Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Necronus]

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

You're right, the law in and of itself is dangerous that YES congress can currently attempt to go hogwild and make us all buy specific goods. BUT, in the case of mandating healthcare its not stepping over that awfully thin line. The healthcare industry needs more money ... raise taxes, create a new super special "health tax", force people to get government insurance .... honestly almost the same, but each is prone to different methods of corruption.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Holy shit It's not that hard of a fucking concept.

If the hospital doesn't want to admit people in it's emergency room, it doesn't have to operate in the first place. They CHOSE to engage in the business of being a hospital. They subjected themselves to that "mandate."

In every instance of commerce that Congress can regulate the person chooses to engage in it. Under this health-care legislation, you have no choice but to engage in the activity.

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

You're a fucking moron. Do you know why hospitals open? You know hospitals have a board of directors right? They operate FOR PROFIT. This is seriously inhumane.

Think about it. Hospitals and health insurance companies profit off of a humans well being. There is something intrinsically wrong with this, and all you have to spout is some bullshit about freedom and the constitution that you heard from Glenn Beck.


YOU DO REALIZE THAT THERE IS A GLARINGLY OBVIOUS ABSENCE OF FREEDOM WHEN DEAD OR IN DEBT, DON'T YOU?

[Beckwin]

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

It's like conservatives don't know why slippery slopes are considered fallacies and the implications they make on the quality of their arguments.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I see your reading comprehension skills are still fail. Nothing you even just posted is relevant to what I said.

Edit: Except the slippery slope is how courts reach decisions. If we do X what are the implications of X.

[Beckwin]

of course, a public option or single payer system would completely eliminate the issue of mandates, but oh noes GOP fuckwads can't have any of that.

[Beckwin]

But anyway, taxes are mandates whether you make use of any government service or not.

eat shit.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Yeah, unfortunately tax is currently only shifted to healthcare if someone is uninsured. Otherwise it comes from insurance. And its simply not manged right. I mean, call me naieve, but a compulsory need to buy insurance vs simply increasing taxes seems like a functional equivalent FINANCIALLY to us taxpayers. Its up to the bill to make sure they stay functionally equivalent.

A functional equivalent? Oh you mean like how an insurance company listed publicly has to show profit BY LAW and in turn finds ways to reduce or completely refuse insurance and coverage to it's customers? Where a government plan funded by taxes is not driven by profit, so it cannot and will not refuse citizens care on arbitrary basis like rape being a pre-existing condition.


People that don't know what the fuck really shouldn't weigh in on shit that requires basic comprehension and investigative skills.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

But anyway, taxes are mandates whether you make use of any government service or not.

eat shit.

And it's not a tax either. What is it taxing? Income, nope. Is it an excise tax? Nope, no transaction is going on. It's a penalty for being American, a direct tax, so not only is the mandate unconstitutional, but so is the "tax."

[Zhais]

But you're not forced to drive. But since I assume you're only trying to draw out the other guy, I'll tell myself you are not actually making that point for real.

Concept of forcing people to buy car insurance: When you fuck up, you're ensuring that you don't place a massive burden on a single individual (whether it's yourself or the guy you just rammed into).

As with health insurance, when an individual receives medical care right now that does not have insurance (do due whatever reason), that places unfair burden on those that due from increased rates/medical costs.

[Necronus]

Holy shit It's not that hard of a fucking concept.

If the hospital doesn't want to admit people in it's emergency room, it doesn't have to operate in the first place. They CHOSE to engage in the business of being a hospital. They subjected themselves to that "mandate."

In every instance of commerce that Congress can regulate the person chooses to engage in it. Under this health-care legislation, you have no choice but to engage in the activity.

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

First off, Finesse, we're definitely on the same page. Truce?


Second, Swampdonkey ... you continually focus on the wrong part of the activity ... or as you state the thing you "choose to engage in".

You keep saying that they're focrcing us to engage in paying insurance. Yes, yes they are but thats because you don't get to choose whether or not you get treatment IN ALL CASES in this county. Oh sure, you can choose not to go to a doctor when you got the sniffles or if you sprain a finger. Heck you can even ignore fatal diseases if you lock youself away where no one will see you and call an ambulance on you.

The fact is if you suddenly collapse somewhere or get in a car wreck or one of any number of instances where someone calls an ambulance to your aid, you can't tell the amulance to not treat you if your life is in jeopardy. You WILL end up in a hospital and you WILL incur a cost. And if you happen to be broke then everyone but you will end up paying for it. Because you claim you have the right to "take your chances with out insurance".

Perhaps you'd be right if you COULD tell an EMT not to save your life. But then again, you'll probably argue that you can sue the person who called the ambulance cause you didn't agree to the cost before he called. >.>

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

First off, Finesse, we're definitely on the same page. Truce?


Second, Swampdonkey ... you continually focus on the wrong part of the activity ... or as you state the thing you "choose to engage in".

You keep saying that they're focrcing us to engage in paying insurance. Yes, yes they are but thats because you don't get to choose whether or not you get treatment IN ALL CASES in this county. Oh sure, you can choose not to go to a doctor when you got the sniffles or if you sprain a finger. Heck you can even ignore fatal diseases if you lock youself away where no one will see you and call an ambulance on you.

The fact is if you suddenly collapse somewhere or get in a car wreck or one of any number of instances where someone calls an ambulance to your aid, you can't tell the amulance to not treat you if your life is in jeopardy. You WILL end up in a hospital and you WILL incur a cost. And if you happen to be broke then everyone but you will end up paying for it. Because you claim you have the right to "take your chances with out insurance".

Perhaps you'd be right if you COULD tell an EMT not to save your life. But then again, you'll probably argue that you can sue the person who called the ambulance cause you didn't agree to the cost before he called. >.>

lol, friendly fire man. My bad

[Not not Mattaru]

Holy shit It's not that hard of a fucking concept.

If the hospital doesn't want to admit people in it's emergency room, it doesn't have to operate in the first place. They CHOSE to engage in the business of being a hospital. They subjected themselves to that "mandate."

In every instance of commerce that Congress can regulate the person chooses to engage in it. Under this health-care legislation, you have no choice but to engage in the activity.

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

Let us look at "if a hospital does not want to admit people, it does not have to operate in the first place". This is a choice. Now let us say "if a hospital wants to operate it must accept patients". This too is a choice. Choice exists no matter what, what changes is the menu of choices available. So this is hospital scenario.

Now citizen and/or patient scenario is this in the status quo "I don't use the services of a hospital, but I still pay for that hospital to provide services". That is not a choice unless you choose not to pay taxes. With health care reform "I don't use the services of a hospital, but I still pay for the hospital to provide services". The same holds, not a choice unless you choose not to pay taxes.

The first fallacy is your point is totally moot. I can choose to leave the country if I don't want to pay taxes, or I can choose to face the consequences of the law. Whatever the government mandates does not force you to do anything if you choose to step away from the system all together.

The second fallacy is you are saying the status quo changes on the level of choice. When it does not.

The third fallacy is with hospital scenario - and I mentioned it there and pages ago.


It can theoretically do those things, but it doesn't because it has various checks, including the people. I mean, why have all these terrible things not already happened if it has been the obvious thing to do for so long? If all of these terrible things could have happened for the past 220+ years why haven't they? Is it perhaps because there are checks you aren't taking into account?

[Olo401]

Health insurance legislation says YOU MUST purchase health insurance. In our current situation no one MUST purchase health insurance.

And that's the #1 reason that insurance rates keep going through the roof - uninsured people who wait until the last possible moment then go to the emergency room for the most expensive care.

Also, may I remind you that in every single state in this country you are mandated to have automobile insurance AND homeowners insurance if you own a car or a home. Rates in those two industries are very low as a result. Now, on health insurance I will agree with you that a mandate is not the path to take. However single-payer universal coverage is, because it will drastically drive down the cost of emergency care and the cost of everyone else's health insurance.

It's like liberals never consider the implications of what they do. If congress can mandate that you buy health insurance it can mandate that you buy all American goods.

That's a load of shit.. you know what really doesn't care about the implications? The very unregulated capitalism that you champion. And do us all a favor and save your tinfoil slippery slope arguments for the conspiracy crowd.

[Necronus]

A functional equivalent? Oh you mean like how an insurance company listed publicly has to show profit BY LAW and in turn finds ways to reduce or completely refuse insurance and coverage to it's customers? Where a government plan funded by taxes is not driven by profit, so it cannot and will not refuse citizens care on arbitrary basis like rape being a pre-existing condition.


People that don't know what the fuck really shouldn't weigh in on shit that requires basic comprehension and investigative skills.

If thats true than color me naieve and I appologize. Cause honestly at this exact moment, I am apalled that I can't theoretically open an insurance agency tomorrow with the benevolent goal of staying as close to "break even" as possible.

As far as I knew the only reason people running insurance companies went for profit was because only the immoral ones would force the moral ones out of business for longer term profits.


EDIT:

One of best quotes I tend to hold most truthful and moral (even if not entirely applicable here) is the following:

There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. - Henry Ford

Now while Ford was talking about goods and industry, its kinda true for all things. An ideal insurance company would pay its workers well enough to have their own lives when they go home, would minimize its spending, and in doing those two would not harm the quality of its service (in this case that would be giving as much back to the unhealthy as possible).

[Olo401]

Umm.. not sure what you and Finesse are talkin about here (I'm catching up atm) but there are lots of non-profit health insurance companies out there.

[Not not Mattaru]

And it's not a tax either. What is it taxing? Income, nope. Is it an excise tax? Nope, no transaction is going on. It's a penalty for being American, a direct tax, so not only is the mandate unconstitutional, but so is the "tax."

Um, a tax is a government mandate. In this case, the costs incurred are paid by taxes - income, excise or what have you.

If you are saying taxation is unconstitutional, well first off its in the constitution. If you think its contradictory to some other part of the constitution let us go from there.

[Rhinox]

Glad I missed this. what a total sham this 'summit' is.


watching some of the highlights and know what I see? the same fucking talking points from both sides.

Spineless Democrats who refuse to use measures that are completely legal to get something done and Corporate Republicans who want to please their wealthy masters.

[Not not Mattaru]

Glad I missed this. what a total sham this 'summit' is.


watching some of the highlights and know what I see? the same fucking talking points from both sides.

Spineless Democrats who refuse to use measures that are completely legal to get something done and Corporate Republicans who want to please their wealthy masters.

HEY that is not what this thread is about anymore since Swamp has been posting. Get on track here, we are trying to rehash a debate we had at least three times since the 09 town halls!

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

If thats true than color me naieve and I appologize. Cause honestly at this exact moment, I am apalled that I can't theoretically open an insurance agency tomorrow with the benevolent goal of staying as close to "break even" as possible.

As far as I knew the only reason people running insurance companies went for profit was because only the immoral ones would force the moral ones out of business for longer term profits.

You shouldn't be appalled, the cost of research and progress in keeping people healthy and aware is going to be more than you can sell insurance against misfortune.

You know how cigarettes have a label from the surgeon general and a high tax? Twinkies, Big Macs, and Coca-Cola should have the same thing.

The government should also have reserved ad time on every TV station with PSA's regarding health, fitness, and prevention.

The problem here is that conservatives advertise the government as this big evil behemoth that just devours freedom ( while secretly vying to control this behemoth to impose their own faulty ideals and illicitly profit from the power ), while liberals see government as a unified project and co-op of the people that strives to increase quality of life and liberty.

The right just has the benefit of have the religious in their pocket and abuses this power the same ways the church has always abused its power over the course of history.

[Necronus]

Umm.. not sure what you and Finesse are talkin about here (I'm catching up atm) but there are lots of non-profit health insurance companies out there.

Neither am I.

I'm the one who said I saw him as equvalent. He's the one who contested that insurance companies MUST make profit. Anyway, my war is not with him ... we're both in the "Coalition for less Swamp Donkeys"