ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Lootifer]

The church does have a pretty good record with healthcare when they act conservatively. *cough* middle ages *cough* humors *cough*

/chuckle

[PLAYER57832]

I know player, you just want the government to run all the hospitals and every other health care sector. It's sad how much you rail against corporations yet want to hand over all control to the biggest monopoly in this country: the federal government.

A monopolty controlled by ALL of the people in the US, not just the wealthy -- or at least, that's how it was.

Anyway, the model I have cited, when I have cited any is Geisenger. It happens to be private and bears little resemblance to the UK/Canadien systems you keep claiming are the "only other way".

Its easy to convince yourself you are correct when you just refuse to pay real attention to any serious opposition. (and no, glancing just long enough to come up with a snappy come back is not the same as paying attention).

[Night Strike]

I know player, you just want the government to run all the hospitals and every other health care sector. It's sad how much you rail against corporations yet want to hand over all control to the biggest monopoly in this country: the federal government.

A monopolty controlled by ALL of the people in the US, not just the wealthy -- or at least, that's how it was.

Anyway, the model I have cited, when I have cited any is Geisenger. It happens to be private and bears little resemblance to the UK/Canadien systems you keep claiming are the "only other way".

Its easy to convince yourself you are correct when you just refuse to pay real attention to any serious opposition. (and no, glancing just long enough to come up with a snappy come back is not the same as paying attention).

How will it be controlled by all the people? The people don't get to choose which coverage they get. The people don't get to pick the individuals who sit on the rationing boards. The people have to deal with the bad effects of delayed care or cut care. The people get to pay the spiraling debt.

The free market will work to reign in health care costs if the government will just get out of the way and allow it to work. The government must get out of the way and stop mandating which treatments must be covered and how much insurance companies can charge for their coverages. I don't drink, so why should I pay to cover alcohol treatment programs. I don't care if I go bald (although I probably won't), so why should I pay for hair transplants? And there are thousands of other such mandated coverages that millions of people don't need or want. Let's let people choose what they want to cover instead of offering one-size-fits-all policies. There are tons of governmental reforms that can be enacted where the majority of them will decrease the involvement of the government in health insurance and health care. Enacting trillion dollar programs that are in debt as soon as they are passed makes the system worse all the while removing our freedom of choice.

[Juan_Bottom]

1) The Free Market is why we have health insurance instead of Free Health Care. Kaiser Bribed Richard Nixon into using their system, it's fairly common knowledge, and anyone can listen to the moment Nixon was talked into the more expensive system. It's recorded on his tapes that he didn't want to share.



"All of the incentives are towards less medical care. Because the less care they give them, the more money they make.... and the incentives run the right way."

2) For investors, the draw to Health Insurance was that they deny coverage to people to make a profit. It's always been like that. They've always always denied people, and before government intervention there were no other options for people with conditions.

3) You also don't get robbed or mugged, but would you say that you shouldn't have to pay for police protection? We fricking bring this up again and again. The government socialized Police protection, Fire protection, Roadways ect ect ect. There's no difference between Police Protection and Health Protection.

[PLAYER57832]

I know player, you just want the government to run all the hospitals and every other health care sector. It's sad how much you rail against corporations yet want to hand over all control to the biggest monopoly in this country: the federal government.

A monopolty controlled by ALL of the people in the US, not just the wealthy -- or at least, that's how it was.

Anyway, the model I have cited, when I have cited any is Geisenger. It happens to be private and bears little resemblance to the UK/Canadien systems you keep claiming are the "only other way".

Its easy to convince yourself you are correct when you just refuse to pay real attention to any serious opposition. (and no, glancing just long enough to come up with a snappy come back is not the same as paying attention).

How will it be controlled by all the people?

Its called "voting"

The people don't get to choose which coverage they get.

IN fact, most countries offer more choice, not less, than most people here get. (note, "most people" means those who are not making over 250K at salaried positions or wealthy enough to not need any kind of coverage).

The people don't get to pick the individuals who sit on the rationing boards.

Who says? Hmmm... oh yeah, the insurance companies.. who are, by law protected from even disclosing how they determine their costs!

The people have to deal with the bad effects of delayed care or cut care.

Yes, welcome to being sick in America .. RIGHT NOW

The people get to pay the spiraling debt.

Now, yes., we do... but hey, look at all those "job creators" who are now suddenly so much richer. Funny -- all those "job creators" don't seem to have created all that many jobs with their largess.

The free market will work to reign in health care costs if the government will just get out of the way and allow it to work.

I asked you to explain how the government was somehow impeding the free market. You came up with a list of problems, but not things the government is impeding, with the possible exception of employer-offered insurance. However, honesty will require you to admit that the reason employers kept offering insurance and why it became even mandated was because it allowed companies to offer compensation far more cheaply than increases in salaries -- at least up until very recently. (and now, many employers have all but stopped offering insurance.. or offer piss poor insurance).

The government must get out of the way and stop mandating which treatments must be covered and how much insurance companies can charge for their coverages.

They actually don't do that. You should really study up on the system before you try to criticize it. The government sets Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, not insurance payments. However, many doctors tend to follow the government guidelines on costs. That might be your point of confusion???

I don't drink, so why should I pay to cover alcohol treatment programs. I don't care if I go bald (although I probably won't), so why should I pay for hair transplants? And there are thousands of other such mandated coverages that millions of people don't need or want.

You can nickle and dime all you want. I have already said, MANY TIMES, that the system needs change. However, mandated coverage is needed in medical care because people make stupid choices about risk when they are allowed. A lot of people would not buy fire insurance unless their mortgage companies told them too. Except, I am not held responsible for buying you a new house if yours burns without insurance, and I am very much forced to pay for your care if you get in a serious accident or get seriously ill.

Let's let people choose what they want to cover instead of offering one-size-fits-all policies. There are tons of governmental reforms that can be enacted where the majority of them will decrease the involvement of the government in health insurance and health care. Enacting trillion dollar programs that are in debt as soon as they are passed makes the system worse all the while removing our freedom of choice.

You keep citing all these "government reforms", but the trouble is almost all of the reforms you cite have little really to do with the government. .. as I detailed when you laid out the list above.

Have anything else?

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.staysmartstayhealthy.com/hea ... ted_states


Health Insurance providers have always denied people with pre-existing conditions. That's for the entire 30 year Health Insurance History before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.


LIBERALS : 3
Night Strike : 0

[Phatscotty]

The Constitution is going to smack Obama across the face tomorrow.

[Night Strike]

Player, why aren't people free to make stupid decisions? Why is the government all-knowing and tasked to take care of every single person? Why can't those people be held responsible for their decisions instead of the government taking away the freedom to choose from every person? It's not the government's job to bail people out. Stop allowing people to write-off health care debts and make them actually pay the money they owe so that the rest of us don't have to bail them out. It's an easy solution that doesn't take away freedom from everybody else.

And you should learn about what really happens with insurance if you don't think coverages aren't mandated or prices controlled. Insurance companies aren't allowed to charge people different rates based on their lifestyle choices. They now aren't allowed to charge people more if their demographic is actually proven to use more health care (like women), which causes rates to go UP for everybody. States define what coverages must be mandated, but then the federal government blocks individuals from buying policies from other states even if those policies fit their needs better.

By the way, one increase in the government that would actually go a long way to cutting costs would be to make hospitals and other providers publish all their charges just like every other business has to post. That combined with many of the cuts in other governmental mandates would go a long way to lowering costs because then there could be real competition.

And voting on politicians is irrelevant to the Obamacare boards because those board are all populated by presidential appointees without Senate confirmation. And I'm guessing they can serve for as long as they want, so one person can choose the panel and never be held accountable for what they do. And how does voting improve the free market? All it will do is make the governmental costs of health care go up because all politicians will do is bribe people with more handouts to get their votes. There is no responsibility or lowering of costs when someone else pays your bills for you.

[Night Strike]

http://www.staysmartstayhealthy.com/health_care_history_inthe_united_states


Health Insurance providers have always denied people with pre-existing conditions. That's for the entire 30 year Health Insurance History before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.


LIBERALS : 3
Night Strike : 0

You cannot force a business to provide a product that they don't want to provide. If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover. If people have a pre-existing condition, the insurance provider should be allowed to charge them more for coverage. If people are already paying premiums but then get denied coverage when they need treatment for something that is covered in the plan, it's the job of the government to sue/prosecute those companies. The government is in place to be the arbitrator of disputes, not to run a sector of the economy.

[Juan_Bottom]

For 30 years the Free Market didn't help anyone. Historically speaking, that means that you are the most wrong person in the history of conquerclub. You're just repeating the same thing that I just showed you is wrong.

LIBERALS : 4
Night Strike : 0

[Night Strike]

For 30 years the Free Market didn't help anyone. Historically speaking, that means that you are the most wrong person in the history of conquerclub. You're just repeating the same thing that I just showed you is wrong.

LIBERALS : 4
Night Strike : 0

How hasn't the free market helped anyone? Americans are living longer than ever before because of the free market. People from other countries come here for treatments and assistance because their countries have health care run by the government.

[Juan_Bottom]

But you just said that the government has been interfering in health care? Wouldn't THE GOVERNMENT deserve the credit?

I said "for 30 years the free market didn't help anyone" obviously because you said that the free market would find a way to cover everyone. But for the 30 years before government intervention (on behalf of the insurance companies that bribed it) the Free Market couldn't find a way to cover everyone. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a semblance of a doubt, that you were wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.staysmartstayhealthy.com/health_care_history_inthe_united_states


Health Insurance providers have always denied people with pre-existing conditions. That's for the entire 30 year Health Insurance History before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.


LIBERALS : 3
Night Strike : 0

Health insurance providers have been around for centuries but have appeared in different forms, e.g. mutual aid societies and other community-based charity groups, which many of the left and right would find admirable; however, in modern times, when they get a wiff of state intervention, they whoop like a raving pack of beasts and demand help from the seemingly altruistic politicians.

Why is this? Mostly because people have short memories and selective perception. "From cradle to the grave, please government, please."

[GreecePwns]

You cannot force a business to provide a product that they don't want to provide.

You can force business to NOT provide a service (not product), by creating a single payer system, which has proven to be the more economically efficient system than the one the US has now.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why aren't people free to make stupid decisions?

You are allowed, as long as the stupidity is not going to cause other people serious harm. Making taxpayers take your $300K or 3 million medical bill is serious harm.

Why is the government all-knowing and tasked to take care of every single person?

The Constitution. You know, your favorite document.

Why can't those people be held responsible for their decisions instead of the government taking away the freedom to choose from every person? It's not the government's job to bail people out. Stop allowing people to write-off health care debts and make them actually pay the money they owe so that the rest of us don't have to bail them out. It's an easy solution that doesn't take away freedom from everybody else.

come again? Someone making $7.50 is supposed to pay a 200,000 dollar medical bill, how?

And you should learn about what really happens with insurance if you don't think coverages aren't mandated or prices controlled.

LOL.. LOL...LOL. Start by rereading what you and I actually said. Coverages are mandated by states, largely in response to what voters in those state's want (sometimes by reforendums they actually voted upon, sometimes by laws passed by their elected officials ). Prices are set otherwise. I challenge you to find out what that system is.

And.. insurance companies have their own systems, apart from the government, to determine what they will cover and how much they will pay. And, as I stated, they don't have to tell us a thing.

It would be really nice if you took your own advice and actually did some research -- research outside your favorite conservatopia pablum, that is. You might then actually have a leg to stand upon.

Coverages are mandated. Insurance companies aren't allowed to charge people different rates based on their lifestyle choices. They now aren't allowed to charge people more if their demographic is actually proven to use more health care (like women), which causes rates to go UP for everybody.

Yep, see above.. but note that it is the voters who dicate that bit. Other bits were dictated by courts, ultimately the Supreme Court (hint-- they make their rules based on the constitution).

States define what coverages must be mandated, but then the federal government blocks individuals from buying policies from other states even if those policies fit their needs better.

States define and regulate insurance within their states for their own citizens, not those of other states. State's doing that would be a violation of the other state's right to rule within its borders. The exceptions are federal rules, which, by law usurp state law. They can require better safety measures, provide for equal protection for various citizens or just allow for a more workable, uniform system in some cases.

By the way, one increase in the government that would actually go a long way to cutting costs would be to make hospitals and other providers publish all their charges just like every other business has to post. That combined with many of the cuts in other governmental mandates would go a long way to lowering costs because then there could be real competition.

How? In truth, the information is public, but its very, very complicated. Also, most people don't choose their doctor based on who is cheapest. Its not a side point, that is a pretty key one.

And voting on politicians is irrelevant to the Obamacare boards because those board are all populated by presidential appointees without Senate confirmation. And I'm guessing they can serve for as long as they want, so one person can choose the panel and never be held accountable for what they do.

"Guessing".. yep, that's about right. Now try actually investigating.

And how does voting improve the free market?

You did not say "free market, you said "people have no say". They do, through votes. Stop changing your arguments every time you lose.

And.. healthcare has never been a truly free market. It really cannot be, because having a free market requires people to have knowledge to make a decision AND the access/ability to make a choice. A parent who's child's appendix is about to burst, or even who has a seriously sore throat generally cannot shop around, even in bigger cities, never mind most of America.

All it will do is make the governmental costs of health care go up because all politicians will do is bribe people with more handouts to get their votes. There is no responsibility or lowering of costs when someone else pays your bills for you.

And that relates to government stifling healthcare innovation, how, exactly?

[patches70]

But you just said that the government has been interfering in health care? Wouldn't THE GOVERNMENT deserve the credit?

I said "for 30 years the free market didn't help anyone" obviously because you said that the free market would find a way to cover everyone. But for the 30 years before government intervention (on behalf of the insurance companies that bribed it) the Free Market couldn't find a way to cover everyone. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a semblance of a doubt, that you were wrong.

Like government mandate and law would be the alternative to "helping everyone"?

There is no way to help everyone in any system. Free market systems have helped more people than any other system and is better at allocating resources to where they are needed most.

It is conventional wisdom that tells one that the more freedom an individual has to make choices, any choices, the better off in general the individual will be.

If the government decided every aspect, choice would be eliminated or severely curtailed. Thus, a more narrow band of people who would actually benefit from the narrower amount of choice and freedom.

It's the same in social, economic, environmental and any other field one could care to name. More freedom allows more people to pursue that which is most precious to those individual people. For the overall betterment of the society. So long as people must also accept the consequences of their choices.
Certainly there will always be people who make poor choices and rightly suffer for those poor choices. Conversely there will be more freedom available for more people to help those who are in more dire straits of reasons not of their own making (which happens, there is no such thing as Utopia), people helping other people of their own free will instead of of having assets and resources taken through theft and coercion to be given to another.

All government action ultimately is based in theft, coercion and threat of force, even lethal force. Government is violence, whose very power is based on that threat of violence.

Tell me, those of you who believe in the Collectivist Ideologies, how can there be freedom when there is always the looming threat of violence hanging over every individual's head if they do not choose to comply with giving up what they have rightfully labored for?

[PLAYER57832]

It is conventional wisdom that tells one that the more freedom an individual has to make choices, any choices, the better off in general the individual will be.

HInt-- "conventional wisdom" is often wrong.
This is true mostly when the really dangerous choices have already been eliminated (either by physical restraint, education or even rules). Else, it just is not true.

If the government decided every aspect, choice would be eliminated or severely curtailed. Thus, a more narrow band of people who would actually benefit from the narrower amount of choice and freedom.

I see, so according to you, its either "ALL freedom" or "NO freedom".

Sorry, but there are quite a few other modes of being.

IN truth, people vary in their tolerance for risk and therefore desire for true choice. Most people want the illusion of choice, but the knowledge that the really bad choices have already been eliminated.

[Night Strike]

Player, why aren't people free to make stupid decisions?

You are allowed, as long as the stupidity is not going to cause other people serious harm. Making taxpayers take your $300K or 3 million medical bill is serious harm.

Easy solution: stop bailing out the medical bills. If people have a bill, then they are required to pay for that bill. It's not the government's job to pay it for them. No person can expect to get a product or service for free, so if they take a product a service, they are expected to provide compensation to that provider. It's not the government's job to pay that provider for them.


Player, why do you support the idea that the government can force you to buy a product? Exactly where in the Constitution does it give the government that power? AND, where does that power end? Or does is end?

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why aren't people free to make stupid decisions?

You are allowed, as long as the stupidity is not going to cause other people serious harm. Making taxpayers take your $300K or 3 million medical bill is serious harm.

Easy solution: stop bailing out the medical bills. If people have a bill, then they are required to pay for that bill. It's not the government's job to pay it for them. No person can expect to get a product or service for free, so if they take a product a service, they are expected to provide compensation to that provider. It's not the government's job to pay that provider for them.

Yeah, mommy and Daddy are only making minimum wage, so we just can't take out your appendix kid...

Player, why do you support the idea that the government can force you to buy a product? Exactly where in the Constitution does it give the government that power? AND, where does that power end? Or does is end?

Nice try at sideswiping points I actually made....
I said that the bill was a compromise passed by congress and if its rejected, the impact will be disasterous on us all. I also said that providing healthcare for the people falls under the "common welfare" clause of the constitution.

[Night Strike]

Nice try at sideswiping points I actually made....
I said that the bill was a compromise passed by congress and if its rejected, the impact will be disasterous on us all. I also said that providing healthcare for the people falls under the "common welfare" clause of the constitution.

"Common welfare" does not mean "specific welfare", and even if it did, "common welfare" is in the Preamble to the Constitution, not the actual policy portion. The Preamble is a statement of intent of what the policy will provide, not the actual force of law.

And even if your argument is correct, how does Obamacare provide health care for all? It mandates that people buy a particular type of product, but it doesn't actually provide them with that care. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can mandate that a person purchase a product?

[Woodruff]

If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover.

No they won't - there's no profit margin there that's remotely affordable.

[Frigidus]

What I hope will happen (but won't) is that the Supreme Court will say it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health care but leave the rest of the bill intact. That way people can get health care whenever they want, no matter what preexisting conditions they might have, but don't have to be sodomized in the wallet until then. Of course Obama, the evil socialist monster that people tell me he is, is opposed to this because it wouldn't work out well for the insurance companies.

[Woodruff]

What I hope will happen (but won't) is that the Supreme Court will say it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health care but leave the rest of the bill intact.

That literally cannot happen. If it does, no one will ever buy health insurance until I need it. That's why the mandate HAS to be there, or the clause regarding people with pre-existing conditions MUST be removed. They go together as a necessity.

[john9blue]

The church does have a pretty good record with healthcare when they act conservatively. *cough* middle ages *cough* humors *cough*

/chuckle

yes, because humors were invented by the church, and definitely didn't exist in, you know, ancient fucking greece.

[GreecePwns]

The Church of Zeus was an equally crazy institution. Ask Socrates.