Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Rhinox]

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.

actually there is no such thing as a Non-profit health insurance companies.

A not for profit health insurance company however there is a few out there. there is a difference.

[Olo401]

What in the fuck Rhinox.. yer talkin like Marsha Blackburn now!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

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.

Direct taxation is unconstitutional, not simply, taxation.

And I can't believe people can't see the difference b/w regulating commerce people choose to engage in, and simply forcing people to engage in commerce.

And it's not the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy would be:

If congress mandates that everyone buy health insurance, congress will mandate that everyone buy an Ipad.

Me:

If congress can mandate that everyone buy health insurance, it can mandate that everyone buy an Ipad.

That is not semantics either.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

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"

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/pub...ue-shield.html

We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest--profit vs. public good--that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric.

It started as non-profit. There are some non-profit out there, but the major companies are for profit.

That is actually a really good article that praises the concept of non-profit, but let's be real here; even a non-profit has a limit to how much it can spend - and even then by law a non-profit can be considered such if only 60% of its donations / income is used for the purpose of the institution.

It's a helpful solution, but it is not THE solution.

[Not not Mattaru]

What in the fuck Rhinox.. yer talkin like Marsha Blackburn now!

I'm not familiar with not for profit, but its probably a tax code thing (most non-profits are c501(3), not for profit is probably different).

[Olo401]

Bullshit Swampy. Your argument is a slippery slope.

And I already explained to you that a mandate is not the answer - just giving everyone coverage is.

[Ksandra]

So I can't watch the stream, but curious to those that are watching on how is it going overall? Does it seem like this is another wasted effort?

[Beckwin]

According to swampy, having a functioning, 100% coverage, fiscally viable health care system is a "punishment" for Americans.

but anyway, the government forcing you to pay taxes is not different than forcing you to use money for healthcare. it's money out of your pocket used for something that you may or may not agree with or use.

tough fucking shit.

[Beckwin]

and still, it seems like swampy's major defect is considering healthcare to be like all other forms of commerce, when that's a perversion of how healthcare ought to be considrered. comparing it to buying a car is an absurdity no matter how you cut it.

[Rhinox]

What in the fuck Rhinox.. yer talkin like Marsha Blackburn now!

The political game(which is exactly what is going on in washington right now) is wearing thin on me.

I'm not familiar with not for profit, but its probably a tax code thing (most non-profits are c501(3), not for profit is probably different).

best thing I found in my 30 secs of googlefu is this

A nonprofit organization can be one like Kiwanis or a scholarship fund that does charitable work. Most of the staff are volunteer. 501(c) 3 organizations are nonprofits. A museum is a nonprofit; it has no share holders, may have paid staff, but mainly relies on donations and grants. Donations to them are tax deductible.

A not-for-profit business is another matter. Credit unions are not-for-profit. Members are to receive the income earned by the organization after expenses - overhead, for example - but there are no share holders. Members receive the proceeds in relation to their investment or savings. Interest on loans is typically lower than at a for-profit bank since the goal is not to make money for the shareholders. You do not make donations to a not-for-profit. It is still a business, not a charity. Many community hospitals are not-for-profit. Paul Newman's company that sells salsa, popcorn, peanut butter, etc. is also a not-for-profit organization. All proceeds from sales goes to charity (after expenses).

So they are similar but not the same even if some would tell you otherwise.

[Not not Mattaru]

Direct taxation is unconstitutional, not simply, taxation.

And I can't believe people can't see the difference b/w regulating commerce people choose to engage in, and simply forcing people to engage in commerce.

And it's not the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy would be:

If congress mandates that everyone buy health insurance, congress will mandate that everyone buy an Ipad.

Me:

If congress can mandate that everyone buy health insurance, it can mandate that everyone buy an Ipad.

That is not semantics either.

A) Slippery-slope. Well the status quo already says Congress can mandate this, because no one has seriously questioned the constitutionality of it and it is at least similar to things like Medicare. So your argument is non-unique. You say we should be afraid of this new thing the government can do, but is not new and it has not been used in the way you fear (I've already gone over why you already pay for health care you may or may not use).

B) Commerce. My point is that the government already does that because the government does not exist separate from the economy and takes in revenue via taxes.

C) Taxes. Even so, various taxes are characteristic of a direct tax. I.E. an income tax, which is in the constitution.

D) Semantics. Yes. A choice is a choice.


EDIT: Thanks Rhino.

[Olo401]

I'm not familiar with not for profit, but its probably a tax code thing (most non-profits are c501(3), not for profit is probably different).

Actually now that you mention it, I think you may be correct on that tax-code-designation level. I just use the terms interchangeably since they mean the same thing otherwise.

[Not not Mattaru]

Actually now that you mention it, I think you may be correct on that tax-code-designation level. I just use the terms interchangeably since they mean the same thing otherwise.

Nah, check Rhino's bit.

They are different, but yes the goal is generally more socially conscious.

[Olo401]

According to swampy, having a functioning, 100% coverage, fiscally viable health care system is a "punishment" for Americans.

No he's saying that forcing everyone to buy health insurance by law is bad. I agree - not everyone can afford to pay the exorbinant premiums that insurance companies charge.

The solution then is not to force everyone to buy insurance. The solution is..

- If someone can afford or obtain insurance on their own, good.
- If not, they are automatically covered by a single payer umbrella.

[Beckwin]

yeah, the lack of a public option would hurt the middle class most. lower income people would be subsidized, and rich people can afford whatever.

[Beckwin]

unless the exchanges end up working really well

[Koul]

I'm trying to understand the republicans way of solving this health care issue.

so generally, what is the republicans solution to the problem? like do republicans want universal government run healthcare? do they want to keep things the way they are and if so how are they going to meet rising costs?

I'm a little exposed to the GOP viewpoint but not fully.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

I'm trying to understand the republicans way of solving this health care issue.

so generally, what is the republicans solution to the problem? like do republicans want universal government run healthcare? do they want to keep things the way they are and if so how are they going to meet rising costs?

I'm a little exposed to the GOP viewpoint but not fully.

From what I've seen, a lot of their plans involve tort reform, and not much else. They want to change certain things like capping award limits in civil suits and putting other restrictions on lawsuits in general.

If you saw Obama's talking about this a week or two ago, he flat out said that tort reform would not be enough, and I haven't seen much response to say otherwise or an alternate plan.

I think that's what I hate about most of this, is like you said, you don't hear any plans. Most of what people say is "That won't work," and then nothing else, no alternatives, no suggestions just "Nope. Fuck you and your plan."

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'm trying to understand the republicans way of solving this health care issue.

so generally, what is the republicans solution to the problem? like do republicans want universal government run healthcare? do they want to keep things the way they are and if so how are they going to meet rising costs?

I'm a little exposed to the GOP viewpoint but not fully.

The GOP wants to fix the GOP. Their plan is to nuke ANY healthcare proposal to make the Dem's look ineffective so they can ride that wave into the election season.

And this is all because a handful of conservative legislators helping the GOP regain lost lobbying dollars from the Democratic Party is more important than actually doing something for America.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Bullshit Swampy. Your argument is a slippery slope.

And I already explained to you that a mandate is not the answer - just giving everyone coverage is.

Our entire judicial system is based on a slippery slope fallacy then. There is a difference b/w WILL happen, and CAN happen. One is a fallacy, one is not.

If it rains today it will rain tomorrow. Fallacy. If it rains today it could rain tomorrow. Not a fallacy.

NOTNOT: simply b/c it hasn't been challenged doesn't make it constitutional. It can't even be challenged until it goes into effect.

And this is some of what the Repub's have suggested.

Allow insurance to be sold across state lines.
Eliminate mandates.
Tort reform (limit non-economic damages)
Change it so it's not attached to employment.