.Most of the people who get refunds (something I miss getting every year) will qualify for the expansion in Medicaid and will take advantage of that, if they don't already have private insurance through their job (more jobs are offering health insurance due to the ACA, I put up a thread about it earlier this year). While people like me, who don't get refunds, life won't change at all in that regard.
Let me correct you, it's getting to be a separate job itself but when I sent that post, you hadn't yet answered Que's post. I hadn't attributed anything to you yet except the words you used.
You're for "regulating" fraud and harm caused by the industry and that's fine but that would mean government intervention. So, to be clear, you don't have a problem with government intervention and manipulation just the tactics themselves.
You randomly pick the Great Depression as a benchmark but I can't pick a random stat from that same time?
We don't have they type of involved mass transit of a NYC but when gas went up to $4 for the first time a few years ago, a record for bus riders was set locally so using mass transit does not equate to being poor.
That is one of the reasons that is making people poor. And that is from capitalism and the private marketplace.
Pres. Obama's policies is what is making people poor. Not capitalism, but govt intervention! And ultimately, it will be the mechanism for increasing medical costs. This is just another case where the govt cure is worse than the govt disease.
I've tried to respond to this a couple of times, without success. Time is not cooperating thismorning and one response was somehow lost after I clicked send.
Nevertheless - - I should have been more specific in my question before; my apologies. My question was really meant to follow-up on your notion that those who have no health insurance and cannot otherwise afford to pay, should be denied care/treatment.
In that regard, my thoughts go to the people in this county who were without insurance or means and, had the government not provided for treatment, vaccines, etc., (i.e., the polio menace of the 50s/60s) would have been decimated. What would have been the plight of the country had they been abandoned by the system that extracted their healthy labor and pushed them ailingly, aside ??? - What would be the plight of this country had those people, her producers, the cogs in her economic engine, been decimated ???
While I think it purely fantasy to believe that if you build a ballfield amidst the corn, old ballplayers from the past will come - - I do believe that if you permit certain conditions to exist, certain adverse results will definitely visit (wasn't that among the lessons from the industrial revolution?).
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
You have some very convoluted ways to rationalize violating basic individual rights.
You have shown no evidence that having the State force people to enter a private contract with a private auto insurance company makes anyone safer or furthers any so-called "public interest" which is like saying nothing at all. People are still far more likely to die on the road, than most any other way. Car collisions still occur. People still drive drunk. Auto insurance stops nothing, so there is no reason for the government to force it on people, other than as a race-based tax (because car insurance rates are almost always higher in black communities). Yet, you are defending this.
Putting dollars in the pockets of private auto insurance companies does nothing for anyone's safety, other than that of the safety of these private businesses. But, it certainly places black people in a far more vulnerable position of harassment by police, who use these "laws" to criminalize black people who drive.
I think you will believe any garbage as long as the government says, "it's for your safety."
Well, believe it or not, some people know how to take care of themselves, without government interference.
Now, the government wants to force people to buy health insurance, because "it's for your safety" because the government says poor people need it.
Did the government ask poor people if this is the best solution?
Did Obama conduct any studies to find out what is the most effective care for poor people?
Did Obama have any facts or evidence why poor people were denied health care?
Were poor people protesting, marching, or petitioning the government for this health care?
No. This forced health care was created by the same health insurance companies that denied health care to the poor in the first place.
I am amazed that someone can rationalize the government using force, to compel a private individual to enter into a private contract.
The facts are staring you in the face and you invent the most obtuse logic to ignore them.
Mandating automobile insurance isnt about physical safety (that's what government mandated-seatbelts and airbags are for), it's about financial safety. So when you tear up your car and someone else's property or body, someone will pay for it.
You can avoid all that by not driving on the public roads.
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
The ACA isnt about poor people getting health care, it's about working class/middle class people getting health care. If you're poor enough, Medicaid will cover you so poor people can get coverage. It's those who make too much for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance that this is aimed at because those people will still end up needing care.
They're not my reasons, they are among the reasons of the various state legislatures across this country that have instituted mandatory automobile liability insurance. And, it would be your rationalization too if you were without coverage and someone totaled your shiney wheels imported from Detroit.
Recognize when you're either out-of-your-league or in over-your-head.
I don't have to show you shit.
Those states that have mandatory automobile liability coverage have already made those findings of facts and conclusions of law, at the time they adopted that coverage mandate.Save it pally. You're arguing in the wrong forum. Take it to the Michigan legislature. Or, better still, start your own insurance company, Anarchy United -- offering premium-free coverage!
Mayne stop your driveling. If you want to drive, buy some damn insurance. I don't want you on the highway smoking whatever that shit is you're on in this thread and run into/over some precious black soul who can never recover a dime from your broke-ass for the permanent injuries and damages you caused.
and thats why they understand the need for insurance for risky behavior; so that won't have to rely upon government to do what YOU FAILED TO DO.Don't know; but they'll be fucked-up if they depend upon your no insurance having ass.
Hey buddy (LOL) why don't you go down to the local emergency room in one of your finer Detroit hospitals and ask one of those poor people presenting for treatment those questions -- and ask him/her to give up his coverage (if he has any).
Oh, and reserve yourself a bed, when you do!
. . . and "obtuse" that shit.
What the hell is financial safety? So, you admit auto insurance has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe. It only has to do with digging in someone's pocket. Yeah, that's why people want government.
Did you know, there are these things called lawsuits? So, if you want to seek damages against someone, you just sue them. You may not be a lawyer, but you can sue someone and you don't need auto insurance to do it.
So, what exactly is the purpose of auto insurance again?
Your solution is to punish people who have never caused any damage, loss, or injury to anyone just because they didn't pay some tax to some white auto insurance company. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
So, instead of unemployed poor, this health care is geared toward working poor. The net result is the government is forcing the poor to enter private contracts with a private party.
They're not my reasons, they are among the reasons of the various state legislatures across this country that have instituted mandatory automobile liability insurance. And, it would be your rationalization too if you were without coverage and someone totaled your shiney wheels imported from Detroit.
Recognize when you're either out-of-your-league or in over-your-head.
I don't have to show you shit.
Save it pally. You're arguing in the wrong forum. Take it to the Michigan legislature. Or, better still, start your own insurance company, Anarchy United -- offering premium-free coverage!
Mayne stop your driveling. If you want to drive, buy some damn insurance. I don't want you on the highway smoking whatever that shit is you're on in this thread and run into/over some precious black soul who can never recover a dime from your broke-ass for the permanent injuries and damages you caused.
Don't know; but they'll be fucked-up if they depend upon your no insurance having ass.
Hey buddy (LOL) why don't you go down to the local emergency room in one of your finer Detroit hospitals and ask one of those poor people presenting for treatment those questions -- and ask him/her to give up his coverage (if he has any).
Oh, and reserve yourself a bed, when you do!
. . . and "obtuse" that shit.
Here you go again acting like just because the government said so, it must be true.
Did you know so-called laws passed by the Michigan legislature are and have been invalidated by the Michigan courts? So, just because it hasn't been challenged, does not mean it will stand up in a court of law. I bet you didn't know that. And, people have won challenging these stupid forced insurance laws.
Who said Obama's health care plan will solve any of the problems you mention?
You don't know. All you are doing is assuming because Barack Obama did it. There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that this makes any damn sense. But, the fact is it violates the freedom to contract. That is FACT!
Instead of creating a solution to protect people's rights and provide health care, Obama chooses the option to deprive people of yet another freedom.
It started with auto insurance (I am always amazed at how people try to rationalize the stupidity of this), and now has expanded with Obama's health care.
This is what you call socializing costs and destroys the independence of the individual and individual rights.
But, as long as Obama says so, I guess slavery is ok.
What do you mean "admit"? You're the only fool saying that in the first place. You created a false narrative that you could argue against successfully.
Suing someone doesn't mean you will get anything and it's not like the court system isnt already overflowing in many districts. So I sue, win but the person sued doesn't have any money, then what?
Here's another one that supposedly hates governemnt intervention but let them talk long enough, he loves government intervention too.
Already answered. You don't have to like the answer but that's not my problem.
It's not punishment, you imbecile, it's protection. When some asshole who isnt insured hits my car, my insurance covers me and pays any medical costs and gets my car repaired or replaced.
"White auto insurance company". Hell, if you can get a good rate at a Black one, go for it.
The alternative was either massive, real government takeover of the health care system (not completely against that idea) or the status quo where those people already entered in those contracts are paying for our care and the care of those not entered in similar contracts.
You act as if you are entitled to drive and others aren't because you are better than them because you want to be a part of the auto insurance scam.
So, if there are no guarantees to getting paid when you get in a collision, and driving is that scary to you because others don't buy auto insurance, then don't drive. You seem so eager to tell other people what to do, why don't you take your own advice? You won't have to worry about other people who don't buy your precious auto insurance.
The only "benefits" forced auto insurance provides is to the private auto insurance companies. By forcing everyone who drives to pay for it, the so-called "financial" benefits are lost through a HUGE enforcement structure. It's like using a nuclear bomb to kill an ant. It damages everyone while helping no one.
By your logic, we must take away everyone's freedom, just so you feel "protected" in the pocket. That is not the purpose of government. Government is designed to protect individual rights. Forced auto insurance does not protect ANY individual right. You do not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property and their lives just because it might affect you. In fact, forcing someone to buy auto insurance removes an individual right.
Justify this stupidity any way you like, but it still violates the freedom to contract, and you have not provided any argument against that.
False dilemma.
You ask, I can hit you 2 times in the head, or 3 times in the knee? Which do you want?
How about you don't hit me at all and just leave me alone.
That's just stupid and more of your sense of perpetual victimhood than anything I've posted.What? I don't have problem buying auto insurance, that would be you so you would need to be the one not driving.
You type a lot for someone with nothing to say.
Knowing beforehand that you're an idiot, I never attempted to be persuasive, just realistic and factual.
Auto insurance isn't about protecting your rights, its about protecting your property and health.
That's why I hate talking to other people's children. That "false dilemma" happens every day in this country but it doesn't fit into your nonsensical rhetoric so it's not real.
What? I don't have problem buying auto insurance, that would be you so you would need to be the one not driving.
You type a lot for someone with nothing to say.
Knowing beforehand that you're an idiot, I never attempted to be persuasive, just realistic and factual.
Auto insurance isn't about protecting your rights, its about protecting your property and health.
That's why I hate talking to other people's children. That "false dilemma" happens every day in this country but it doesn't fit into your nonsensical rhetoric so it's not real.
So, you provide no facts, whether in law or in history, but you, in your mind, you have presented "facts."
What are your facts?
I presented the FACT, that government exists to protect rights.
I presented the FACT, that law exists to enforce those rights.
I presented the FACT, that auto insurance violates the freedom to contract.
I presented the FACT, that legislatures do not decide the law, the courts do.
I presented the FACT, that forcing someone to buy auto insurance against their will, compels someone into a private contract.
I presented the FACT, that to protect individual rights, you cannot compel someone to enter a private contract.
All you present is your willingness to be a slave to the State and Obama, and just because that's what YOU WANT, everyone else is supposed to go along.
If you are too afraid to drive, then don't drive. Take your own advice.
Unfortunately, Obama said that now you have to pay to breathe, because it is for the good of the health insurance companies, and you go along like a good slave.
Believe it or not, no one gives a flying fuck about your "opinion" and what you feel. Unless you are willing to go to court to back it up, you are just full of shit.
I go to court and know how the real world works. Maybe when you become a grown man and are willing to fight your own battles, you won't have to whine and beg the government to save you and tell you what to do, everyday of your life as a coward.
Wall Street speculators (Peter Shift) are causing wild swings in oil. We didn't have this before trickle down, removal of regulations from the parasites.
President Obama is saving people money. The original topic!
Since you have a crystal ball, what's up with the price of gold?
That's why I put "..."
That means there is more.
"Regulating fraud and malicious-and-negligent harm cause by the industry" is a reactive stance by government. It works to tell someone they took an action and made a choice that was wrong. Plus it only looks for criminal acts. Someone should go to jail if my regulatory ideas ruled the day. They won't just pay a fine and admit no wrong doings.
Don't lump it with your version that lets the biggest companies write their own regulations, and punishes people for not taking an action or doing it in an unapproved way even if that way doesn't hurt anyone.
I didn't randomly pick, I stated it as the start of the time where market manipulation happened without shame. Before the Great Depression, it wasn't widespread for a politician's whole election platform to be how much he will interfere with markets. I didn't pick an arbitrary time, nor an arbitrary subject matter. Or do you think I'm equating healthcare deficiencies with people get old and die.
Can you point out where you got that from me?
You and I have different idea of what this country was like throughout history. Whatever time frame you attribute to the start of a more moral society, there was a time before it. Outside of slavery, I personally can't cite a time where people were "abandoned by the system that extracted their healthy labor and pushed them ailingly, aside."
You cite a timeframe, polio especially was a problem before 1950, but people were taken care of without a federal government program. Private individuals and states cared for the vast majority of these people. In the 50's, a vaccine was made available and help eradicate the problem in America. The difference in the time reflect changes in medical advancements not a change in morality. At no point would I generally assess history as pushing ailing people aside and not taking care of them while they suffered.
Certain beneficial results will visit as well. The nature of people is to ignore cost-benefit analysis and only focus on one or the other to suit their pre-conceived notions about a topic. We all do it but the key is to know you're doing it. And the lessons I took from the Industrial Revolution is government can't advance standards of living like free enterprise.
Overall, I'm not sure if you guys think this way about America because of the way whites treated black people, but the white people generally didn't treat each other that way. Generally, it was broken up in ethnic groups and you could really rely on people in your own ethnic group to not let you starve or go without medical care. In reality, Roosevelt didn't create the activity of Social Security, he just federalized it. It was already widespread when he decided to mandate it to share money across the states. A good book on this is Thomas Sowell's Ethnic America, early 1980's.
Black people didn't have the luxury of the dynamic of taking care of themselves because of economic and political oppression, but outside of black people it was very common.
Of course that's what it means. In this case it means that if you quote the entire thing instead of cherrypicking and distorting the answer, my quote means something different.
I'm for that but how often do we need to see the industry abuse people before the government, which is still "we the people", before we stop reacting and take the initiative to stop the abuse.
Where is this mindset that paying for healthcare coverage is punishment coming from?
Life expectancy was around 57 before the Depression so people weren't growing old and dying.
But if you were referring to Roosevelt, he had to run on interfering with the markets because allowing them to run unchecked was a proven failure. Somehow with the same thing having just happened, people seem to miss those "good ole days".
It might be this post here.
So you think as a nation we would revert back to those days of yore?