ObamaCare

[warmonger1981]

When you buy a car no insurance needed. Its when you voluntarily drive the car you are required to then have insurance. The person driving is not forced to drive they volunteer to. People technically done NEED cars there are other forms of transportation. Wether it is fair is another story.

[stahrgazer]

Actually, the only health care the government should be buying is for veterans. All other health care funding should be private money, not taxpayer dollars.

Actually, the only healthcare the government "should" buy for veterans is for injuries related to their service. Anything else is just as "socialism" as medicare, medicaid, or subsidized insurance.

[spurgistan]

You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

There's always the option of not getting the treatment (which will happen anyway once the government resorts to rationing).

Ah, rationing. Conservatives love to talk about spending tax dollars efficiently -- but not when it comes to health care costs!

Actually, the only health care the government should be buying is for veterans. All other health care funding should be private money, not taxpayer dollars.

Source?

[BigBallinStalin]

What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

(a)-(d) > 1%.

$1.1T over 10 years? Expenditures are imagined to be cost-savings? Taxes will dig into your income, no matter how this is twisted... What about the future costs of paying interest on debt? It's not like any of this significantly contributes to lowering deficit spending. Future generations of Americans--especially the young--will be pay much more later than today. Does that "picture taken as a whole" seem enjoyable?

Does the National Healthcare plan = MA's plan? Will there be the same benefits and costs? Doubt it.

Since the government is doing this, then you don't seem to concerned about the outcomes. Any corporation which forces people to pay for its services would be a different story. I'm just pointing out the double standard many seem to apply in such cases. As long as roughly 50% of eligible voters can express their uninformed opinions on "political markets," then they seem to feel good enough about it.

You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

You do realize that you are required by law to have car insurance, right? Do corporations create the laws or do politicians?

Right. Now you are required by law to have health insurance. I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

1. People react differently toward the involuntary exchanges of government compared to voluntary exchanges with corporations.
2. There's a double standard here.
3. JJ: Yeah, but corporations force you to buy car insurance.
4. No, they don't; they don't make the laws, they don't have security give you tickets and/or bring you to jail, etc.
5. JJ: I don't get it.
6. BBS summarizes and hopes JJ gets it.

[thegreekdog]

No, they don't; they don't make the laws

Hi. You may remember me from all of your posts. How's it going? I'm just, um, a little worried that you've forgotten about me given this statement. I hope you haven't forgotten about me. I love you BBS.

Love,

Rent-Seeking

PS Corporate Cronyism says hi too!

[BigBallinStalin]

No, they don't; they don't make the laws

Hi. You may remember me from all of your posts. How's it going? I'm just, um, a little worried that you've forgotten about me given this statement. I hope you haven't forgotten about me. I love you BBS.

Love,

Rent-Seeking

PS Corporate Cronyism says hi too!

I'm glad you mentioned it, but select corporations which can effectively use the government still ultimately rely on the government to maintain that arrangement. Thus, the problem lies with government---but here's the kicker: most people don't like reaching that conclusion. They'll rail against corporations while bending over for politicians in expectation of getting a wet gift.

[thegreekdog]

No, they don't; they don't make the laws

Hi. You may remember me from all of your posts. How's it going? I'm just, um, a little worried that you've forgotten about me given this statement. I hope you haven't forgotten about me. I love you BBS.

Love,

Rent-Seeking

PS Corporate Cronyism says hi too!

I'm glad you mentioned it, but select corporations which can effectively use the government still ultimately rely on the government to maintain that arrangement. Thus, the problem lies with government---but here's the kicker: most people don't like reaching that conclusion. They'll rail against corporations while bending over for politicians in expectation of getting a wet gift.

And vice versa, I might add.

[AndyDufresne]

And mice purses, I might add.




--Andy

[jj3044]

1. People react differently toward the involuntary exchanges of government compared to voluntary exchanges with corporations.
2. There's a double standard here.
3. JJ: Yeah, but corporations force you to buy car insurance.
4. No, they don't; they don't make the laws, they don't have security give you tickets and/or bring you to jail, etc.
5. JJ: I don't get it.
6. BBS summarizes and hopes JJ gets it.

LOL, if you think I didn't understand your point, you really don't understand mine.

1. Agreed.
2-4. You obviously missed my sentiment. I didn't say corporations. You did (in the section I bolded). I said "corporations" in quotes because you said that corporations force people to pay for their services. I know it isn't the corporations, it is the law. That wasn't what you were saying, and that is why I put it in quotations.

My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.

[Night Strike]

My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.

Because it's completely antithetical to freedom for the government to force you to buy a product simply because you live. Furthermore, the people who DO have enough money to cover car accident expenses do not have to buy insurance, yet there aren't even those options under mandatory Obamacare. It's either turn your money over to the insurance company or the government....we aren't allowed to spend our own money the way we choose.

[Symmetry]

My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.

Because it's completely antithetical to freedom for the government to force you to buy a product simply because you live. Furthermore, the people who DO have enough money to cover car accident expenses do not have to buy insurance, yet there aren't even those options under mandatory Obamacare. It's either turn your money over to the insurance company or the government....we aren't allowed to spend our own money the way we choose.

So choose a country without taxation or government. They're mostly called failed states. You'll be very free there.

[Night Strike]

My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.

Because it's completely antithetical to freedom for the government to force you to buy a product simply because you live. Furthermore, the people who DO have enough money to cover car accident expenses do not have to buy insurance, yet there aren't even those options under mandatory Obamacare. It's either turn your money over to the insurance company or the government....we aren't allowed to spend our own money the way we choose.

So choose a country without taxation or government. They're mostly called failed states. You'll be very free there.

I never said I wanted to go without those things. I've always stated that our government should be limited to its founding document: the Constitution. It shouldn't continue expanding its spending, regulations, and power into perpetuity. When it can mandate purchases only because a person breathes, it has moved well beyond its authority.

[warmonger1981]

Dles anyone and I mean ANYONE even know whats in the bill. NO.. So why complain for it as no one even knows what its all about. Unless people truly know what the bill says the people arguing for it might not like some of the hidden provisions.this is just a government from to TAKE CARE OF YOU. AKA have total control of your health. Before you know it health providers will tell you how to live or the government will probably tax you on being overweight or having to high blood pressure.

[Symmetry]

My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.

Because it's completely antithetical to freedom for the government to force you to buy a product simply because you live. Furthermore, the people who DO have enough money to cover car accident expenses do not have to buy insurance, yet there aren't even those options under mandatory Obamacare. It's either turn your money over to the insurance company or the government....we aren't allowed to spend our own money the way we choose.

So choose a country without taxation or government. They're mostly called failed states. You'll be very free there.

I never said I wanted to go without those things. I've always stated that our government should be limited to its founding document: the Constitution. It shouldn't continue expanding its spending, regulations, and power into perpetuity. When it can mandate purchases only because a person breathes, it has moved well beyond its authority.

Even then you wouldn't be able to spend "your" money in the way that you choose. That would be antithetical to freedom, would it not?

[Night Strike]

Even then you wouldn't be able to spend "your" money in the way that you choose. That would be antithetical to freedom, would it not?

There are specific things the federal government is tasked to cover. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can be forced to buy a product or hand over my money to the government instead. It is my choice where I spend my money, and the money I have to pay in taxes is supposed to go to Constitutional tasks of the federal government, not unconstitutional ones. Freedom doesn't exist when people have to turn over everything to the government for them to then dole out what they think each person needs.


And speaking of the completely wrong role of government, at least this Democrat admits that his goal is to make sure the government pays for everything and completely removes personal and familial responsibility from the citizens:

(CNSNews.com) - It's the job of government, not families, to take care of grandma, says Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

McDermott, appearing on C-SPAN Tuesday, said he opposes cuts to Medicare, the government program that paid his own parents' medical bills: "Now we have a Medicare program, where my father -- and my father lived to 93, my mother to 97 -- and my brothers and sisters and I did nothing for them, except pay their taxes."

McDermott said there is no reason to cut Medicare benefits for senior citizens, even though spending will escalate as millions of Baby Boomers come into the program: "So we simply have got to deal with the fact that the population is going to mean more spending," he said. "It's not that spending is out of control."

He said Republicans want to raise the retirement age to save taxpayer dollars. And what would seniors do then? They would do what they did before Medicare -- which is "turn to their children" to pay their medical bills.

McDermott pointed to his own grandmother as an example:

"When I grew up, my grandmother had four daughters, and she spent three months with each one of them. And she had no Medicare, she had no Social Security. And she lived with her daughters. And we took care of her. I mean, I got thrown out of my bedroom. My bedroom became grandma's bedroom, I slept on the couch in the living room, because that's the way families took care of their seniors before 1964.

"Now we have a Medidare program, where my father -- and my father lived to 93, my mother to 97 -- and my brothers and sisters and I did nothing for them, except pay their taxes.

"One year, we gave my mom a Christmas gift, a hearing aid. A hearing aid cost about $800, a lot of money. So all of us chipped in and we bought my ma a hearing aid. That was her Christmas gift...Medicare doesn't cover that.

"And so as you get older and lose your hearing, good luck, you're on your own. That's what we say to seniors with their hearing problems. And my view is, that we're a better country than that. We can find a way to do it and make the system more efficient."

McDermott says Democrats are "going to find the money to cover all the senior citizens in this country under the Medicare program at 65." He said there are "all kinds of ways" to save money in the Medicare program, "but it doesn't mean taking benefits away from senior citizens."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-mcdermott-thanks-medicare-my-brothers-and-sisters-and-i-did-nothing-our-parents