ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[GreecePwns]

This debate is destined to go nowhere. The conservative argument is favored when it comes to a philosophical debate (though I, being unread in Hobbes or Locke would not give up on that just yet - I will get to read both as well as Marx in my final semester of school) and the liberal position is favored when it comes to economics here. When I take the policy/economic approach (i.e. not tobinov's argument) here, the debate on this board devolves to this:

1. "This is more economically efficient; health care is not a commodity"
2. "But this infringes on liberty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
3. "But it is necessary to lower health care costs to take the concept of profit out"
4. "But the problem with costs is regulation"
5. "But in nations with more regulations or with fully public health care costs are reduced"
6. Repeat from 2

We can say this over and over and nothing will change. So unless someone says something so mind-numbingly dumb or ignorant, MC > MB so I'm done here. I'm closer to talking about V or Salt N' Pepa or the Catalan Pitch and Putt National Team at this point.

But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."

[saxitoxin]

This debate is destined to go nowhere. The conservative argument is favored when it comes to a philosophical debate (though I, being unread in Hobbes or Locke would not give up on that just yet - I will get to read both as well as Marx in my final semester of school) and the liberal position is favored when it comes to economics here. When I take the policy/economic approach (i.e. not tobinov's argument) here, the debate on this board devolves to this:

1. "This is more economically efficient; health care is not a commodity"
2. "But this infringes on liberty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
3. "But it is necessary to lower health care costs to take the concept of profit out"
4. "But the problem with costs is regulation"
5. "But in nations with more regulations or with fully public health care costs are reduced"
6. Repeat from 2

We can say this over and over and nothing will change. So unless someone says something so mind-numbingly dumb or ignorant, MC > MB so I'm done here. I'm closer to talking about V or Salt N' Pepa or the Catalan Pitch and Putt National Team at this point.

But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."

erudite and salient observations, as always

[BigBallinStalin]

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

Actually, Ayn Rand contradicts that quote in a criticism leveled at some anarcho-capitalist. She disagreed that private protection agencies (within a free market) wouldn't collude and eventually become a government. [some time in the 1970s, I think]

[BigBallinStalin]

The free market deny's coverage if it chooses - and based on it's own interests, not those of individuals in need.

Correct. Except that coverage is usually not denied unless one actually has health insurance (ironically). If I don't have health insurance and cannot pay for healthcare (usually because my big screen TV, cable bill, and internet monthly fee had to be paid for first... sorry, I couldn't help myself... ignore that), I can get my healthcare for free from the local hospital, which is usually a non-profit organization.

This reminds me: couldn't the government just cover a portion of the insurance companies' risk in covering one who would otherwise be denied?

Instead of trying to restart a publicly run insurance company, wouldn't it be less costly and overall more effective for the government to rely on the services of the private sector by just paying for that extra cost from the higher risk in covering patients with pre-existing conditions?

[directed at anyone, not just the clowns above]

[thegreekdog]

So, I think we actually agree, except, again, I think you're equating elements of the social contract (namely the public's desires that assist them in fulfilling their inalienable rights) with unalienable rights themselves. Thus, as I posited in the beginning, health care is not, actually, an inalienable right. It is merely a part of the social contract that assists the public in achieving its inalienable right to life (and the other two).

I disagree and I think you are too quick to declare your original posit is proven by ignoring the case I have made.

Health, as reinforced by Locke, fits the law of Nature - and those rights tied to our basic human functionality, comprise our unalienable right to exist. These are not rights granted by government, but an obligation to them can be fulfilled by government.

I consider this to be an obligation (of the social contract), you recognize degrees of obligation, and others deny any and all obligation - it's how one views the role of government (and ultimately this dictates how one interprets the US Constitution... ).

I can get on board with the last paragraph - the role of government dictates how one interprets the Constitution. So, I guess we are at an impass...

Vizini: I can't compete with you physically and you're no match for my brains.
Wesley: You're that smart are you?
Vizini: Ever hear of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Wesley nods.
Vizini: Morons.

Yes, I did that from memory. Sorry, I digressed.

But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."

I couldn't agree more.

[Falkomagno]

You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.

[thegreekdog]

You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.

petty?

[Falkomagno]

You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.

petty?

Pettiness I meant. Been cheap

[thegreekdog]

You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.

petty?

Pettiness I meant. Been cheap

You're saying the people of the United States are cheap? I'm just clarifying... we can have the argument/discussion after I make sure that's what you mean.

[Falkomagno]

I'm saying that people opposing to a welfare state, in which a consistent part is a universal health care, are basing their logic on pettiness.

Where do you get that "anti american thing"? too much time with the wrong dudes it seems...

[Phatscotty]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

[Falkomagno]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

[Phatscotty]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.

Answer: I work

[tzor]

You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.

petty?

Pettiness I meant. Been cheap

Well that's a relief. For a moment I thought you were talking about that famous race car driver Richard Petty.

But I object. I'm only half Scots, so I'm only half cheap.
And I'm half Irish, so I'm half ...

[Woodruff]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work

That is not even a logical nor rational response. Try again.

[GreecePwns]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.

Answer: I work

So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.

[Mr_Adams]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.

Answer: I work

So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.

No, work incentive in Welfare states≤0

[Mr_Adams]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work

That is not even a logical nor rational response. Try again.

Take the Spock picture off. you are neither logical nor rational. It's quite plane what he is getting at: He works because he doesn't want to live off of the government, which lives off of everybody else, nor does he support a system which allows this to happen. Yes, I now you knew what he meant already, but now that it is explained in plain english, you can not give crappy excuses for not giving a legitimate response.

[Mr_Adams]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

Haha, notice the ticker at the bottom of that clip. THat's how socialism works. the government takes the resources, and distributes the profits how they want. not fairly, how they want.

[Woodruff]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work

That is not even a logical nor rational response. Try again.

Take the Spock picture off. you are neither logical nor rational. It's quite plane what he is getting at: He works because he doesn't want to live off of the government, which lives off of everybody else, nor does he support a system which allows this to happen. Yes, I now you knew what he meant already, but now that it is explained in plain english, you can not give crappy excuses for not giving a legitimate response.

The presumption that someone who works should not be in favor of a Welfare State simply because they work is a terribly flawed, illogical and irrational position to take. It really doesn't even make sense, if you consider viewpoints other than your own. Then again, Phatscotty has never been very skilled at that.

[GreecePwns]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.

Answer: I work

So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.

No, work incentive in Welfare states≤0

Which explains why unemployment in the biggest welfare states is much less than that of the US: Denmark 7.8 percent, Sweden 8.1 percent, Norway 3.5 percent, Germany 6.7 percent, Belgium 8.1...I could go on.

Clearly all those people see no reason to work.

[Falkomagno]

Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.

We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU

You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point

Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.



Answer: I work

Well, that pretty much summarize what i was thinking about you. You are fundamentally against a welfare state concept. Even more, you are so blindly fanatic against the concept that you are unable to understand the boundaries of it, nor even imaginable that you can grasp the positive points of that state model.

As all kind of fanaticism, is a position in which you lost more than what you win. Such strong belief, even if strong, becomes irrational disregarding other points of view making you lost the bigger picture, daring even to imply that people who support a welfare state, as myself, are fundamentally "bums", which is, undoubtedly, an unfortunate statement

By the way, and even knowing that you, as a fanatic as you are in the subject, and therefore unable to consider this actual state of knowledge in the subject, there is not evidence that a welfare state affects negatively the performance of the economy (A. B. Atkinson, "Incomes and the Welfare State", 1995), but at the contrary, countries that 50 years before applied welfare states measurements have been decreasing their poverty rates. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/sf1999(poverty).pdf

[thegreekdog]

I'm saying that people opposing to a welfare state, in which a consistent part is a universal health care, are basing their logic on pettiness.

Where do you get that "anti american thing"? too much time with the wrong dudes it seems...

Like I said, I was just trying to clarify what you were saying. So, there are two potential conclusions you are coming to, either (1) Americans don't have universal healthcare because they are petty (or cheap) or (2) PhatScotty, me, etc. are against universal healthcare because we are petty (or cheap). I'm not saying you're anti-American, I'm simply trying to determine the basis for a discussion.

I think perhaps people are confused as to the current state of the health care system in the United States and whether or not the United States is a welfare state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

These two items of course ignore any state-sponsored healthcare plans as well as non-profit hospitals and healthcare systems.

So, I guess I would say we already have a welfare state, although perhaps given our current healthcare "crisis," the current welfare system with respect to healthcare doesn't work. Perhaps we need a new one.

[Aradhus]

"Welfare State" is just BS buzzwords that people use for political benefit.

Also, "Anti-American" is exactly the same BS snide despicable tactic that certain Americans used against fellow Americans when they accused them of being unpatriotic, because they opposed a war, or something the US government was doing, etc.

As for welfare, I grew up in a strictly religious fundamentalist household. My father worked a shitty low paid job, my mom raised 5 kids, we had so little money. As a teenager, the reaction I had to my upbringing was that I abhorred authority. I thought the idea of government was reprehensible, every single thing it did was a direct kick in the nuts to my beliefs, and that it should be abolished. I saw no distinction between religion(which I detested, and still pretty much do) and government, basically some self righteous know-it-all wanted to force me to live my life the way they wanted it.

But things aren't that bleak and white. If it wasn't for religion and (government)welfare, I wouldn't exist. My parents found their religion when they were "going through a dark patch" in their marriage. My father was made redundant from a job he'd worked at since being a teenager. If they didn't have the hope that their religion gave them, and the assistance from the government until my father found another job, there's no doubt they would have separated. With all the personal issues and problems they were having, on top of my dad being out of work. No doubt at all their marriage would have ended.

I would never have been conceived, and you guys wouldn't be reading this post.

[HapSmo19]

Also, "Anti-American" is exactly the same BS snide despicable tactic that certain Americans used against fellow Americans when they accused them of being unpatriotic, because they opposed a war, or something the US government was doing, etc.

I hear ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2qBNBLbcvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlITNzoi ... re=related