ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Snorri1234]

Snorri

I am not going to explain why we need government to provide for national defense and a system of transportation and commerce. If you need that explained I can't help you because I am not a special ed teacher.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you to explain why the government shouldn't pay for health care.

[rockfist]

Because people can do it for themselves and have for centuries in our country. Sure not everyone, but not everyone can do any one of a number of things such as tying their shoes. Healthcare is seductive because it sounds good, but there are all kinds of moral hazards in providing healthcare to others.

[comic boy]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

Can you show me the polls that show a majority of ALL Americans are happy with their healthcare arrangements and ALL insured Americans are happy with their healthcare costs.

[comic boy]

Because people can do it for themselves and have for centuries in our country. Sure not everyone, but not everyone can do any one of a number of things such as tying their shoes. Healthcare is seductive because it sounds good, but there are all kinds of moral hazards in providing healthcare to others.

Im pretty sure people in your country also used to put out fires, build their own roads and dig their own sewage pits ...so what is your point ?

[rockfist]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

Can you show me the polls that show a majority of ALL Americans are happy with their healthcare arrangements and ALL insured Americans are happy with their healthcare costs.

I'm sure I've seen that the majority of all Americans are happy on Rasmussen Reports, but I will have to look for it. People are unhappy with their costs, but the fact is that most people think the Democrat bill will raise costs. As an aside, you will never find 100% of the people happy with the cost of anything they pay for so that is a straw man arguement.

[Frigidus]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx



Looks like 72% of the country is at least somewhat displeased with the availability of health care. Gallup isn't quite Pew, but they're professionals when it comes to polling.

EDIT: To be fair, that is a dated as hell poll...but the situation certainly hasn't gotten better since 2003.

[rockfist]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx



Looks like 72% of the country is at least somewhat displeased with the availability of health care. Gallup isn't quite Pew, but they're professionals when it comes to polling.

EDIT: To be fair, that is a dated as hell poll...but the situation certainly hasn't gotten better since 2003.

You left out the word affordable and I think that's an important word. People are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare in that poll. I'm all for trying to make it cheaper at the same quality or of more quality at the same price. Single payer will not do that.

[rockfist]

Because people can do it for themselves and have for centuries in our country. Sure not everyone, but not everyone can do any one of a number of things such as tying their shoes. Healthcare is seductive because it sounds good, but there are all kinds of moral hazards in providing healthcare to others.

Im pretty sure people in your country also used to put out fires, build their own roads and dig their own sewage pits ...so what is your point ?

Having the government do it for us will make it worse not better.

I am tired of having this arguement. I had this arguement in 1993-1994 and it was tiring then. There are plenty of people like me who are plenty tired of it, but you won't win by tiring us out; based on your flag you don't even live here so its just not worth the time.

[Frigidus]

based on your flag you don't even live here so its just not worth the time.

None of us are policy-makers, so arguments over the merits of different economic systems should not be limited by nationality.

[notyou2]

I know, just poll the right and you will get the results the right is stating. Is that where you get your numbers rock?

[PLAYER57832]

Because people can do it for themselves and have for centuries in our country.

Well, given that our country just barely passed 2 centuries, I guess saying "centuries" is technically accurate, But..

I have a hard time with the idea that comparing a time when the idea of washing one's hands before doing surgery was "sissie" to today when we do advanced heart and brain surgeries, cure diseases no had even identified back then... a bit, well, unreasonable.

And that is the biggest problem with most of your arguments. You fixate on an idea, but instead of looking at what actually exists to see if your arguments are real or incorrect, you fall back on rhetorical theories.

The reality is that while the US does have more advanced care, a large part of that innovation actually came through GOVERNMENT support (via the NIH), not private companies. Private companies do great at taking the ground-breaking research given out for free by the government, patenting it in their own name and then finding ways to market it. They do great at discovering "non diseases" that have relatively cheap fixes and will provide a huge profit. They go reasonable at providing some advanced medical devices, from which they can expect to make profit.

They do TERRIBLE at producing drugs for diseases or making devices for problems that are not common enough to provide a profitable market base. In fact, companies have to be FORCED to produce some of these drugs and devices ("orphan drug" legislation).

Sure not everyone, but not everyone can do any one of a number of things such as tying their shoes. Healthcare is seductive because it sounds good, but there are all kinds of moral hazards in providing healthcare to others.

The irony here is that many of us posting here actually have real and true experiences in BOTH types of systems... and are far more familiar with both than you.

Is there risk of "moral hazard"" Yes, but we, ironically enough, face that same issue here. For example, people on some of the so-called "Cadillac plans" don't even bother to show up for exams becuase they suffer no real penalty if they fail to show. Many socialized medicine programs have stops/ways of dealing with such things.

However, in addition to those problems, we face a far greater problem of millions of people who WORK, but cannot afford to pay for basic health care.

I am employed, my husband is employed. Right now, I am wearing glasses that are 3 years old and scratched. I have not been to a dentist in over 5 years, though I have some serious dental issues that mean I should get regular care (eroding teeth due to a genetic issue). Etc. AND I am not that bad off. My husband changed jobs so that now we have reasonable health care, it just does not cover eyes or dentistry.

[notyou2]

Player, I sympathize with you and hope for you and the American people that you get a decent universal health care system so you will have money for dental work and eyeglasses. I broke a pair of eyeglasses and lost another pair last year, so I had 3 pairs in one year. I have also been to the dentist 4 times in the last 5 months as I am also having a couple of issues. I can afford these things because I can pay for a plan that covers these items as I don't need to pay for medical coverage that is paid for by the governments. There are definitely drawbacks and it isn't perfect, but I would far rather have what I have then be in your situation.

Arguing with Rock is like talking to a rock. Someone has influenced him and he is set in his ways even though he can't back up anything he says. My guess is he is young and in the army and is repeating what has been drilled into him. He doesn't think for himself, he simply repeats. He doesn't have any kids, or perhaps, he is a kid. One day, it will dawn on him that he was wrong and should start thinking for himself as people have led him down the garden path. Or, he is bloody rich and doesn't want to share with the common man.

[joecoolfrog]

Because people can do it for themselves and have for centuries in our country. Sure not everyone, but not everyone can do any one of a number of things such as tying their shoes. Healthcare is seductive because it sounds good, but there are all kinds of moral hazards in providing healthcare to others.

Im pretty sure people in your country also used to put out fires, build their own roads and dig their own sewage pits ...so what is your point ?

Having the government do it for us will make it worse not better.

I am tired of having this arguement. I had this arguement in 1993-1994 and it was tiring then. There are plenty of people like me who are plenty tired of it, but you won't win by tiring us out; based on your flag you don't even live here so its just not worth the time.

Has the thought ever entered your insular little brain that people looking from the outside generally see things with more clarity

[PLAYER57832]

Arguing with Rock is like talking to a rock. Someone has influenced him and he is set in his ways even though he can't back up anything he says. My guess is he is young and in the army and is repeating what has been drilled into him. He doesn't think for himself, he simply repeats. He doesn't have any kids, or perhaps, he is a kid. One day, it will dawn on him that he was wrong and should start thinking for himself as people have led him down the garden path. Or, he is bloody rich and doesn't want to share with the common man.

This is true. And, facing a reasonable counter-argument, he will no doubt pull a "captain crazy" and leave.

Still, he gets to vote just like anyone else (or will when he reaches 18). In truth, I am not speaking so much to rock as to those I know read these posts without commenting.

[rockfist]

I've yet to hear a reasonable counter arguement. Your wah wah poor me everyone feel sorry for me arguement doesn't elicit sympathy from me. It just makes me think you are weak and pathetic because you are using it to say it in some way justifies taking other people's property. Your problems are not mine, nor should my problems be yours.

[notyou2]

Its called empathy for your fellow man. It's an amazing emotion. I'm sorry you don't have any.

[joecoolfrog]

I've yet to hear a reasonable counter arguement. Your wah wah poor me everyone feel sorry for me arguement doesn't elicit sympathy from me. It just makes me think you are weak and pathetic because you are using it to say it in some way justifies taking other people's property. Your problems are not mine, nor should my problems be yours.

On the contrary you have seen a lot of counter arguments but simply dismissed them out of hand, the fact that you choose to evade pertinent questions marks you out as a coward as well as an ignorant fool .

[PLAYER57832]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

Can you show me the polls that show a majority of ALL Americans are happy with their healthcare arrangements and ALL insured Americans are happy with their healthcare costs.

I'm sure I've seen that the majority of all Americans are happy on Rasmussen Reports, but I will have to look for it. People are unhappy with their costs, but the fact is that most people think the Democrat bill will raise costs. As an aside, you will never find 100% of the people happy with the cost of anything they pay for so that is a straw man arguement.

The fact is most people who are "against the healthcare bill" have no idea of even what was in ANY of the bills... they are responding to right-wing rhetoric only. And the right wing is interested in nothing but putting roadblocks in the way of the Democrats because they think that will get them elected more readily.

Meanwhile, we the public are taking it "in the shorts". Congress often reminds me of a pack of three year olds.

Anyway, the primary problem with your argument that "everyone should pay for their own healthcare" is that unless you are independently wealthy, it just is not possible. Instead, people buy INSURANCE. Insurance, by definition means you are "paying for other people's care". In a sense, you are gambling that you will get sick and therefore will get off cheaper by buying insurance and the insurance company is gambling that you won't. Just like when you buy house or automobile insurance.

Government-sponsored programs mostly just provide insurance that is not run by executives who are required by law to make quick profits for stockholders. ("quick" here being a relative term). Instead, cost savings are shared amongst participants.

Also, you completely ignore the fact that in our system, it really is the government that does most of the ground-breaking research. The companies just step in to take the profit (and credit) after the research is done.

[rockfist]

The idiots writing the bills make it so <1% of the people can even finish reading the damn things much less understand them then act offended that people "don't understand whats in the bill." Maybe if they wrote clearly and concisely they would have a leg to stand on...

2,600+ pages... including six pages to define Louisiana.

These are the same idiots who passed a "stimulus" bill that wasn't even written yet when they voted on it.

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

[Phatscotty]

The idiots writing the bills make it so <1% of the people can even finish reading the damn things much less understand them then act offended that people "don't understand whats in the bill." Maybe if they wrote clearly and concisely they would have a leg to stand on...

2,600+ pages... including six pages to define Louisiana.

These are the same idiots who passed a "stimulus" bill that wasn't even written yet when they voted on it.

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

but...but.....the politicians......they tell us it's good.........brains......must....eat....more.....BRAINS!

[Night Strike]

Its called empathy for your fellow man. It's an amazing emotion. I'm sorry you don't have any.

So the only way to have empathy is through the government? It's amazing that the same people who demand that anything government remove anything religious from their realm are now saying that we must turn to that amoral government to have empathy (which is a moral attitude contrary to the natural state of people). If you want to show empathy for a fellow person, go do it yourself. You lose your freedoms when the government dictates who gets help and who doesn't. You try to enact this legislation on the grounds of empathy, but once they have access to your healthcare, they can dictate every facet of your life. Progressives want nothing more than to control people through governmental power, and in the name of healthcare they will do whatever they want. The government is in place to protect our rights from violation by other people, instead they want to dictate how we live.

[Mr_Adams]

I remember when the bill broke 1,000 now its over 2.5k, and we still don't know what its about. The Senate and the Congress bill are completely partisan because the bloody country is split along these party lines. Now the democrats are crying about the republicans being contrary, but not explaining to the people what is in this 2.5k page multi trillion dollar bill, and we don't know who to believe, because no information is coming out of the Washington, just the newest fancy rhetoric. I don't trust either party, because they both talk cross at you, and play a verbal game of slate of hand.

[Baron Von PWN]

Its called empathy for your fellow man. It's an amazing emotion. I'm sorry you don't have any.

So the only way to have empathy is through the government? It's amazing that the same people who demand that anything government remove anything religious from their realm are now saying that we must turn to that amoral government to have empathy (which is a moral attitude contrary to the natural state of people). If you want to show empathy for a fellow person, go do it yourself. You lose your freedoms when the government dictates who gets help and who doesn't. You try to enact this legislation on the grounds of empathy, but once they have access to your healthcare, they can dictate every facet of your life. Progressives want nothing more than to control people through governmental power, and in the name of healthcare they will do whatever they want. The government is in place to protect our rights from violation by other people, instead they want to dictate how we live.

Empathy like all other emotions is natural to humans, evolved in order to ensure the survival of their tribe/family. Most of the developed world have "socialised" healthcare, and yet these aren't dictatorship, so clearly "socialised" healthcare =/= dictatorship. People who disagree with you aren't trying the anti-christ, they just disagree with you.

[natty dread]

You lose your freedoms when the government dictates who gets help and who doesn't. You try to enact this legislation on the grounds of empathy, but once they have access to your healthcare, they can dictate every facet of your life.

Wow... I didn't know the government dictated my life. I've lived my entire life in a nation with social healthcare, and this is the first time I heard that this social healthcare is actually my government dictating my life! Just wow!

[Mr_Adams]

If the government wants to support the health of its citizens, my first suggestion is to transfer subsidies from the massive corn crop (topping 10M bushels) and transfer them to more healthy food, like domestically grown green veggies. lord knows the US is in love with unhealthy crap, and the only regularly eaten green veritable is iceberg lettuce, which is supposed to be the least healthy of all leafy vegetables(deep colors=better for you, iceberg is almost white). So, subsidize the spinach crop, the bell peppers, and other such vegetables. Then people will eat less of this crap full of the corn derivatives you hear so much about (high fructose blabla bla), because they won't be the cheapest things available. Instead of looking for a solution to the peoples health care, we need to look more into curing causes of peoples health problems. Natty, IDK about the subsidized crops in Finland.


sources:

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/09harvest.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/71510