I meant someone 62-64, for them the premiums can easily reach $800/month for a silver plan.
- That’s not ‘elderly’. :dubious:
2)My last quote for individual health insurance ranged from $700/mo for the cheapest ‘catastrophic’ plan to $1400/mo for the equivalent of a silver plan, and I am only 59. So that actually looks pretty good, considering I will be eligible for the subsidy as well.
It’s not at all disingenuous…it’s simple math. If a program is already a budget buster then why order up more of the same with an increase in cost. Plus, we know that the costs will only increase over time.
Although your example is a poor one I’ll add that one could make the argument that we can’t afford the extra 8 bucks a month because we are already spending sixty bucks on internet. A better example is upgrading your internet speed for an additional 10 bucks per month when you are struggling to afford the 60 bucks you are currently spending. Maybe you could get 4x the speed for that 10 bucks but you simply don’t have the extra money. Oh, and the price will invariably go up over time.
Apparently Fox has never told you that the money comes from insurance company overhead - useless bureaucratic bloat - *not *from treatment. You guys are supposed to be against that stuff, or is that only when it’s in the government, not your party’s sponsors?
If you want to continue your usual act of staying in the corner, pointing and snickering, while the adults are having a conversation, then keep it up.
Holy fuck, you’re rerunning Romney’s lies? Why not tell us Chrysler is moving all its Jeep production to China?
For those of you who asked, Bricker has outright stated that he thinks it’s acceptable for some people to die because they cannot afford medical care.
I’ll look later for the exact quote, but he’s said it, and he’d probably qualify/clarify further if asked, but there you go, there’s the answer to your question.
A portion of it does come from Medicare Advantage plans (I assume that’s what you are referring to). But 35% of the cuts come from hospital reimbursement rates and another 35% comes from a variety of sources (including cuts in reimbursement to home health providers and payments to hospitals that treat the uninsured).
Taken to it’s logical extreme you do too. As long as you have any money in your pocket while someone is dying for lack of money then you, too, are willing to let someone die because they cannot afford medical care.
Ah, that old argument.
Fine, assume you’re right. Therefore… what?
Then you are hypocritical in accusing others of suggesting the same.
How’s about you go find that quote so we can see some context? I think I remember that thread and I don’t remember it being nearly that simple.
I don’t have the time right now to rehash the old argument, but I did find the quotes (with links back to the original threads for full context):
ETA: I will say that I think one reason for the disagreement over these quotes, and the topic in general, is that I think the two sides are talking about completely different things, and that the way they see the above quotes don’t jive. It’s hard to explain; I’ll need time to work out my thoughts. I’m just not certain that the fact that I don’t personally live paycheck to paycheck just to pay for other peoples’ medical treatment means that socialized medicine is a bad idea. The two concepts don’t “connect” for me.
Where’s that link? Wasn’t that thread discussing the fact that labor and supplies go in to saving a life? I remember a more complex argument.
I meant the little blue arrows next to Bricker’s name.
Not the thread I was thinking of but, my goodness, you left out a shit ton of context…in that second post alone. Don’t you realize that you are being, at the very least, disingenuous by pulling that one sentence out of an entire thread?
No, he didn’t. That was his entire post, and there’s a link back to the thread. And everyone responded to what he said the same way we are, meaning they took it to mean the same thing.\
Only after the fact did Bricker come back and claim it meant something completely different from what he said. Someone else made the comment for him, and then he claimed that was his meaning, after he got heat for it.
If his meaning had been that, he would have felt the need to clarify beforehand, knowing full well that he would be misinterpreted. Unless you want to argue he was wanting that reaction, which would mean he was trolling us. I don’t think that’s the case.
Not that it means the same thing, anyways. Saying that there may be some regrettable cases where people die due to lack of funds is not the same thing as saying that you find it acceptable that this happens. We don’t say something is “regrettable but acceptable.” Acceptance requires a lack of regret.
So what Bricker originally said was that he doesn’t regret when people die from lack of funds. And later, his argument is that none of us regret it as we don’t pay for it. He completely leaves out the idea that there are other things we have to pay for. He completely leaves out the idea that we’d rather not be in this system where our funds are limited.
It’s oddly Objectivist-style thinking–the idea that what we value and what we pay money to are the exact same thing. It’s really odd coming from a Christian, who, by definition, also believes in spiritual value.
But it looked like a valid way out, if you don’t stop to think about it, so Bricker claimed that was his meaning.
So, yeah, we have all the context we need to evaluate his statements.
Sorry about the lack of bolding above. I went back to fix it when I noticed, but that was too late.
I also left out a third option: Bricker just didn’t know how we’d react. But you can say what you want against Bricker, but there is no way in hell that he is that stupid. He knew exactly what he was saying. The choice really is that he was trying to offend or he didn’t actually have in mind what he meant until later.
Notice he was responding to me, in fact about a question I asked of those opposing health care reform. As I said he was honest enough to say this, he isn’t the only person who believes it by far.
And I doubt he was either trying to offend or did not understand what he was saying.
In other words they are doing exactly what big companies do - cut prices to their suppliers in order to force greater efficiencies. Our system is so bloated that there is plenty of room for this. It is pure capitalism - you should be right behind this strategy.
Seems to me that pure capitalism is what we already got, everybody is grabbing with both hands and passing the costs along, next thing you know, somebody gets billed $60 for an aspirin. Remember when the health insurance companies went ape shit over a law that insists they pay out at least eighty percent of their premiums to their customers, or give the money back? What the fuck, who gets guaranteed a 20% profit? Wheres the magic competition fairy and the Invisible Finger?
I’ve little doubt that Obamacare will rattle, creak, and chug, to be expected in something this complicated. A lot of fixes. But right now we don’t have a health care system, there is no system, it isn’t all that healthy, and nobody cares.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you (and Bricker) were arguing that that statement was a reasonable thought to have, and that everybody does, or should, think it. So why does it sound like you’re saying it’s objectionable and “needs context” (which I said it did, and to which I provided links)?