ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Aradhus]

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong (because, you know, you guys have to be asked to do that... you'd never do that on your own)... Obamacare is not the public option. It's "the government helps you purchase health insurance from health insurance companies." It's kind of like Medicare, but for more people. It's almost like a sort of bailout for health insurance companies.

The public option was simply another health insurance option, provided by the government - ie competition for the monopolies the Health insurance companies have in each state.

It wouldn't have been subsidized at all by government. You wanted insurance, you paid the premiums into the public option like you do with insurance companies.

And I wouldn't call it(obamacare) a bailout, more like an investment or bribe, blowjob, I'm sure you get the jist.

[Night Strike]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

By the way, what was the count to pass it during the last Congress? Something like 222-218? Sounds like many more people wanted it gone than wanted it in place. Elections have consequences: the 2010 election provided more votes for the repeal than those who originally voted FOR the legislation.

[notyou2]

So what does this mean Night Leader?

Nothing changes right?

[Orwell]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

Oh the irony.

A symbolic, sham vote.
Yay for partisan pettiness!
/roll

[HapSmo19]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

Oh the irony.

A symbolic, sham vote.
Yay for partisan pettiness!
/roll

Partisan pettiness? lol

Why don't we just feed the starving people of the world by mandating they buy food?

And while we're at it, we can solve the homelessness by mandating they find a place to live! Damn, I'm so enlightened.

[Orwell]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

Oh the irony.

A symbolic, sham vote.
Yay for partisan pettiness!
/roll

Partisan pettiness? lol

Why don't we just feed the starving people of the world by mandating they buy food?

And while we're at it, we can solve the homelessness by mandating they find a place to live! Damn, I'm so enlightened.

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Oh I am sure that got your attention now, enlightened one.

In fact, insurance - all insurance - is not mandated by the US Constitution so clearly it must be illegal.

Ban it all - and mandate that people take responsibility for all their actions and the actions they have no control over! /roll

Sorry, your logic is extreme.
I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe we are in this together.

[Mr_Adams]

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Oh I am sure that got your attention now, enlightened one.

In fact, insurance - all insurance - is not mandated by the US Constitution so clearly it must be illegal.

Ban it all - and mandate that people take responsibility for all their actions and the actions they have no control over! /roll

Sorry, your logic is extreme.
I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe we are in this together.

Government employees get health benefits, just like any other job. that is COMPLETELY unrelated to the topic. if you would like to discuss the over-compensation of government employees, however, you may feel free to open another thread.

Just because something isn't mandated doesn't make it illegal. We don't live in an all-encompassing dictatorship (yet). Getting insurance IS taking responsibility for your actions, by having a fall back plan. Health coverage JUST IN CASE. that's the idea.

YOUR ideology (I won't even go so far as to grant it the title of "logic") is extreme. We have nothing against our fellow Americans. Our fellow Americans are the ones who get off their butts and work for what they need, and sometimes they need help. we have plans in place for them besides the Obamacare-habloo. It is the people who don't try that will benefit from this that really pisses people off. Those people are NOT my fellow Americans, they are pitiful doppelgangers. Americans in name only, never in spirit.

[Orwell]

You obviously missed the point: one extreme rationale does not excuse another.
But hey, your ideology is more twisted - it not only lacks empathy, it seems to deny one basic fact: we all fail in the end.

[Mr_Adams]

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong (because, you know, you guys have to be asked to do that... you'd never do that on your own)... Obamacare is not the public option. It's "the government helps you purchase health insurance from health insurance companies." It's kind of like Medicare, but for more people. It's almost like a sort of bailout for health insurance companies.

The public option was simply another health insurance option, provided by the government - ie competition for the monopolies the Health insurance companies have in each state.

It wouldn't have been subsidized at all by government. You wanted insurance, you paid the premiums into the public option like you do with insurance companies.

And I wouldn't call it(obamacare) a bailout, more like an investment or bribe, blowjob, I'm sure you get the jist.

The irony behind the monopolies insurance companies have in each state that the government would be trying to fix is that it is the government who causes the state lines to act as walls for insurance companies to create monopolies within.

Under a free system, nobody can acquire a monopoly on anything

[HapSmo19]

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Thanks for a perfect example of partisan pettiness.

[saxitoxin]

Repeal passed by the House 245-189! (Giffords being the only member not present.)

Oh the irony.

A symbolic, sham vote.
Yay for partisan pettiness!
/roll

Partisan pettiness? lol

Why don't we just feed the starving people of the world by mandating they buy food?

And while we're at it, we can solve the homelessness by mandating they find a place to live! Damn, I'm so enlightened.

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Oh I am sure that got your attention now, enlightened one.

In fact, insurance - all insurance - is not mandated by the US Constitution so clearly it must be illegal.

Ban it all - and mandate that people take responsibility for all their actions and the actions they have no control over! /roll

Sorry, your logic is extreme.

I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe we are in this together.

reductio ad absurdum

I can only imagine Hapsmo, likewise, disagrees with your assertions that all pet owners should be required to purchase veterinary insurance, that all males above the age of 14 should be required to wear a condom 24 hours/day in case opportunity arises, and that no one should be permitted to go outside without first taking an 8-hour falling meteorite awareness and safety certification course.

Sorry, your logic is extreme. I do not know what you have against your fellow Americans, but I believe they are in this together.

[Orwell]

I have a better idea.

Stop providing health insurance to government employees - from our elected officials to our civil servants - on all levels.

And why stop there? As a society that objects to "mandating" health care, we should demand that the military stop providing medical care to any and all service members.
They understand the risk, why should they expect us to take care of them?

Thanks for a perfect example of partisan pettiness.

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

[Night Strike]

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU the right to force another person to give up their time or property to provide for YOU? Every single right, except for one, granted by the Constitution does not require any other person to give up ANYTHING in order for you to exercise your rights. The only right the Constitution allows anybody to take from another person is the right to a trial by jury. If no other right allows you to take from your fellow citizens, then you do NOT have the right to force them to provide you with things such as health care or health insurance. You forcing another person to provide you with something infringes on their rights.

[Orwell]

No, my example shows why your logic is extreme.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU the right to force another person to give up their time or property to provide for YOU? Every single right, except for one, granted by the Constitution does not require any other person to give up ANYTHING in order for you to exercise your rights. The only right the Constitution allows anybody to take from another person is the right to a trial by jury. If no other right allows you to take from your fellow citizens, then you do NOT have the right to force them to provide you with things such as health care or health insurance. You forcing another person to provide you with something infringes on their rights.

By your logic, anything government provides to it's people infringes on their rights. Roads, education, a military.
It's an absurd argument. The framers intended to protect natural rights and liberties.

In the modern world, it is a natural right to provide basic health care.

While the Constitutional argument provides a good excuse to avoid the modern issues of the health care debate, it ignores reality.
For example, the 14th Amendment is clear about naturalization - but that doesn't stop the same people arguing against health care to attempt to deny immigrants their constitutional rights. The Constitution gives plenty of room to government to provide care for it's citizens.

[thegreekdog]

Tobinov - I have some questions:

(1) Can you enumerate some rights that are new in the modern world?
(2) Can you enumerate some rights generally? Are these rights enumerated in a document (i.e. the US Constitution) or are they merely undocumented, yet understood, rights.
(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.
(4) When you say it's someone's right to have basic health care, do you mean that it's their right to attempt to secure basic health care for themselves, or do you mean it's their right for the government to provide basic health care to its citizens? For example, there is a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't provide each citizen with firearms. As another example, it's a right to free speech, but the government does not provide each of us with a platform upon which to speak.

[Orwell]

(1) Can you enumerate some rights that are new in the modern world?

They are not new rights, but modern views of inalienable human rights - equal rights based on race, sexuality, gender are good examples that at the time of the framing of the constitution were unimaginable.

(2) Can you enumerate some rights generally? Are these rights enumerated in a document (i.e. the US Constitution) or are they merely undocumented, yet understood, rights.

I make the same distinction as Thomas Paine or the framers themselves - there are inherent, inalienable human rights that no government can bestow or deny and there are the given rights - privileges that come the responsibilities inherent in citizenship/social contract.

(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

(4) When you say it's someone's right to have basic health care, do you mean that it's their right to attempt to secure basic health care for themselves, or do you mean it's their right for the government to provide basic health care to its citizens? For example, there is a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't provide each citizen with firearms. As another example, it's a right to free speech, but the government does not provide each of us with a platform upon which to speak.

I think you are conflating different types of rights - the right to bear arms is given right to possess a weapon, and the right to free speech, religion, public assembly, are rights inherent in humans living in a free and open society - in other words, rights government cannot deny because it did not give them.

I view the right of self-preservation as an inherent right - and as part of the citizenship/social contract, government as representative of ALL interests, maintains a society that provides and protects. For me, this is why government should provide basic health care and I consider the mandate argument to be distraction.

I hope this answers your questions.

[thegreekdog]

They are not new rights, but modern views of inalienable human rights - equal rights based on race, sexuality, gender are good examples that at the time of the framing of the constitution were unimaginable.

I don't disagree. However, typically when there are modern views on inalienable human rights, there is some addition to the US Constitution, whether through amendment (typical of the 19th and early 20th century) or through Supreme Court jurisprudence (typical of the later 20th century) or through legislative fiat (meaning, of course, that at least the representatives of the citizenry agree that such a right exists). So while I agree that equal rights based on race, sexualily and gender were not imaginable to the framers of the Constitution, these rights are either included in the Constitution by amendment or jurisprudence or are supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the United States. Health care for all citizens has not been included in the Constitution by amendment or jurisprudence and is not supported by the majority of the elected representatives of the United States. Therefore, I would not call it an inalienable right.

I make the same distinction as Thomas Paine or the framers themselves - there are inherent, inalienable human rights that no government can bestow or deny and there are the given rights - privileges that come the responsibilities inherent in citizenship/social contract.

Again, I agree that there are certain rights that come with the social contract between the citizens and their government. I also agree that these rights change. What I don't agree with is the characterization of health care (or health insurance) as being typical of these rights. Further, as I'll discuss further below, health care is not like any other human right. In order for the government to bestow health care on its citizens, it must take something away from other citizens. As far as I can tell, there is no other "inalienable right" that works in this manner.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

We are in disagreement about the definition of basic health care. In my mind, basic health care involves being able to be treated when faced with personal injury or disease. To take that a step further, all people in the United States have access to at least my definition of basic health care. Perhaps your definition should be matched with something other than basic health care.

As to the last question, you didn't really answer it. I posed two alternative scenarios and, as you correctly posted, one is a right that the government cannot deny to its citizens, and which we already have - namely, the freedom to engage in contracts with others for the provision of health care. The other alternative is the one, I believe, you are in support of - namely, the right for people to expect the government to provide them with health care.

So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

In other words, I do not think that the government provision of healthcare is a "right." I think the supporters of government-provided health care would like it to be framed as a "right" because it makes a better soundbite. I would say the right to be provided with healthcare is comparable to the right to be provided with police protection. As far as I know, police protection is not a right guaranteed by any Constitution and in as much as its part of the social contract, the citizens of the United States have determined that police protection is of sufficient importance to give up tax dollars in order to have such police protection (in other words, it's almost a contracted "right" rather than one that is "inalienable"). Therefore, I do not agree that healthcare is an inalienable right.

With all that being said, I'm still not sure whether I support government-provided health insurance (or health care) or not. As I've indicated in this thread (or somewhere else), I would like to see this. The only example in the United States is Medicare, and that has been widely panned on both sides of the aisle... but, I don't want to get into a discussion of Medicare.

What I do not support, however, is the current healthcare plan as it exists. I find it to simply be a deal between the Democrats in the legislature and the health insurance companies.

[Night Strike]

By your logic, anything government provides to it's people infringes on their rights. Roads, education, a military.

Those aren't rights enumerated by the Constitution. In fact, out of those three items, only the creation of a military is stated in the Constitution to be a proper role of the federal government. Any state can enact policies such as health care, but it's not the proper role of the federal government to do so. Furthermore, health care is never mentioned as a right in the Constitution because it infringes on the rights of others, so proponents of that viewpoint put it forward purely for political points without a Constitutional basis.

[saxitoxin]

(3) Can you define "basic health care?" This phrase confuses me.

Immediate and preventative actions to maintain and preserve one's life and well-being.

You're 24 years late to that party. This was guaranteed in the Emergency Medical Treatment Act of 1986 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1395dd.html) and ancillary legislation.

So, that's resolved then.

Now what shall we talk about in this thread? I vote we discuss V the television series. Now that we know the Visitors just want to sex-up humans should we be siding with them and against that meddling Catholic priest who wants to stop them? Typical.

[mpjh]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

[HapSmo19]

...and killing babies.

[saxitoxin]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

I bet the Broncos also wish they could move the goal posts each time the other team had the ball. Then they'd never lose! Yay!

[thegreekdog]

No, basic health care includes preventative care

I think we have different definitions of preventative care. My definition of preventative care is "prevent the patient from dying." And we already have that.

[Orwell]

Well, I fundamentally view things differently - and to the detractors, I clarified my opinion. I am not asking for your approval or your cynical rationale for maintaining the status quo. You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

@Saxitoxin: no, it's not resolved then unless gross oversimplification of the issue is the goal of proving or disproving the necessity to reform and provide health care in the United States.

...
So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

...

And I think you are setting up a false comparisons between given rights, inherent rights, and the rights and responsibilities of a social contract - while fundamentally ignoring the necessity of outlining such varied rights.

[thegreekdog]

Well, I fundamentally view things differently - and to the detractors, I clarified my opinion. I am not asking for your approval or your cynical rationale for maintaining the status quo. You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine.

...
So, I make the following comparisons:

- The "right to own a gun" as compared to the "right to be provided with a gun"
- The "right to free speech" as compared to the "right to be provided with a pulpit"
- The "right to engage in contracts with others for the provision of healthcare" as compared the "right to be provided with healthcare"

...

And I think you are setting up a false comparisons between given rights, inherent rights, and the rights and responsibilities of a social contract - while fundamentally ignoring the necessity of outlining such varied rights.

I guess you do not want to debate.

A couple of points of clarification:

(1) If you are posting in these forums, I assume you want to either discuss/debate or get approval. I acknowledge that cynical rationale being what it is, that's not something you'd want.
(2) I will change my opinion. I have changed my opinions based on posts and information in these very forums. In fact, I used to be stridently opposed to government-provided universal healthcare. I am now willing to see what happens.
(3) I'm not setting up false comparisons. All of the comparisons above are valid. The first is an inherent right (or perhaps a given one, depending on stance on things such as gun control), the second is not a right at all. If there's anything you can glean from this discussion, please take that as the one thing.

If you'd like to continue the debate...

I believe you think that basic healthcare (as you define it) is an inalienable right (or, to use the term you've indicated above, an "inherent" right). I've always operated under the assumption that inalienable rights were those that were "granted from God" (or nature, depending upon one's belief in God and/or nature)... life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that. Now, if you tie in healthcare to the "life" part of that phrase, you could make the argument that healthcare is part of the inalienable right of life, but then we'd get into a discussion of whether we're talking about basic healthcare as I define it, or whether we're talking about basic healthcare as you define it.

In sum, I think our differences do not stem from a disagreement about the role of government in healthcare (although, certainly, I have my opinions on that). I think our differences here stem from your determination that healthcare is a basic right and something that is inalienable or inherent and I think it's more akin to police protection. And, like you said, I do think I'm right in that regard.