Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Zilong]

Why can't we just have CBO write a bill. This also goes for CRS (Congressional Research Service - the people who tell congress all the facts they can then choose to disregard).

And yes I know why they shouldn't, but it would be nice if people listened to these people without bias.

Think people will still be non-bias once they get that much power?

[Not not Mattaru]

Think people will still be non-bias once they get that much power?

That is one reason why I said "And yes I know why they shouldn't".

...................



On another note, I think most people getting into government carry that with them the whole time and then aren't somehow biased later. While of course, there are good-intentioned people who turn into the same-ol' same-ol' .

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Someone who compares national health care to the purchase of an over-glorified piece of technological crap should not be lecturing others on understanding intelligent arguments, let alone thinking they are capable of making one.

I'll try this one more time. If this doesn't work, there's no hope for you.

If congress can force you to buy health insurance, what is to stop congress from forcing you to buy other stuff? An Ipad for example.

[Not not Mattaru]

I'll try this one more time. If this doesn't work, there's no hope for you.

If congress can force you to buy health insurance, what is to stop congress from forcing you to buy other stuff? An Ipad for example.

If I can vote for anybody, what keeps me from voting for a genocidal maniac?

I know you are going for force, but the question I am posing is possibility, or having a power/privilege, allows for either one. Good or bad

So sure let us say Congress forces me to buy health insurance (which it does not by your earlier logic because it is predicated on another choice - to leave or stay in the U.S. if you think it is too oppressive), and then someone introduces a bill to force me to buy an IPad. Well that bill would have to pass Congress, a representative government where citizen's have recourse. If it even went so far to pass.

Basically, even if I grant you a ridiculous claim you are still stupid for making such an unrealistic claim as a real argument. Even if it is something more reasonable, the choice to exercise a power is still balanced by a form of recourse. The same way I can shoot someone, a choice, something I can physically do, but forms of recourse are available.

[Olo401]

If congress can force you to buy health insurance, what is to stop congress from forcing you to buy other stuff? An Ipad for example.

Congress is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance or anything else. And to hypothesize that they would do so is a fallacious argument.

[kuronosan]

I'll try this one more time. If this doesn't work, there's no hope for you.

If congress can force you to buy health insurance, what is to stop congress from forcing you to buy other stuff? An Ipad for example.

If people are allowed to do abortions, what's to stop them from aborting other stuff? Your baby, for example.

If cops can force you to pull over, what's to stop them from forcing you to do other stuff? A blow job, for example.

If judges can force you to go to jail, what's to stop them from forcing you to go other places? A brothel, for example.

Do you see how fucking stupid your logic is? You're taking two totally unrelated facts of life and putting them together to try and add substance to your argument and it's not working. I'll break down what you said:

First of all: The principle of economics is supply and demand. In insurance, the driving force behind cost is the number of people in a pool. If you're currently paying $1000 a month for insurance, which is spread out amongst 100 people, that's $100,000 total a month in revenue. Say you factorize that and spread it out amongst 1000 people, still requiring $100,000 in revenue. That means it will only cost $100 a month for everyone on the plan. Spread out amongst 10,000 people it now only costs $10 a month for everyone. Do you see where this is headed? Maybe only 3,000 of those people really want the insurance but the cost is so minimal (and shared) that it's barely worth batting an eye over.

This is how our tax system works.

Now, let's examine your iPad. If 100 people buy one at $500, it still costs $500 a unit. If 1000 people buy it, it still costs $500 a unit. The difference in profit, however, is about $450,000 which is not spread out and distributed - each individual pays for their own unit while the cost is independent of the number of people purchasing it.

It's not crayon-level science here, asshole. Congress mandating you to do something that will make it cheaper for everyone in the country (including you) is not the same fucking concept as congress mandating you to buy something that has a static price.

I would think that as intelligent as you claim to be that you would see this. Evidently I gave you far too much credit.

Quit while you're ahead or go crawl back into the basement and jerk off a gerbil. You'll get a lot further that way.

[Darus Grey]

There were multiple rulings. Prior to the 16th income tax was unconstitutional unless was calculated regarding population or something. Afterward it was clearly ruled constitutional.

Don't know what you mean by superfluous though, as it only applied to the income tax.

Superfluous in that sense means that it didn't change anything, synonym to redundant.

As I pointed out, the SCOTUS ruled that the 16th added no new powers of taxation, only that income tax not be considered a direct tax, this however is circular reasoning as I pointed out.

Whether you consider it a direct tax is irrelevant to it's status as a direct tax(and non apportionment), thus a direct tax commanded by a constitutional amendment to be not considered a direct tax...is still a direct tax! and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the 16th amendment did not remove the bar against direct tax without apportionment, it only attempted to redefine income tax as not being a direct tax.

Since it still IS a direct tax, regardless of what we CALL it...the 16th amendment was SUPERFLUOUS, because it changed literally NOTHING.

The Executive branch basically forced this through without giving a damn to the constitution, and once the 16th was in place used it as a flimsy justification for overturning the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895). Which has caused this circular logic that since POLLOCK was overturned it MUST be constitutional... nope!

lrn2history...oh wait, forgot which retard I was talking to(In before "No I'm not, you are!")

[Acturus]

First of all: The principle of economics is supply and demand. In insurance, the driving force behind cost is the number of people in a pool. If you're currently paying $1000 a month for insurance, which is spread out amongst 100 people, that's $100,000 total a month in revenue. Say you factorize that and spread it out amongst 1000 people, still requiring $100,000 in revenue. That means it will only cost $100 a month for everyone on the plan. Spread out amongst 10,000 people it now only costs $10 a month for everyone. Do you see where this is headed? Maybe only 3,000 of those people really want the insurance but the cost is so minimal (and shared) that it's barely worth batting an eye over.

This is how our tax system works.

Not to come off as disagreeable, but while I won't dispute the tax system, that's not quite how the health insurance pool works.

Health insurance has a base medical cost per person, and the concept of larger pooling of resources works in that it helps disperse the catastrophic needs amongst a larger pool of "healthy" people. One very sick person in a group of 50 hurts the other 49 a lot more than that same sick person in a group of 1000, or 5 such sick people in a group of 20,000. Arbitrary numbers for sure, but that's the concept.

Premiums vary wildly in risk-calculated pools because the pools themselves are so small. Employer-based insurance kind of shoots itself in the foot in that aspect of affordability. Only the largest employer groups get the "cheapest" insurance for their populations.

[Beckwin]

it seemed like the function of the 16th was just to clarify that yes, the government can do income tax, so stop trying to sue us over it. but essentially that's how things already were, so in terms of change or functionality, the amendment is superfluous.

[Darus Grey]

it seemed like the function of the 16th was just to clarify that yes, the government can do income tax, so stop trying to sue us over it. but essentially that's how things already were, so in terms of change or functionality, the amendment is superfluous.

The problem is that Pollock made it clear that they couldn't do an income tax(in that fashion that it was, and still currently is done), and the 16th amendment(which we all agree did absolutely nothing) was used as justification to get Pollock over-turned, thus the tax was only made "legal" by over-turning a ruling on the presumption that the 16th made it legal...circles!

As I said, this had everything to do with executive power and practically nothing to do with the law.

[kuronosan]

Not to come off as disagreeable, but while I won't dispute the tax system, that's not quite how the health insurance pool works.

Health insurance has a base medical cost per person, and the concept of larger pooling of resources works in that it helps disperse the catastrophic needs amongst a larger pool of "healthy" people. One very sick person in a group of 50 hurts the other 49 a lot more than that same sick person in a group of 1000, or 5 such sick people in a group of 20,000. Arbitrary numbers for sure, but that's the concept.

Premiums vary wildly in risk-calculated pools because the pools themselves are so small. Employer-based insurance kind of shoots itself in the foot in that aspect of affordability. Only the largest employer groups get the "cheapest" insurance for their populations.

Thank you for the clarification, although I still maintain that more people having insurance means lower premiums for all in the pool. Are we at least in agreement that?

[Kuya]

Anyway, obviating all other discussion, i sure hope they plan to lower the costs of health insurence substantially, or else that mandate is just absolute bullshit.

[Not not Mattaru]

Anyway, obviating all other discussion, i sure hope they plan to lower the costs of health insurence substantially, or else that mandate is just absolute bullshit.

Well



yeah.


I mean, is anyone debating that the general public wants it to stay the same? (What politicians et al want, besides their job, is another story)

[Kuya]

So congress just passed a 1 year extension on the Patriot act. It's on its way to obama to sign.

What a coincidence! it happened the same day as the summit and will probably be buried in the headlines.

Oh those crafty fuckers! Good move Obama

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...-act-to-obama/

A Democratic majority Congress extends the Patriot Act. You couldn't make this stuff up.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If people are allowed to do abortions, what's to stop them from aborting other stuff? Your baby, for example.

If cops can force you to pull over, what's to stop them from forcing you to do other stuff? A blow job, for example.

If judges can force you to go to jail, what's to stop them from forcing you to go other places? A brothel, for example.

Do you see how fucking stupid your logic is? You're taking two totally unrelated facts of life and putting them together to try and add substance to your argument and it's not working. I'll break down what you said:

First of all: The principle of economics is supply and demand. In insurance, the driving force behind cost is the number of people in a pool. If you're currently paying $1000 a month for insurance, which is spread out amongst 100 people, that's $100,000 total a month in revenue. Say you factorize that and spread it out amongst 1000 people, still requiring $100,000 in revenue. That means it will only cost $100 a month for everyone on the plan. Spread out amongst 10,000 people it now only costs $10 a month for everyone. Do you see where this is headed? Maybe only 3,000 of those people really want the insurance but the cost is so minimal (and shared) that it's barely worth batting an eye over.

This is how our tax system works.

Now, let's examine your iPad. If 100 people buy one at $500, it still costs $500 a unit. If 1000 people buy it, it still costs $500 a unit. The difference in profit, however, is about $450,000 which is not spread out and distributed - each individual pays for their own unit while the cost is independent of the number of people purchasing it.

It's not crayon-level science here, asshole. Congress mandating you to do something that will make it cheaper for everyone in the country (including you) is not the same fucking concept as congress mandating you to buy something that has a static price.

I would think that as intelligent as you claim to be that you would see this. Evidently I gave you far too much credit.

Quit while you're ahead or go crawl back into the basement and jerk off a gerbil. You'll get a lot further that way.

The fact that it's not their baby. You only have the right to abort your baby, not someone elses baby.

Your next two examples, the law.

Do you see how fucking stupid you are? Do you see the distinctions? Everything you listed has a limit placed on it. What limit is the limit on Congress preventing it from taking it further?

Prices, reasons, or justifications have no bearing on whether congress can do it and is limited.

And I've never claimed to be smart.

Edit: all you have to say to shut me up is "X is the limit placed on Congress preventing them from going further."

[kuronosan]

Swamp, I would rather argue with Sarah Palin than waste another minute entertaining your tripe. Done.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

In other words, you can't come up with an answer.

[ilduce]

The classical u mad bro defense, very strategic. Simple yet effective over all internetz.

[Darus Grey]

It's the same one he uses every-time, he needs new material. Unfortunately I've long since given up hope that he was just trolling for the lulz, and was quite disappointed to find out he is actually just an idiot.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's the same one he uses every-time, he needs new material. Unfortunately I've long since given up hope that he was just trolling for the lulz, and was quite disappointed to find out he is actually just an idiot.

I've never responded with that before. I would think a professor was capable of reading.