Health Care changes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 321 - 340 of total 1290 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:16pm PT
Why would we want to emulate countries with the best healthcare, highest standards of living and the most satisfied populations?

If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Answer: Well, yes or no, depending upon whether or not you see Ocare as the necessary step to a single-payer system or just an epic blunder along the way.

But, I guess we DID have to pass it to see what it all meant. And what we see it all meant is that for a larger group of Americans that were slated to be benefited by the law, the law is a disaster. Even the O-man himself is apologizing for the rat's nest of unintended consequences. And we don't even know the half of it yet!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:24pm PT
If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Your post asked if we wanted to become a "socialist democracy" but the USA already is one. The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc. Why conservatives get their panties in such a huge bunch over treating medical care the same way is beyond me.

Agreed that Obamacare is not the best solution, but there is absolutely no way we could have moved directly to a single-payer system.

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:30pm PT
Actually, Hitler was a Fascist not a Socialist. And not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacious, just like not all generalizations are hasty ones.

Our country was founded on a particular political philosophy, and it was fundamentally libertarian rather than communitarian. The "gimme!" sea change that has been taking place at an ever-increasing pace IS fueling a fundamental shift in political philosophy in this nation, and it's not "scare tactics" when essentially half of the people in this nation want NO part of this shift!

And when the proportion of communitarians in this nation reaches the majority enough to actually make the sorts of changes that Ocare represent, then, my friend, it is NOT "scare tactics" to say that the Founders would have called that "majority faction," denounced it, and called it grounds for revolution.

We are on opposite sides of the pressing question: WHAT sort of nation are we? I, at least, have the Founders on my side. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why your communitarianism/socialism is superior to what the Founders set up. And "taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'" in ANY sense would have been roundly denounced by our Founders (and I can cite passages, if you wish).

So, prove that we NEED the sort of sea change you advocate; and prove that the likes of Ocare laws are approaches that are good ways to get us there.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

In political philosophical circles, your definition is non-standard. And even our Constitution was written to severely limit the powers of the FEDERAL government (you are seemingly conflating all sorts of layers of governments in this nation) to engage in even the sorts of "public works" projects you define as socialistic PRECISELY because our Founders (federalist AND anti-federalist) wanted NO part of a FEDERAL government with the power to tax AS wealth-redistribution. And this wealth-redistribution at the FEDERAL level just is "socialism" on a scale and by an entity that our Founders utterly rejected.
michelle0607

climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
Madbolter--- Amen.

I am mostly a lurker here, but I wanted to put some real-world numbers to a similar situation.

I am a mid-thirties single mom with a child with special education needs. I worked my butt off in college, ended up with a hefty six figure student loan bill, and eventually landed a great job (too high paying to get subsidies )

My current individual+1 plan through BC/BS will be not be renewed. It is $290 per month, ~$5,000 deductible and pays 80% of hospital/medical after that. It does not cover maternity (I don't have a uterus) or mental health (if needed is covered by my ex as part of a court judgement).

The cheapest plan I can get on Obamacare is $593 per month, $12,000 deductible and pays 60% hospital/medical after that. It also pays for maternity and mental health-- services I will never need to pay for.

In my situation, this increase in premium means that I can either
a) stop paying for my son's educational therapy (not covered by any insurance anywhere) and turn off the electric or
b) default on some of my student loans or
c) pay the fine and go uninsured.

I simply can't dream up $300 extra money every month, let alone save for the higher deductible.

The "Affordable" part is a joke.







madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
but did they even talk about, much less pass, their own version of healthcare?

You ask this question as if (from our current perspective) that SHOULD have been some top priority back in 00-06. But why should it have been?

Under a certain political model (namely, the one our Founders envisioned), the FEDS were never, ever supposed to inject themselves into our individual lives like is now commonplace. So, it makes sense that ADDING to federal invasiveness (like Ocare now CLEARLY does) would be the last thing the Repubs would have on their agenda.

It seems to me that you question itself begs the question.

Perhaps the fact that millions of Americans were uninsured was simply NO PROBLEM that our Founders had any intention that the FEDS would ever do anything about. (Again, happy to cite some passages, if desired; you know, been there and done that).

You envision a political philosophy sea change from how this country was designed. Fine, and you are almost at the needed number of people to help you accomplish it. Thus, more and more, you'll have the force of "the people" behind you.

But our Founders recognized a CLEAR moral distinction in a democracy between what you CAN do and what you have a moral right to do, because they held certain principles of individuality and liberty as "inalienable." When ANY majority violates those basic moral principles, it becomes a faction, and that minority is then not only right but duty-bound to revolt.

Asked: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" And answered: "Government CAN do this."

Tell my employees that what they are facing with Ocare is just "scare tactics" that they should brush off and just lock-step follow along into genuine socialism where the nanny state always knows best how to care for you.

No, what you'll see instead is tens and tens of millions of Americans that are starting to wake up to the FACT that there were very good reasons why our Founders didn't want the Feds engaged with individuals at this level!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
The cheapest plan I can get on Obamacare is $593 per month, $12,000 deductible and pays 60% hospital/medical after that. It also pays for maternity and mental health-- services I will never need to pay for.

Literally TENS of millions of Americans are waking up to facts just like yours. "Affordable" in Obamaspeak really means: "wealth" redistribution, as though the shrinking middle-class was really "wealthy" in the first place!

Look, seriously, businesses like mine are literally being TAXED out of existence! Here I was, literally trying to do not just the "good" thing for my employees... not just the "right" thing; I was trying to do the NOBLE thing.

But even THAT is just not good enough for this federal government! We just aren't PAYING ENOUGH yet!!!

I guess that Spain and Greece are just "scare tactics."
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
Curt writes:

"The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc."





Going by your definition, every country on the f*#king planet that has a road or a school is socialist.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
Both those programs have defined gov't engagement in private life for generations.

Yup, and both barely made it past Supreme Court review, just as Ocare barely made it. All have been slides into socialism, and BOTH parties are indeed socialistic, which is why I want no part of either of them.

The line I drew was between libertarianism and communitarianism, but you keep talking party politics, when BOTH parties have indeed been on the wrong side of the divide for generations.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:10pm PT
um,
the constitution was written to SEVERELY expand the power of the federal government

Right! Regarding a VERY narrow subset of powers that were clearly defined. But the "interstate commerce" clause has been writ larger and larger for generations, and that IS a slide into more and more socialism that our Founders NEVER intended. And this latest ruling that forcing people to buy a product that they don't even want is a "tax" is the most ridiculous and convoluted "logic" to come out of the Supreme Court in a long, long time!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
Had Obamacare been launched 90 days prior to the last election with all the current "glitches", Romney would in the White House as I type.

Word!

And what we're really starting to see now (finally) is that these "consequences" are not "glitches" but are fundamental implications of Ocare. Now even the DEMS want to delay implementation (wait, wasn't THAT what the REPUBS were fighting for during the shutdown?).

Glitches. Yeah, right.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
OMG TGT FIGURED OUT THAT OBAMA IS JUST A BLACK HITLER TGT IS SO ORIGINAL!!!!!!11111
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
seriously, ever think of anything other than yourself?

Seriously, you are asking me this question?

As I said, MY company pays 100% of health-insurance costs for ALL of its employees. How many companies do that?

And that's money that I and my partners could instead be putting into our pockets!

And, if you'll read what I actually wrote about this, you'll see that MY concern is that my employees are about to get SCREWED by Ocare. I'm not moaning because I'm "selfish!" I'm PISSED because I'm not even being ALLOWED to treat my employees RIGHT anymore!

That's "selfish?" LOL
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
Will you accept SS and Medicare when you reach 65?

"Accept"...?

Are you serious?

I was FORCED to pay into it my whole life, and I will NEVER get back out of it what I've paid into it!

You BET I'll EXTRACT as much of what is MINE out of it as I possibly can.

My issue is that I was FORCED to buy into this lemon of a "retirement plan" in the first place!

What a joke! Are you people really serious?

This crap is outlandish enough that I'm tempted to think you're just trolling.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:19pm PT
So if everyone's insurance rates are going up, where is all this extra money going?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
So if everyone's insurance rates are going up, where is all this extra money going?

Well, the 50 million "poor" that just couldn't "afford" health insurance (but just kept on poppin' out more and more kids) "need" coverage.

And you can bet that the insurance companies are (even as we speak, literally) figuring out how to make a profit in this new "climate," and they WILL, and nothing about the law constrains their ability to make a profit (of whatever they please).

On and on....
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
Well, I've said my piece. I've gotta run.

Again, the "lurkers" are making up their minds which perspective makes sense and coheres with reality.

The next year is going to be interesting indeed!
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
What do people who don't want to work pay ???
Nada ...

Some f*#ked up sh#t

Why do I feel that some folks will suddenly be making /declaring less next year?

Well, just raise the rates(tax) on the working class. Honestly that is the only way the Norton/Hedge circle jerk will work?
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:20am PT
Giving the US Govt the right to have a monopoly in the health care arena is freighting.

Also, DEATH PANEL is going to be the new name of my hardcore garage band.

I have a feeling those two words will used more frequently.

Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 04:55am PT
Snowmassguy wrote:
DEATH PANEL is going to be the new name of my hardcore garage band.

You bastard, that was going to be the new name of my garage band.
Messages 321 - 340 of total 1290 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews